Read the JFP’s full Dee-Moore-Seale package.
The Associated Press is reporting that James Ford Seale will be in court Thursday night to try to get his federal kidnapping and conspiracy charges thrown out. Attorney Kathy Nester is arguing that the statue of limitations at the time of his alleged crime was five years; thus, it’s too late now to prosecute him for kidnapping. AP also makes the following odd statement:
Seale and reputed KKK member Charles Marcus Edwards were arrested in 1964. But the FBI – consumed by the search for three civil-rights workers who had disappeared from Neshoba County that summer – turned the case over to local authorities, who promptly threw out all charges. (emphasis added)
This is odd because records from 1964 do not indicate that the FBI turned over the case because they were too busy; in fact, records show a strong devotion to investigating this case. However, they investigated the men for murder—charges that the state/county needed to bring. It also took the local district attorney more than two months after their arrest to decide not to take the charges before a grand jury, and they were dismissed “with prejudice”—technically meaning that they could be brought back up again with further evidence. So the “threw out” part isn’t really accurate. And it’s remarkable to see a wire service that prides itself on “objectivity” inserting so much judgment into their “factual” statements.
Also, note that AP is no longer saying he was a “former sheriff’s deputy” as they broadcast around the world the day of his indictments. I don’t recall, however, seeing them run a correction on that. Anyone else seen one, yet?
Previous Comments
I’m sure a Law type will chime in, but my understanding of “with prejudice” means they can’t be brought back up.
#131457 | Author: Ironghost | Date: Feb 22 2007
they were dismissed “with prejudice”—technically meaning that they could be brought back up again with further evidence. So the “threw out” part isn’t really accurate. As IG indicated, a dismissal “with prejudice” bars any right to bring or maintain an action on the same claim or cause. By contrast, a dismissal “without prejudice” means a new suit can be brought on the same facts — even without the discovery of new evidence (although that is usually the basis for the later action being brought). The question here is whether the dismissal was “without” or “with” prejudice. As the article reads now, it is confusing. Newt
#131458 | Author: Newt | Date: Feb 22 2007
Prejudice issues aside, I saw this on the news this morning. I had worried at the time that the kidnapping (and not murder) charge would cause problems. On the other hand, I have to trust that the prosecutors knew what they were doing when filing charges. Newt
#131459 | Author: Newt | Date: Feb 22 2007
