Jury Now Deliberating in Thompson Trial

After a blistering closing argument from prosecutor Lea Hall alleging an “entitlement mentality” from Jonesboro mayor Leslie Thompson, and an equally impassioned closing from defense attorney Carol Powell-Lexing who said the state never proved intent, the jury is now debating the fate of Thompson.

The jury began deliberations at 11:40 AM.

Hall asked the jurors to return a quick verdict to send a message that public corruption will not be excused.

Powell-Lexing said that the real malfeasance was the amount of money spent by the Louisiana Legislative Auditor (about $1/2 million) investigating Thompson.

Thompson is charged with three counts of malfeasance.

Follow on Twitter at: https://twitter.com/LPNewsOnline
Also follow Cole Avery at: https://twitter.com/cole_avery1

7 Responses to “Jury Now Deliberating in Thompson Trial”

  1. Anonymous Says:

    Hopefully the verdict will be quick, unanymous, and fair – GUILTY!

  2. Anonymous Says:

    No intent needed, unintentional breakage of the law is still breakage of the law. I didn’t intentionally speed doing 70 in a 55 mph zone so I must be innocent!

    I thought Leslie was the one who told everyone he knew the Lawrason Act and knew the statutes, is his lawyer lying for him now saying he doesn’t know the law.

  3. Anonymous Says:

    Ask any lawyer or judge: Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

  4. JustMe Says:

    We have come down a long path to this point in the road. I pray the Jury reaches a swift and fair verdict according to the law. I further pray that the citizens of the Town of Jonesboro will accept the verdict, and move on together for the betterment of Jonesboro. Hopefully, not only the Mayor but also all the people who work at the Town Hall have learned there are strict rules of etiquette and law that have to be followed in caring for and tending to the Town’s business. Short cuts through oversight as well as negligence should not ever be tolerated. If anyone who chooses to work there doesn’t abide by these laws and rules, they don’t deserve to be entrusted with that task. Move out of the way and let only those who are professional in their dealing with the Town business as well as the Town money be entrusted with this opportunity. Trust has to be earned and I pray that Trust is returned to the Town of Jonesboro.

  5. Boo Radley Says:

    Did Mayor have specific intent? Did he have the subjective desire or knowledge that the prohibited result will occur?

    Is Intent and motive the same? These are commonly confused,

    Motive is the reason that makes a person to act or fail to act.

    Does Intent refers only to the state of mind with which the act is done or omitted? So if intent is a state of mind, it can rarely be proved with direct evidence and ordinarily must be determined by the facts presented.

    Courts seem to allow a wide range of direct and Circumstantial evidence. Also, is presumed intent helpful in proving specific intent? This would seem to hold individuals accountable for all the consequences/results of their acts.

    Wonder why the Mayor did not testify at trial as to his intent?

    Whether Leslie intended to break the law does not matter, however; rather, the issue is whether he intended to do that which is unlawful.

    An example would be if one stole gasoline to get home to his house without permission but with the intent of paying it back…it is still a crime, a defendant may maintain that he took the gas and that he intended to pay the money. For this example, the defendant’s intent to pay for the gas later does not negate the fact that he intentionally stole gas that did not belong to him without permission. In addition, it does not matter that he planned pay for the gas later because that is his motive in acting, not his intent.

    An individual is guilty for a crime when he had the intent to commit the crime, even though the intended injury occurred in an unexpected way.

    Is specific intent an essential element in proving these crimes?

    Leslie’s attorney argued that he did not possess the specific intent required and therefore are not guilty or liable for the crimes committed.

    A defendant may argue that at the time a crime was committed they were ignorate and/or mentally impairment thus this kept them from formulating the specific intent to commit the crime.

    These are not a defense.

    What exactly is the Mayor’s defense?????

  6. Accounting 101 Says:

    Let start by hiring a qualified BOOK KEEPER and get some software designed for a municipality (not Quickbooks)….

  7. Anonymous Says:

    Good explanation, Boo. I don’t see how anybody could swallow the statement that Thompson did not have intent when he deliberately
    failed to cooperate with the first DA over a period of several weeks by not furnishing him information and failing to even meet and discuss it with him. He may not have known that it constituted malfeasance, but that is beside the point. “Ignorance of the law is no excuse.” He knows it now, whether he and his attorneyhs want to accept it or not.

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 )

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: