Jonesboro Recusal Hearing Details

Yesterday’s hearing on a motion by Jonesboro mayor Leslie Thompson’s defense attorney Louis Scott began with hearings on several other motions that had been filed in the interim.

First up, a defense motion for a continuance.

Scott said that he needed more time to gather evidence of Teat’s alleged animosity toward Thompson and also needed more time to review the discovery material turned over from the prosecutor.

Lea Hall, Special Assistant District Attorney for the Second Judicial District Attorney argued that whenever “serious allegations” are made in a motion, the mover should make sure of his facts with “reasonable specificity” prior to the filing, instead of trying to assemble evidence after making the charges.

Second Judicial (Bienville, Claiborne, Jackson Parishes) District Chief Judge Jenifer Clason noted that immediately after the recusal motion was filed, the two attorneys and she conferred via phone and that she took “a lot” of notes of that conversation.

Clason said the 3/28 hearing date was agreed to by all the parties, in view of everyone’s schedule for April and May. She also agreed with Hall’s argument that Scott should have assembled his facts prior to filing the recusal motion.

With that, Clason denied the motion for delay.

Next up, the issue of “judge shopping” by the DA was argued.

Scott called as a witness Jackson Parish Clerk of Court Deputy Dusty Hampton, and questioned him as to the procedure whereby judges were selected for trials.

Hampton said the procedure was contained in an established rule that periodically rotates the three judges among the three parishes in the 2nd JD. That way, no one judge heard cases that were exclusive to his/her parish. The month that the alleged crime took place determines what judge hears a particular case, Hampton said.

See here the procedure.

In his cross-examination, Hall asked Hampton if the procedure for selecting the judge for this case differed from any others, to which he replied “absolutely not.”

In ruling against Scott, Clason noted that the procedure by which judges in the 2nd JD are assigned is in full compliance with State v Simpson, the applicable case law for judge selection procedures.

Also denied by Clason were two subpoenas for testimony requested by Scott, one for Assistant District Attorney Douglas Stokes, and one for Division B Judge Jimmy Teat. Stokes also serves as the town’s legal adviser.

Hall had moved that both be quashed because the subpoenas did not state a purpose for the request, nor did they list required information with particularity.

After a short break around Noon, the actual recusal matter was argued.

Several large files were introduced into evidence, most of which concerned the two civil trials involving the town and mayor, Essmeier v Jonesboro and State v Jonesboro, both presided over by Teat.

The prosecution stipulated (agreed to) to the authenticity of the documents, but not any conclusions drawn from them.

Scott then called Town Clerk David Dill to the stand.

Scott questioned Dill extensively on office procedures and the history of the two civil cases. Scott spent a significant amount of time asking about the town’s former Fiscal Administrator Bill Ryder and his interaction with Judge Teat. He asked about any meetings between the two, and what reports Ryder submitted to Teat.

Also, Scott wanted to know what access Ryder had to the town’s records and computer files. The direction of the questioning seemed to indicate an effort to establish some type of nefarious conspiracy.

Hall had no cross-examination.

The only witness called by Hall was Jackson Parish Sheriff’s Office (JPSO) investigator Johnny Horton.

Horton testified to the evidence gathering procedures used during the investigation.

Notable during this part of the hearing was the interaction between Scott and Thompson. When the judge asked Scott if he had any more witnesses, he turned to Thompson as if to seek guidance. Thompson shook his head, and then Scott told the judge he had no more witnesses.

In denying the motion for recusal, Clason said that “no evidence was offered” that Teat held a personal animosity toward Thompson. As to the allegation that Teat’s involvement in the civil cases would prevent a fair trial, Clason cited several court cases where judges in civil cases also heard criminal cases involving the same parities.

Scott advised the court that he would be filing writs to the Court of Appeals, Second Circuit promptly in all of yesterday’s rulings.

Follow us on Twitter at: https://twitter.com/LPNewsOnline

22 Responses to “Jonesboro Recusal Hearing Details”

  1. Anonymous Says:

    I’ll File Away, File Away, File Away….come File Away with Me!

  2. sunrisesunset Says:

    Bet they will not be singing “File Me to the Moon”.

    Way to go Judge Clason!!!!

  3. Anonymous Says:

    Perhaps the only answer the mayor’s attorneys know is “File a motion to the appeals court”….that does not seem to be working every well for them.

    The mayor sure must have some cash!!! Got to pay to play in the courts.

  4. Anonymous Says:

    He probably doesn’t have it himself, just knows somebody that does. Need to be sure that none of it is coming from Town funds, which will be hard to do with no audits for the past four years, and no financial reports for a good while.

  5. Anonymous Says:

    That would be cause for another charge of malfeasance if it could be proved.

  6. Anonymous Says:

    Ha ha. I’m loving it! By the time this is over they gonna be glad Teat is over the trial! Judge Clason is sharp as tacks and can not be swayed!

  7. Anonymous Says:

    Wouldn’t do any good to get Judge Fallin either, they are all going to come to the same conclusion, that the mayor’s lawyers just don’t have much to work with, and doing a poor job with that.

  8. Anonymous Says:

    This is the first time Thompson has been up against the state and its lawyers, and he is going to find it tough sledding.

  9. Rastus B. Gumm Says:

    shot down in flames

  10. Anonymous Says:

    Attorney Scott be needing his helper….she can’t work cause some money handling issue so Attorney Scott got Paralegal Thompson helping him.

    Thompson is almost just like an attorney. Rev Dill can help too.

    Gotta help out the ones who can help others ….lead the way you all.

  11. Anonymous Says:

    Uh oh!

  12. Anonymous Says:

    As I understand it, Powell-Lexing was not workfing for Scott. The Jackson Independent article described her when she was speaker at the First Things First breakfast as a “private practiioner managing her own law firm.” Apparently she was Thompson’s first choice, though, because the only time he has used Scott is when he could not get her.

  13. Anonymous Says:

    If none of Thompson’s lawyers have won a case or appeal in two years, how would him being “almost a lawyer” help? As for Dill, I think his past court and legislative audit appearances speak for themelves: “I don’t know nothing about no money.”

  14. Anonymous Says:

    Why would Scott file writs to the Court of Appeals before the trial?
    Judge Teat may find Thompson not guilty. If they are turned down by the Appeals court and Thompson is found guilty by Teat, they will be left with no grounds for an appeal then. Looks like they are getting the cart before the horse (or before the mule?)

  15. Q B Says:

    Looks like next year before he goes to court ! They are playing the game just like they want it wake up people the man will never see the back side of any bars !

  16. Anonymous Says:

    I seen yesterday the Mayor had the stickers on his assigned town issued automobile.

    See….he is trying to do right….just needed some guidance about when those decals had to be on the door.

    All is good …you just need to understand this simple thought.

  17. Anonymous Says:

    Is it the thought that is simple or the one who sent it?

  18. Anonymous Says:

    See Judge Clason is referred to “Chief Judge” of the district in news releases. Does that mean she is the first choice when the D. A. does his “Judge shopping?”

  19. Anonymous Says:

    The only surprise was the motion to recuse D. A. Jonathan Stewart. Wonder what was behind that, was it just a “smoke screen”?

  20. Grape vine Says:

    They need to get Mr. Stewart some charges behind his name as well !

  21. Anonymous Says:

    On the issue of “judge shopping”, the deputy clerk testified that the month in which the crime is committed determines what judge is assigned the case. So there you are, Leslie, commit your crimes in a month that Teat is not going to be judge if you want to have another one. LOL

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: