Categories
Politics Politics Feature

The Hot Race

In these still early days of the 2022 election field, one political race above all is drawing the most attention and seems to be getting fully underway. This is the contest between Republican incumbent District Attorney General Amy Weirich and her most likely Democratic opponent, University of Memphis law professor and former County Commissioner Steve Mulroy.

Both Mulroy and Weirich are on the campaign trail, which at this stage of the game means they are holding fundraisers that function simultaneously as opportunities to get their message out. Mulroy has been getting in the first licks, never failing to call attention to Weirich’s periodic sanctions for judicial misconduct by the Tennessee Supreme Court, by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, and by the ethics panel of the Tennessee bar.

Weirich does not respond to these charges, though her supporters will cite them as proof of her zeal in pursuing crime and of a muscular approach that might sometimes cross over a line, but always in the interests of the victims of crime. “I’m tough and I’m fair,” she said Monday night at a well-attended fundraiser at the East Memphis home of GOP County Commissioner Brandon Morrison and her husband Joe. “And I’m never gonna apologize for being tough on crime. And if you want a D.A. that’s not going to fight for victims, that ain’t me. I’ll tell you that right here and right now.”

Mulroy sees things differently. At a pair of fundraisers he held this past week, at the home of Shawn and Shawna Lynch and the Donati Law Firm, he scourged Weirich for what he sees as her undue emphasis on locking offenders up as hype arrest statistics and her failure, as he said in his announcement remarks, to pursue “a conviction review unit like one now operating in Davidson County, an emphasis on justice rather than simply winning verdicts, sequestration of juveniles from adult offenders, and reform of what he called ‘bail inflation.’”

Without naming Mulroy, Weirich singled out this last point on Monday night: “I am not your D.A. if you want someone to commit to letting everyone out without bond. That is not the solution. We saw a little bit of that during the pandemic. And what happened to our crime rate is, it went up.”

Of course, Mulroy maintains, as he did at the Lynch fundraiser, that the Shelby County crime rate, violent crime in particular, “has gone up consistently every year under Weirich’s administration after having slowed down just before she took office.”

Another point of contention between them concerns what Weirich expresses this way: “Much of what frustrates the community right now and has for many years are the laws and the way the system is designed to let people out too soon, and add a disrespectful rate to the victims of those crimes. We need truth in sentencing.”

Mulroy opposes that notion and sees flexibility in incarceration procedures as ways both of applying pure and fair-minded justice and avoiding the indiscriminate long-term pile-up of bodies that, he says, turns prisons into crime schools.

All this being said, we aren’t yet in the general election. Weirich seems so far to be home free in the Republican primary, with no opponents. Mulroy, on the other hand, has two primary opponents, Linda Harris and Janika White, each seemingly well-credentialed enough to make a case for herself. They’re not crazy about Weirich’s record, either.

Categories
News The Fly-By

Shelby County D.A’s Office Prepares Defense on Ethics Charges

Two of Shelby County’s top prosecutors fired back last week at a state board that claims both should be disciplined for breaking ethics rules in the 2009 murder trial of Noura Jackson.

Shelby County District Attorney General Amy Weirich and Assistant District Attorney Stephen P. Jones were both targeted for discipline by the Tennessee Supreme Court’s Board of Professional Responsibility (TBPR) in January. The Tennessee Supreme Court admits attorneys to practice law in the state, and its TBPR oversees and disciplines those attorneys for violations.

The TBPR opened investigations on Weirich and Jones in 2014. In a January 2016 petition, it claimed that Weirich violated Jackson’s constitutional right to silence in her trial when Weirich implored Jackson: “Just tell us where you were! That’s all we’re asking, Noura!”

Screenshot from video of the Jackson trial

The TBPR found that Jones withheld a key witness statement during the trial, evidence that could have helped Jackson’s defense. Both of these infractions swayed the jury’s decision in the trial, according to the TBPR, and might have unnecessarily sent Jackson to prison.

Jackson’s defense attorneys have said Weirich’s statement poisoned the jury against Jackson, as it appeared that Jackson did not want to answer Weirich’s question. Weirich said she was only reciting testimony from a witness in the trial, which is allowed by court rules.

In ordering Jackson a new trial in 2014, Tennessee Supreme Justice Cornelia Clark wrote that the statement withheld by Jones could have been used by Jackson’s attorneys “to bolster its attack upon the thoroughness of the police investigation and to argue” that the statement could have pointed to another suspect. Jones said while he did withhold the statement, he didn’t do it intentionally.

Both Weirich and Jones filed formal responses to the TBPR in the past two weeks. Both said they should not be punished by the TBPR. Both said they will not accept the board’s recommended discipline, a censure, which is a public rebuke of their actions that comes with some small fees and fines but no suspension of their law licenses.

Both said they will, instead, fight the rulings altogether in separate hearings that work much like criminal trials with witness testimony, evidence, and attorneys. The hearings are not open to the public. Taking the cases to trial, in essence, could result in harsher punishments for Weirich and Jones.

“No court has ever stated that Ms. Weirich acted with intent or was guilty of any ethical misconduct,” wrote Weirich’s attorney Jef Feibelman in his response to the TBPR. “Explicitly and implicitly they have found otherwise.”

Jones said he got the witness statement during the trial and put it in the flap of a trial notebook and forgot about it, though he did mean to turn the evidence over to Jackson’s attorneys. Jones’ attorney Brian Faughnan argued Jones’ action was “unintentional and inadvertent.” As such, he said it would be unfair to so strictly enforce court rules against Jones for an “innocent” mistake.

Jones’ attorney said that the trial caused “significant, atypical stress to Mr. Jones that impacted his health” and asked the board to consider this as a mitigating factor in their case against him.