Friday, August 4, 2017

Motion for mistrial in RSS trial

Gentleman Jim Giles filed a motion for to intervene in State v. Robert Shuler Smith today.  His motion asks the court to declare a mistrial.   The motion is posted below. 






48 comments:

Anonymous said...

Belhaven's second favorite son!

Anonymous said...

What the actual f***? Who is Jimmy Giles? This is bizarre.

Shut up you stupid klucker said...

No standing. Next?

Anonymous said...

"Jimmy Giles" The only Jimmy Giles I have heard of was a second string tight end for the Greenville (Ms.) Hornets and went on to be an All-Pro defensive lineman in the N.F.L. He played in G'ville with 2 other All Pros, Wilbert and Cleo(the) Montgomery.

PittPanther said...

Wilbert Montgomery, greatest Eagle RB ever.

Kingfish said...

SVB?

Anonymous said...

This is the same guy that ran against Harper I believe.

Giles Shire said...

" Shut up you stupid klucker said...

No standing. Next? "

You wouldn't be so disrespectful toe to toe and alone, now would you sweetie?

Otherwise, cite your case law supporting no standing.

Anonymous said...

Is he the fella who sells honey at the farmer's market?

Anonymous said...

Harper 89.1%
Giles 10.9%

Giles Shire said...

"Harper 89.1%
Giles 10.9%"

Hell son, I live in a $16,000 trailer at the end of a 1700 foot dirt road and it's funny that you cite the vote count and not actual case law, e.g.,

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled the closure unconstitutional, noting that voir dire has traditionally been an open and public process "throughout Anglo-American history." Explaining the benefit of such open proceedings, the Court commented that the "The value of openness lies in the fact that people not actually attending trials can have confidence that standards of fairness are being observed.” The Court added: “Openness thus enhances both the basic fairness of the criminal trial and the appearance of fairness so essential to public confidence in the system.”

https://www.rcfp.org/browse-media-law-resources/digital-journalists-legal-guide/covering-courts-jury-selection-voir-dire

P.S. I endorsed Trump and he won. And I predicted his victory too. If he can win other White Working Class Men can win too. Fake News Media has no credibility. Who did Harper endorse?

P.P.S. Times are a changin'!

Anonymous said...

You are mistaken. I'm not your son. Sorry.

Giles Shire said...

"You are mistaken. I'm not your son. Sorry."

Nor are you a Southern Rebel!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHQ_aTjXObs

Anonymous said...

Live PD just ended and I needed some entertainment. I thought I had found it but I don't like soap operas!

Anonymous said...

Mr. Giles,
I could be wrong, but attempting to derail this high profile trial is no way to win the white working class vote nor the conservative black vote.

Eight Thousand Dollar Trailer said...

There's a list out there somewhere of all the offices Giles has run for and lost by 9 to 1 margins. I think it's on a legal pad. Everybody living in an 8 thousand dollar trailer claims it's value to be 16 thousand. And Giles says his number 9 shoes are actually size 13.

I'm reminded of the guy at Parchman who got access to the library computer and managed himself a mail-order law degree.

Anonymous said...

There is a better chance of snow this afternoon than Giles having ANY chance to influence ANYTHING.

Anonymous said...

Focusing only on the recent Giles v. Harper primary exposes your electoral ignorance.

Anonymous said...

This is the same Rankin loon who would stand in front of private schools and whine about how they don't fly the state flag.

Anonymous said...

Interesting. . . by trying to stop the trial, Giles is siding with the corrupt and incompetent Hinds County political class. He'll be popular in the 'hood if he succeeds. Doubt that crowd supports his man Trump. Maybe this is his attempt at outreach

Anonymous said...

Well Giles's is motion is fatally flawed because the public wasn't barred from attending voir dire. Apparently just him, and therefore he can't represent the interests of the public because the public was represented by other members of the public actually in the courtroom. He's just representing Giles and whatever grievance he has because *he* was barred. That don't end in no mistrial.

Anonymous said...

Poor Jimmy. Another cause. Another loss. Wrong side of history. Always.

Anonymous said...

TY post from y'day 11:19 PM through today 10:25 AM for if nothing else restoring MY
faith in sensibility.

Anonymous said...

this is called publicity stunt

FREE the GOP said...

Regardless of whether your agree with him or not Jimmy Giles would be far more principled in Congress than the milquetoast empty suit Gregg Harper. Mississippi isn't a conservative state, it is an enclosure for the Barbour cabal's owned RINO herd whose only objective is trough feeding.

Anon-E-Mouse said...

Giles is that cra-cra guy that ran the Rebel Army blog years ago. When he ran for governor years ago, he stopped by our office to speechify.

I needed a bath when he left. I wish he'd move to Michigan and join some militia up there and leave Mississippi the hell alne.

Anonymous said...

11:16 - "Free the GOP" - if you could really believe that Giles would be a better representative than anybody (other than, of course, the remaining couple of dozen Tea Partiers and 'Patriots' gathered in your bunker or drinking the kool-aid with Crazy Laura) I assume you are getting ready to raid a courthouse, or a nursing home, in your don quixotet quest with Crazy Chris in a coming campaign. Y'all have fun now - maybe Giles will join you and wave his flag on the side of Hwy 25.

Giles Shire said...

Criminal Case Proceedings Have a Constitutional Presumption of Openness

Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980) (plurality opinion) The U.S. Supreme Court recognized that the public and press have a presumptive First Amendment right of access to judicial proceedings in criminal cases, finding that “a presumption of openness inheres in the very nature of a criminal trial under our system of justice.”

Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596 (1982) The U.S. Supreme Court in this case decided whether a statute which required mandatory exclusion of the press and public from the courtroom when minors testify about sexual assaults violates the First Amendment as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. They concluded that although there is a compelling interest for doing so in many cases, the statute is unconstitutional due to its mandatory nature. However, the case left trial judges the discretion to close courtrooms on a case by case basis.

Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (1984) (Press-Enterprise I) The U.S. Supreme Court in this case was asked to decide if the closure of a portion of voir dire for the purposes of juror privacy and increased candor violates the First Amendment as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. In this case, all but three days of a six-week voir dire process was open to the press and public. The Court found a constitutional violation and reversed the case because there were no individualized findings to support the trial court's conclusion that an open proceeding would threaten the defendant's right to a fair trial and the prospective jurors' interests in privacy.

Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984) The defendants in this case were wiretapped by the state police. The state moved to close the suppression hearing regarding the admissibility of the tapes obtained by the wiretaps and the motion was granted over the objection of the defendant. The U.S. Supreme Court held that Under the Sixth Amendment, any closure of a suppression hearing over the objections of the accused must meet the following tests: the party seeking to close the hearing must advance an overriding interest that is likely to be prejudiced; the closure must be no broader than necessary to protect that interest; the trial court must consider reasonable alternatives to closing the hearing; and it must make findings adequate to support the closure. The case was reversed and remanded.

Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1 (1986) (Press-Enterprise II) The U.S. Supreme Court determined that a qualified First Amendment right of access attaches to state court preliminary hearings. The proceedings cannot be closed to the press and/or public unless specific, on-the-record findings are made demonstrating that "closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest."

Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 (2010) In this case, the defendant asserted his right under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment to have voir dire open to public. The U.S. Supreme Court had previously determined that the press and public had a First Amendment Right to be present for voir dire. The Court determined that a criminal defendant has a qualified right to public voir dire which can only be circumvented with findings by the trial court that there was no other reasonable way to protect the safety of the jurors or integrity of the process.

http://www.ncsc.org/Microsites/High-Profile-Cases/Home/Critical-Constitutional-Case-Law.aspx

FREE the GOP said...

@6:55 PM I know that reading comprehension is not a RINO's strong suit but I wrote that Jimmy Giles would be "far more principled" than Harper.

But, of course, you were pent up and needed a conduit for another of your reliably tired Tea Party screeds that give you some sort of perverse cathartic release so you read what wasn't written and launched from there.

One thing Giles wouldn't be good at in Congress is whoring himself out for pork. My long-time observant guess is in that regard he would fail miserably compared to the stellar efforts doing the same by Harper, Wicker and our King of Pork Cochran.

Now matter how you slice it, Harper, Wicker and Cochran are not remotely conservative. Republicans, yes, conservative, NO.

They talked big and made happy for all the anti-Obama show votes but when it comes to actual legislating they are in the Beltway for one reason only, PORK.

Anonymous said...

Yes, notice that in each case the movant was either a newspaper or the actual defendant. The defendant obviously has standing to assert the right to an open hearing. The SCOTUS has held that the press has limited standing, although it is pretty narrow. So legal scholar, are you the defendant or the press?

Anonymous said...

What Wild Man Jim keeps missing is that the proceeding wasn't closed to the public; just him. His motion is a non-starter.

Giles Shire said...

"Yes, notice that in each case the movant was either a newspaper or the actual defendant. The defendant obviously has standing to assert the right to an open hearing. The SCOTUS has held that the press has limited standing, although it is pretty narrow. So legal scholar, are you the defendant or the press?"

I am the one with a legitimate interest in the outcome and cannot protect that interest without becoming a party.

"The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure lack a counterpart to Fed.R.Civ.P. 24, which allows intervention. But courts have permitted intervention when the potential intervenor has a legitimate interest in the outcome and cannot protect that interest without becoming a party."

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1531643.html

Because these rights are presumed and are difficult to overcome, the case law in Virginia and the Fourth Circuit requires an adversarial hearing with the press and/or public’s representatives before sealing or closure takes place. The burden of proof is on the party moving for closure and the burden is on the court to provide a written evaluation of all factors, including the alternatives to closure, and if closure is ordered, an explanation about why only closure will be effective and the alternatives to closure will not be. If this “due process” for the public has not been provided, the sealing orders in this case have been granted improvidently.

. . . .

In 1980, in the U.S. Supreme Court held that there is a presumed First Amendment right of public access to a criminal trial that is properly exercised when courts treat “the press” as a surrogate for the public. Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 573 (1980). (“Richmond I”) A second court access case followed quickly. In 1982, the U.S. Supreme Court reiterated that the right of access can be outweighed only by a “compelling government interest” and if closure is to take place, it must be as narrow and as short as possible. (Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596, 606-607 (1982). The high court next ruled in favor of access to the transcript of a closed voir dire in Press Enterprise v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (1984) (“PE I”).

. . . .

The reason for these strict requirements is simply that the right of access to criminal trials weighs so heavily. It is based on long English and American traditions of openness and the function of public oversight of the courts. Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596 (1982). Open criminal trials and all attendant proceedings help the public understand that a
crime will be vindicated and that the prosecution, defense and the court are handling their duties properly. This value was acknowledged even by the Gannett court.

There can be no blinking the fact that there is a strong societal interest in public trials. Openness in court proceedings may improve the quality of testimony, induce unknown witnesses to come forward with relevant testimony, cause all trial
participants to perform their duties more conscientiously, and generally give the public an opportunity to observe the judicial system.

Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, supra at 383. The fact that preliminary, suppression and other hearings end most criminal trials is a significant consideration. “If members of the public are to be able to evaluate the work of trial judges, prosecutors, and public defenders in the criminal justice system, there must be access to pretrial proceedings which are the only proceedings had in the great mass of criminal causes.” Buzbee v. Journal Newspapers, Inc., 297 Md. 68, 80 (Md. 1983)
Most important in a case like this one, the community’s emotional reaction to the crime is expected and respected by open proceedings.


https://www.rcfp.org/sites/default/files/docs/20120327_135836_lucan_brief1.pdf


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKhTk0IynHM

Anonymous said...

Good God you idiots are obsessed. Nobody reads all this shit. Take a breath.

Anonymous said...

You have to admire Jimmy Giles. He can cut and paste with the best of them.

Anonymous said...

Whatever rights one may have as a member of the public to an open trial, a mistrial is not available to resolve the issue. A mistrial may be granted sua sponte by the trial judge due some mistake which may prejudice a party's rights to a fair trial, or upon motion of a defendant or the prosecutor in connection to some circumstance that would improperly prejudice a party's right to a fair trial, but no such motion is available for a member of the public. A member of the public may be able to seek an order to open the trial to the public, but there is no legal right to a mistrial for a member of the public.

Scaramouche said...



¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Giles Shire said...

"You have to admire Jimmy Giles. He can cut and paste with the best of them."

LOL! Ain't it the truth!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7uLC9UeTbw

Anonymous said...

I thought Richard Barrett was dead. But, he only moved from Learned to Pearl.

Giles Shire said...

"Whatever rights one may have as a member of the public to an open trial, a mistrial is not available to resolve the issue. A mistrial may be granted sua sponte by the trial judge due some mistake which may prejudice a party's rights to a fair trial, or upon motion of a defendant or the prosecutor in connection to some circumstance that would improperly prejudice a party's right to a fair trial, but no such motion is available for a member of the public. A member of the public may be able to seek an order to open the trial to the public, but there is no legal right to a mistrial for a member of the public."

“[r]ules are made to secure justice, not defeat it.”  Brewer v. Browning, 115 Miss. 358, 366, 76 So. 267 (1917).   Moreover, “[a]ll courts have the inherent power to correct and make their judgments speak the truth.”  Turner v. State, 212 Miss. 590, 594, 55 So.2d 228 (1951).   This Court has additionally held that the power to correct an error in the record of a judgment rendered by it at a former term is inherent in the court system.   See Claughton v. Ford, 202 Miss. 361, 30 So.2d 805 (1947).

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ms-supreme-court/1285653.html

Moreover and fundamentally, I had a legal right to attend voire dire and that right was violated.

Did Rosa Parks have a legal right to sit in the "colored section?"

That so many remain silent over this closure especially the Mississippi Bar is disturbing and it does not bode well. And not a peep from the Fake News Media.

Giles Shire said...

He cites Brewer v. Browning, 115 Miss. 358, 364, 76 So. 267, 269 (1917), in advising this Court that we have the authority to correct our former decision where it is manifestly wrong.

 ¶ 9. As cited above in Fortune, the “law of the case” doctrine is founded on public policy and the interests of orderly and consistent judicial procedure.  Fortune, 725 So.2d at (¶ 6).   This Court's prior opinion was unpublished;  thus, it is not public policy.   Whether we follow this Court's previous opinion or not will not affect other subsequent parties or negate our ability to set precedent;  thus, we find the “law of the case” doctrine does not apply to this situation.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ms-court-of-appeals/1318510.html

The "law of the case" doctrine precludes reconsideration of a previously decided issue unless one of three "exceptional circumstances" exists: (1) when substantially different evidence is raised at a subsequent trial, (2) when a subsequent contrary view of the law is decided by the controlling authority, or (3) when a decision is clearly erroneous and would result in a manifest injustice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_case

The Court's decision is clearly erroneous and would result in a manifest injustice.

Giles Shire said...

However, this Court may, in certain exceptional instances, overturn a previous decision when that decision was manifestly erroneous, and upholding it on subsequent appeal would result in a grave injustice. Simpson v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 564 So. 2d 1374, 1377 (Miss. 1990) (overruled in part on other grounds); Brewer v. Browning, 115 Miss. 358, 366, 76 So. 267, 270 (1917).

https://courts.ms.gov/images/Opinions/CO56945.pdf

Anonymous said...

Giles, don't confuse your google search with a law degree. The cases you cite are irrelevant to your argument. You cannot compel the court to declare a mistrial simply because you missed out on voir dire. Loosen than Maker America Great Again hat, I think its cutting off the circulation.

Giles Shire said...

"Giles, don't confuse your google search with a law degree. The cases you cite are irrelevant to your argument. You cannot compel the court to declare a mistrial simply because you missed out on voir dire. Loosen than Maker America Great Again hat, I think its cutting off the circulation."

Don't you confuse your anonymous post with being a judge.

And don't confuse my White Working Class status as being Pro-Trump today. He has attacked Syria, not closed our borders or ended free trade. I've given him a bit more time given his appointment of Gen. Kelly as his Chief of Staff. The verdict is out as to whether we will support him in 2020. And of course he can't win without us.

More precisely I was not allowed to attend voire dire. As it were, I was told to give up my seat on the bus and that's a fundamental violation of my constitutional rights. That you think so little of this egregious and flagrant violation suggests you hail from the corrupt elements who rule Mississippi.

Anonymous said...

Giles, why were you not allowed to attend the hearing?

Giles Shire said...

"Loosen than Maker America Great Again hat, I think its cutting off the circulation."

This kind of snarky repartee is why Hillary lost the election. It's a substitute for serious thought that is designed to make the wise-cracker feel superior despite the yawning gap of any objective evidence whatsoever for such a proposition. Literally hundreds of millions of such empty witticisms were hurled by these university pedigreed and vacuum sealed empty skulls until the moment it was announced that Hillary had called The Donald to concede the election. An election he won despite the opposition of the entire GOPe as well as the Clintons and their canaille.

Anonymous said...

I don't need the wise crack in order to feel superior to you Giles. I just have to read your dribble.

Kingfish said...

Oh yes. During the McDaniel-Cochran race, Mr. Giles was sending out a bunch of unsolicited emails to General Kelly and included quite a few Jacksonions on the cc list. Then he started including his emails to none other than Tom Metzger. That is the crowd he runs with.

Anonymous said...

So you're saying he is probably on a terror watch list? Got it.

2016 Hottest Reporter Poll

Suscribe to latest on JJ.

Recent Comments

Search Jackson Jambalaya

Subscribe to JJ's Youtube channel

Who is the hottest reporter?

Archives

Who is the Hottest Reporter in Jackson?

Trollfest '09

Trollfest '07 was such a success that Jackson Jambalaya will once again host Trollfest '09. Catch this great event which will leave NE Jackson & Fondren in flames. Othor Cain and his band, The Black Power Structure headline the night while Sonjay Poontang returns for an encore performance. Former Frank Melton bodyguard Marcus Wright makes his premier appearance at Trollfest singing "I'm a Sweet Transvestite" from "The Rocky Horror Picture Show." Kamikaze will sing his new hit, “How I sold out to da Man.” Robbie Bell again performs: “Mamas, don't let your babies grow up to be Bells” and “Any friend of Ed Peters is a friend of mine”. After the show, Ms. Bell will autograph copies of her mug shot photos. In a salute to “Dancing with the Stars”, Ms. Bell and Hinds County District Attorney Robert Smith will dance the Wango Tango.

Wrestling returns, except this time it will be a Battle Royal with Othor Cain, Ben Allen, Kim Wade, Haley Fisackerly, Alan Lange, and “Big Cat” Donna Ladd all in the ring at the same time. The Battle Royal will be in a steel cage, no time limit, no referee, and the losers must leave town. Marshand Crisler will be the honorary referee (as it gives him a title without actually having to do anything).


Meet KIM Waaaaaade at the Entergy Tent. For five pesos, Kim will sell you a chance to win a deed to a crack house on Ridgeway Street stuffed in the Howard Industries pinata. Don't worry if the pinata is beaten to shreds, as Mr. Wade has Jose, Emmanuel, and Carlos, all illegal immigrants, available as replacements for the it. Upon leaving the Entergy tent, fig leaves will be available in case Entergy literally takes everything you have as part of its Trollfest ticket price adjustment charge.

Donna Ladd of The Jackson Free Press will give several classes on learning how to write. Smearing, writing without factchecking, and reporting only one side of a story will be covered. A donation to pay their taxes will be accepted and she will be signing copies of their former federal tax liens. Ms. Ladd will give a dramatic reading of her two award-winning essays (They received The Jackson Free Press "Best Of" awards.) "Why everything is always about me" and "Why I cover murders better than anyone else in Jackson".

In the spirit of helping those who are less fortunate, Trollfest '09 adopts a cause for which a portion of the proceeds and donations will be donated: Keeping Frank Melton in his home. The “Keep Frank Melton From Being Homeless” booth will sell chances for five dollars to pin the tail on the jackass. John Reeves has graciously volunteered to be the jackass for this honorable excursion into saving Frank's ass. What's an ass between two friends after all? If Mr. Reeves is unable to um, perform, Speaker Billy McCoy has also volunteered as when the word “jackass” was mentioned he immediately ran as fast as he could to sign up.


In order to help clean up the legal profession, Adam Kilgore of the Mississippi Bar will be giving away free, round-trip plane tickets to the North Pole where they keep their bar complaint forms (which are NOT available online). If you don't want to go to the North Pole, you can enjoy Brant Brantley's (of the Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance) free guided tours of the quicksand field over by High Street where all complaints against judges disappear. If for some reason you are unable to control yourself, never fear; Judge Houston Patton will operate his jail where no lawyers are needed or allowed as you just sit there for minutes... hours.... months...years until he decides he is tired of you sitting in his jail. Do not think Judge Patton is a bad judge however as he plans to serve free Mad Dog 20/20 to all inmates.

Trollfest '09 is a pet-friendly event as well. Feel free to bring your dog with you and do not worry if your pet gets hungry, as employees of the Jackson Zoo will be on hand to provide some of their animals as food when it gets to be feeding time for your little loved one.

Relax at the Fox News Tent. Since there are only three blonde reporters in Jackson (being blonde is a requirement for working at Fox News), Megan and Kathryn from WAPT and Wendy from WLBT will be on loan to Fox. To gain admittance to the VIP section, bring either your Republican Party ID card or a Rebel Flag. Bringing both and a torn-up Obama yard sign will entitle you to free drinks served by Megan, Wendy, and Kathryn. Get your tickets now. Since this is an event for trolls, no ID is required. Just bring the hate. Bring the family, Trollfest '09 is for EVERYONE!!!

This is definitely a Beaver production.


Note: Security provided by INS.

Trollfest '07

Jackson Jambalaya is the home of Trollfest '07. Catch this great event which promises to leave NE Jackson & Fondren in flames. Sonjay Poontang and his band headline the night with a special steel cage, no time limit "loser must leave town" bout between Alan Lange and "Big Cat"Donna Ladd following afterwards. Kamikaze will perform his new song F*** Bush, he's still a _____. Did I mention there was no referee? Dr. Heddy Matthias and Lori Gregory will face off in the undercard dueling with dangling participles and other um, devices. Robbie Bell will perform Her two latest songs: My Best Friends are in the Media and Mama's, Don't Let Your Babies Grow up to be George Bell. Sid Salter of The Clarion-Ledger will host "Pin the Tail on the Trial Lawyer", sponsored by State Farm.

There will be a hugging booth where in exchange for your young son, Frank Melton will give you a loooong hug. Trollfest will have a dunking booth where Muhammed the terrorist will curse you to Allah as you try to hit a target that will drop him into a vat of pig grease. However, in the true spirit of Separate But Equal, Don Imus and someone from NE Jackson will also sit in the dunking booth for an equal amount of time. Tom Head will give a reading for two hours on why he can't figure out who the hell he is. Cliff Cargill will give lessons with his .80 caliber desert eagle, using Frank Melton photos as targets. Tackleberry will be on hand for an autograph session. KIM Waaaaaade will be passing out free titles and deeds to crackhouses formerly owned by The Wood Street Players.

If you get tired come relax at the Fox News Tent. To gain admittance to the VIP section, bring either your Republican Party ID card or a Rebel Flag. Bringing both will entitle you to free drinks.Get your tickets now. Since this is an event for trolls, no ID is required, just bring the hate. Bring the family, Trollfest '07 is for EVERYONE!!!

This is definitely a Beaver production.

Note: Security provided by INS
.