IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI

CAUSE NO. 2015-M-397

IN RE: THE OFFICE OF THE HINDS COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDF~

PETITIONER

lED

MAR 2 5 2015
OFF 1cE OF THE CLERK
SUPREME COURT
COURT OF APPEALS

RESPONSE TO PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION

CONCERNING TRIAL COURT RECORD AND RESPONSE IN LIMITED
OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER'S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
COMES NOW Judge Jeff Weill, Sr., Hinds County Circuit Court Judge, and files this
brief response to two motions filed on March 19,2015 by the Petitioner (Petitioner is used here
for the Hinds County Public Defender's Office "HCPDO" and its involved employees), 1 and in
support, the undersigned states to this Honorable Court as follows:
On March 19, 2015, Petitioner filed a Motion for Writ of Prohibition (Motion# 20151253), which seeks action by this Court concerning the undersigned's criminal docket, and a

Motion for Consolidation (Motion# 2015-1254), which seeks to consolidate fifty-five (55)
separate currently pending appeals, all of which were filed pursuant to MRAP 48B upon a denial
of a Motion for Judicial Recusa/ by the undersigned in each case. In this response, the
undersigned does not intend to offer any additional information or argument concerning the
merits of the underlying appeals, as the undersigned has not been directed to do so by this
Honorable Court, per MRAP 2l(d). Instead, the undersigned files this response to (I) submit a
complete record of trial court proceedings concerning the direct criminal contempt findings

The undersigned notes that the HCPDO listed eight (8) individual defendants as additionally named Petitioners
related to the Motion for Writ of Prohibition. No attorney from the HCPDO has been appointed to represent any of
those defendants in the circuit coun. Accordingly, the undersigned does not address those individuals as Petitioners
in his response herein.

MOTION#

2015

1J.SJ
<J-

2015

.u. 5tr

referenced in the Motion for Writ of Prohibition; and (2) submit limited opposition concerning
the Petitioner's Motion for Consolidation as inconsistent with procedural precedent.
A. The Complete Trial Court Record Concerning Petitioner's Claims in the Motion (or
Writ of Prohibition
The Petitioner, apparently aggrieved that this Honorable Court has not granted the relief that
they have requested (and continue to request) in no less than fifty-eight (58) filings with this
Honorable Court, gathered in the undersigned's courtroom on March 16, 2015 and staged a
"protest" of sorts during a routine criminal arraignment docket in a clear attempt to frustrate the
orderly administration of justice, complete with a dress code and bursts of applause from the
audience after the undersigned exited the courtroom. Petitioner alerted the news media prior to
the docket and assembled a standing-room only crowd (the largest ever present during any
arraignment docket in this court) consisting mostly of state and county attorney employees and
support staff, to voice their objection to an issue which remains pending before this Honorable
Court on appeal.
The Hinds County Public Defender's Office has refused to participate during the
undersigned's arraignment docket since September 15, 2014. Despite this policy and pattern of
behavior, the entire office of the HCPDO (consisting of at least fourteen (14) attorneys and
support staff, and a law-student intern) attended the docket. Nothing was presented to the trial
court prior to the scheduled docket concerning any alleged lower court representation of any
Defendant scheduled for arraignment. During the court proceedings, the insolent behavior of
Public Defender Michele Purvis-Harris and Assistant Public Defender Greg Spore (the nature of
which is most ascertainable in the audio files of Exhibit C, attached hereto) resulted in the
undersigned's in-court finding that each was in direct criminal contempt of court which resulted

in a fine of$100.00 for each attorney. Ms. Harris and Mr. Spore both paid their contempt fines
in a timely manner the next day.
In the Writ of Prohibition filed on March 19, 2015, the Petitioner raises the undersigned's
contempt findings in support of the relief requested therein. It is unclear whether the Petitioner
intends for the motion to also serve as an appeal of the contempt rulings, which the individuals
(Ms. Harris and Mr. Spore) are certainly entitled to seek. To the undersigned's knowledge, no
notice of appeal has been filed concerning the contempt rulings, but the same are alleged as error
in the instant Petition. Accordingly, the undersigned submits relevant items from the trial court
record in order to fully inform this Honorable Court concerning the pertinent circumstances of
the court proceedings on March 16,2015, as itemized below.
Pursuant to MRAP 21 (c) which governs the relief sought, Petitioner was required to submit
"certified copies of any order or opinion or parts of the record which may be essential to an
understanding of the matters set forth in the petition," but Petitioner failed to submit anything
except for a partial March 16,2015 court docket. Accordingly, the undersigned provides herein
for this Court's consideration all parts of the record relevant to the referenced contempt
proceedings, as follows:
Exhibit A- The March 16, 2015 Criminal Court Docket
Exhibit B- The March 16,2015 transcript of the contempt related proceedings
Exhibit C- The March 16,2015 audio recording of the official court reporter of the

contempt related proceedings including the contemptuous conduct resulting in punishment

Exhibit D- The trial court's two March 17, 2015 Orders concerning the contempt issue
Exhibit E- The two March 17, 2015 Notices of Satisfaction filed by the attorneys

Exhibit F- The trial court's March 23, 2015 order supplementing the trial court record with
the transcript and the audio.
B. Trial Court's Limited Opposition to Petitioner's Motion (or Consolidation
On February 24,2015 and February 25,2015, the Petitioner filed a total of fifty-five (55)
appeals involving individual criminal defendants, all of whom have pending felony indictments
on the undersigned's docket. Each of the defendants (some of whom are incarcerated) have
unadjudicated charge(s) before the undersigned which carry applicable legal rights to counsel, to
a speedy trial and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations pursuant to the
primary authority cited by the Petitioner- the 6'h Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The appeals each seek relief per MRAP 488 and under MRAP 21(c), and the Petitioner has
made fifty-five requests for additional time to supplement the brief filed in each appeal and for a
trial court stay in each case. Rather than filing a proposed supplement, Petitioner has made three
more filings before this Honorable Court in No. 2015-M-357, all of which essentially tell this
Court to "hurry up" by repeated requests for emergency action for individual or blanket trial
court stays. Based on the latest filing, the HCPDO now seeks a trial court stay in sixty-three (63)
individual criminal defendants' cases, despite the fact that the HCPDO has never been appointed
in the circuit court to represent thirty-five (35) of these individuals- making standing (or a lack
thereof) a question in more than half of the cases before the appellate court. Importantly, many
of the defendants are duly represented by other, qualified attorneys who are proceeding per the
undersigned's appointment2 at the request of the respective defendants, and the HCPDO seeks to
indefinitely delay the adjudication of those matters as well.

Notably, no Defendant through his appropriately appointed counsel has joined the Petitioner's Motion(s) for
Recusal or subsequent appeal(s).

Just as the Petitioner filed substantively identical Motions for Recusal in each case (many
times including general, procedurally erroneous statements), the Petitioner also filed dozens of
nearly-identical appeals, all of which seek the same relief. After the fifty-five appeals were filed,
Hinds County Public Defender Michele Purvis-Harris sent a letter to the appellate court
explaining her categorization of the cases involved into three areas which she designates
essentially as: I) cases where the HCPDO has never been appointed in the circuit court; 2) cases
where the entire office of HCPDO was removed and prohibited from continuing as counsel for
violations of the grand jury secrecy requirements in URCCC 7.04; and 3) cases which were once
assigned to Assistant HCPD Alison Kelly and reassigned to other appointed counsel after no new
public defender was designated by Ms. Harris, based the undersigned's reliance on his
interpretation of applicable statutory authority for the same. In the undersigned's opinion, Ms.
Harris's February 27,2015 letter with her explanation of the distinctions in the categories of
cases should be viewed as a concession that the issues before the appellate courts are not issues
which are identical, nor can the issues be resolved by an expansive general request, thus making
consolidation inapplicable. See generally Estate ofJohnson ex rei. Shaw v. Grace/and Care Ctr.

of Oxford, LLC, 41 So. 3d 692, 693 (Miss. 20 I 0) (explaining that cases which were consolidated
for purposes of appeal involve identical issues offact and law.).
Further, the Motion for Consolidation refers to the Motion for Writ of Prohibition, which was
also filed on March 19, 2015 and alleges that eight additional defendants who were arraigned on
March 16, 2015 should be subject to appellate review as well. The Motion for Consolidation
erroneously alleges that because the circuit court "failed to allow the Public Defender to
represent (these eight cases] at arraignment" ... , then the "constitutional issues before this Court
are the same in these eight cases as the originally filed fifty-five cases, it is further in the interest

of judicial economy for this Court to consolidate all of these cases." Motion at para. 4. This is
misleading, as Public Defender Harris has never represented anyone at arraignment, and thus has
never been refused to do so until she was out of order on March 16, 2015. Furthermore, four of
the eight defendants listed within the Motion for Writ ofProhibition were not set for arraignment
on March 16,2015, but rather were set for a status conference regarding their retention of private
counsel. These four defendants were previously arraigned by the undersigned, during which
time the HCPDO did not appear or attempt to appear on behalf of any of these defendants.
As mentioned supra, for a six (6) month period prior to March 16, 2015, the assistant public
defenders assigned to this court refused to participate during arraignments. On September 15,
2014, this court was informed during the arraignment docket of a change in the HCPDO policy
in which their office would no longer participate in arraignments without pre-appointment of the
HCPDO by the circuit court. Immediately following their announcement on September 15,
2014, Assistant Public Defenders Alison Kelly and Michael Henry remained in the courtroom
and observed the arraignment docket, while the this court relied on the assistance of private
attorneys to stand in for unrepresented clients at arraignment, including those who were
previously represented by the HCPDO at either the county court or municipal court level. The
court has since conducted approximately six (6) arraignment dockets involving dozens of cases,
and no efforts have been made by the HCPDO to participate, until the trial court denied the
motions for recusal.
Most recently, Public Defender Harris requested a meeting with the undersigned, to which
the undersigned agreed. The purpose of Ms. Harris' request was unknown to the undersigned,
but the undersigned agreed to the meeting in the spirit of cooperation. During the meeting, held
in the undersigned's chambers on March 24, 2015, the main issue addressed by Ms. Harris was

the arraignment policy of her office. Twice Ms. Harris denied that her office had previously
represented a refusal to participate in arraignments, which is directly contrary to the
announcement made by the assistant public defenders in court on September 15,2014. See

Exhibit G, Transcript of September 15, 2014 announcement; and Exhibit H, Transcript of

March 24, 2015 meeting at pg. 3; 4.

While consolidation may be requested in an effort to expedite resolution of this matter

(which this judge does not oppose), the fact remains that each case is extraordinarily
procedurally distinct and fact determinative, and they cannot all be lumped together simply
because the Petitioner is getting impatient. The legal issues differ as well, and each Defendant
is entitled to individual consideration. Therefore, the undersigned respectfully submits that the
appeals are not appropriate for consolidation, at least as to certain issues as further explained,

Assistant Public Defender Michael Henry on September 15,2014:

By Mr. Henry: "Two things, Your Honor. I believe Mr. Ball has been arraigned. Secondly-- this is coming from
my boss. I believe she's not wanting us to stand in with the defendants unless they have already been appointed to
us. I just heard this this morning, but it's coming from the top at my office."
By the Coun: "All right. Weill know the arraignments have been set for quite a while not, and you're telling me
the new policy, which you're telling me at arraignment this morning, of the public defender's office is that they are
not going to stand in at arraignment as they've customarily done for the last three and a half years? Is that what
you're telling me?"
By Mr. Henry: "To answer your question, Your Honor, yes, sir."

See September 15,2014 Transcript, at 2-3.

Public Defender Michele Purvis-Harris on March 24, 2015:

By Ms. Harris: "It is not our policy that we won't participate in arraignments"
By Ms. Harris: "I have never said that we would not do arraignments so I want to make that clear. That's not our
position. We will do arraignments."

See March 24,2015 Transcript, at 2; 3.

infra. In addition, the undersigned respectfully submits that there is no applicable legal authority
for consolidation here. The provision for consolidation of appeals is found in MRAP 3(b)
concerning appeals of right. The appeals filed by Petitioner involve MRAP Rules 48B and 21,
both of which follow MRAP 5, interlocutory appeals by permission, if granted. Certainly, this
Honorable Court has discretion in appellate procedure, but the undersigned respectfully argues
that at least one aspect of the issues before this Court prohibits consolidation, in toto. Based on
the undersigned's reading of the pending appellate filings by Petitioner, it appears that the
Petitioner seeks judicial recusal in cases where Assistant Public Defender Alison Kelly is
"counsel of record." See generally Conclusion section of the fifty-five appeals filed per MRAP
48B. The undersigned's limited objection to consolidation of this issue is as follows:
Should this Honorable Court determine that it will require further briefing and consider this
Court's ruling concerning any or all of the fifty-five Motions for Judicial Recusal, the
undersigned contends that further consideration of the trial court's decision would necessarily
also require separate consideration of the unique procedural history of each case to determine
whether Alison Kelly was "counsel of record." The undersigned avers that Ms. Kelly was never
counsel of record in at least twenty-seven (27) cases, and it is unknown whether Ms. Kelly
contends that she served as counsel of record in a lower court proceeding in other cases or
whether someone else in her office filled that role. If Ms. Kelly was not personally involved in
other cases, then it is certainly also accurate that she would not have been "counsel of record,"
but again, individual consideration of the procedural status of each case would be necessary for
this determination. Accordingly, inasmuch that consolidation would negate the Court's ability to
separately consider the procedural history in each case and the individually analyzed legal issues

in the undersigned's fifty-five written opinions on appeal, the undersigned respectfully opposes
the Motion for Consolidation.
The Petitioner filed fifty-five motions requesting judicial recusal, the trial court carefully
considered the same and issued fifty-five detailed written opinions, which required considerable
time and effort. The Petitioner sought individual review of fifty-five opinions filed in fifty-five
unrelated criminal cases. Now, the Petitioner who has exhibited a focus on making incomplete
representations about this matter in various filings and other outlets, seems anxious to have relief
summarily granted, based on similar erroneous and/or incomplete facts and an incomplete
record, rather than recognizing that the filings related to this issue are voluminous and will
require the appellate court time to review, just as the issues required considerable time for the
parties to submit and the trial court to rule on.
Lastly concerning procedure, the undersigned notes that he has not responded to any of
Petitioner's appellate filings with the subject exception herein. 4 Of course, the undersigned will
comply with any directive to file a response or to provide further information if needed. In sum,
the undersigned requests this Honorable Court to dismiss the appeals for the grounds stated in
the undersigned's rulings on the same, or in the alternative, to consider the certified portions of
the trial court record related to the Motion/or Writ of Prohibition, and for an order denying the

Motion to Consolidate, at least as it pertains to this Honorable Court's separate consideration of

the individual procedural history of each case, including whether Alison Kelly was ever "counsel
of record" and the trial court's findings concerning the same.

The undersigned recognizes that he flied a letter on February 27,2015 in many of the cases on appeal, however,
thatlener and the attached sealed exhibit was not a formal response to the petitions, but rather was filed so that this
Honorable Court would have a complete copy of the undersigned's order which was appealed by the Petitioner.

Respectfully submitted this the 25th day of March, 2015

L,SR.
UNTY CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Jeff Weill, Sr., the undersigned judge, do hereby certify that a true and correct copy of

Response to Petitioner's Writ of Prohibition and Motion for Consolidation, along with the
exhibits thereto, has been this day forwarded to Petitioner Hinds County Public Defender's
Office c/o Michele Purvis-Harris, via inter-office county mail as follows:
Public Defender Michele Purvis-Harris
Hinds County Public Defender's Office
499 S. President St.
Jackson, MS 39201

This the 25th day of March, 2015.

Weill, Sr.
inds County Circuit Judge

10