Newell Responds on Perjury Issue

This morning candidate for Second Judicial (Bienville, Claiborne, Jackson Parishes) District Attorney Danny Newell responded to our query on whether or not he would have prosecuted the Simmons alleged perjury case.

Good morning Walter. Sorry for the delay in responding.

I have reviewed everything you provided which included the grand jury indictments of Mrs. Simmons and Mr. Jackson as well as Judge Teat’s Reasons for Judgment. I was not provided with a transcript of the testimony of Mrs. Simmons, a transcript of the testimony of Mr. Jackson, the investigative report of law enforcement nor the transcripts/statements made by all the witnesses interviewed by the district attorney’s office. I also do not know if Judge Teat held either of the witnesses in contempt of court for perjury.

Additionally, I have no idea what evidence was presented to the Grand Jury by the district attorney’s office in order to get the indictments. I don’t know if the evidence presented later turned out to be inaccurate or if witnesses became unavailable or changed their testimony. I don’t know what may have changed after the Grand Jury reviewed the case.

In short, I do not have nearly enough information to make a decision to prosecute or not prosecute.


When we receive a response from Chris Bowman, we will also post his reply.

21 Responses to “Newell Responds on Perjury Issue”

  1. Anonymous Says:

    Danny you are so wise. You are absolutely correct to say you don’t have enough information to make a call on whether or not you would have prosecuted this case.

    It is wisdom like this we need leading our District Attorney’s Office. This is not taught wisdom but something you are born with.

    Wish Walter had held your response until Bowman made his so it would be a fair comparison of responses. Bowman can now formulate his response to the timely response Danny gave. Read Bowman’s response with a grain of salt.

    Danny, you have my support

    • Anonymous Says:

      His reply sounds kinda duck and dodge to me. Looks like if he had even a few would-be DA instincts he’d be able to poke around a little, maybe talk to some people at least if only to say I talked to these people (list them) but could get no info to help me make an informed reply. Reminds me of a witness on the stand who says “I don’t recall” a lot. How convenient.

      • sunrisesunset Says:

        Treading softly so as not to muddy the waters!

      • Anonymous Says:

        I agree with Anonymous 4:47 I was seriously oonsidering a vote for Newell but with this “duck and cover” response he seems no better than the current resident. I fear, as usual
        , not much to choose from this go round. I am really disappointed in his apparent lack of concern

  2. Rip Says:

    Election time! Do not prosecute any one must less the blacks. YOu might lose their votes.

  3. Mr. E Says:

    Well, is there anything preventing Danny Newell from getting the information to make a decision on whether to prosecute these cases? As a prosecutor, wouldn’t he be expected to gather this information and make a decision? It seems to me that he would have dug deeper into these cases and gathered the relevant information so as to provide an answer to voters who will decide whether he should be hired as their prosecutor.

    Newell is ostensibly running to replace the current prosecutor, Jonathan Stewart, because he feels that he can do a better job, and he certainly is aware of the controversy surrounding Leslie Thompson’s mishandling of Jonesboro, so why the cop out on “I don’t have enough information to answer this question,” and what has he been doing between the time Walter posed the question and his reply?

    Frankly, I’m disappointed with this answer and inclined to reject Newell from consideration. Walter posed a straightforward prosecutorial question on a current case and Newell blew his chance to provide an insight to his approach to the job by claiming he didn’t have enough information to answer the question. We already have a prosecutor who declines to prosecute criminals. We don’t need to trade him for another one who won’t prosecute criminals.

  4. Anonymous Says:

    There’s no way Newell could know or find out what the grand jury was told. Evidence presented to the Grand Jury is secret. Only a fool would answer the question without knowing all the facts and someone without full access to the GJ testimony and issues that arose afterwards will not know all the facts.

    • Just waiting Says:

      Bingo! the right answer.

      • Anonymous Says:

        No, it’s not. What about just taking the facts of the case that he can learn about outside the grand jury and at least comment on that, leaving the caveat that his reply is based only on such and such knowledge. He didn’t even try.

    • Mr. E Says:

      In the article, Danny Newell is referred to as a DA, meaning he either works in or used to work in the DA’s office. If he is not working in the DA’s office at present, he should at least know people who do. If he really wanted to find out about this case, then he could easily gather enough information to render an opinion. Walter has reported extensively on this case and described the particulars of this case. Mrs. Simmons and Mr. Jackson testified in open court giving testimony that was later shown to be completely false. Even without rendering an official opinion, Mr. Newell could have at least gone on record with his opinion with the caveat that there may possibly be more information that he didn’t have. This is nothing more than an attempt to not antagonize potential voters. It appears Mr. Newell’s supporters are patrolling this website to defend their man.

  5. Anonymous Says:

    I know someone who was on the Grand Jury and that person was very upset that the charges were dropped. This person said the evidence was obvious that she was not in the other room when the altercation took place therefore she could not have witnessed that it did or did not happen. If you look at the video of the meeting, you can plainly see that she was still in the council meeting room when someone who did see it came in to get some help. Just Jonathon Stewart at his usual incompetence. I wouldn’t doubt this could have been an attempt to gain the black vote in this area since he doesn’t have Ex-mayor Thompson so stump for him this time. So long Jonathon, it hasn’t been nice knowing you.

  6. Anonymous Says:

    Instead of all of us blasting either candidate for DA we should be asking Johnathan Stewart why he did what he did. J. Stewart knows all the evidence and what the grand jury heard (he told them what they heard) and after all this he has his money whore ADA drop the charges.

    • Jim walker Says:

      You are exactly right in your statement, anonymous! And Mr. Newell, in my opinion was correct in his response. Newell in the man for judge.

    • Anonymous Says:

      Asking Stewart anything would be a waste of time. We know all we need to know about him and how he operates. And now back to DA candidates. Where’s Bowman’s input? Bowman? Anyone there?

  7. Wordpress Administrator Says:

    • Anonymous Says:

      we could have fun with this post… it has dumb ol donald marion fowler’s address, phone number and password.
      A smart one he is!!!

  8. Tim Says:

    It’s no surprise now why DMF hasn’t been around.

  9. Anonymous Says:

    as of 10/2/2014 the channel 8 news say that Yoshi Thompson is our mayor still

  10. sunrisesunset Says:

    Why would they even be saying this in their news? Yoshi Thompson is a story of loooooong, long ago. They must be suffering from dementia or something.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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: