PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Transcription

1 E-Filed Document May :16: CT SCT Pages: 9 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI WILLIAM MICHAEL JORDAN A/K/A BOOTY VS. APPELLANT NO KA COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI CHARLES W. WRIGHT, JR. (MSB No. 7395) REBECCA TAFF WRIGHT (MSB No ) CHARLES W. WRIGHT, JR., PLLC POST OFFICE BOX ND AVENUE MERIDIAN, MS (601) ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS... i PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI... 1 ISSUES FOR CERTIFICATION REVIEW... 2 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES ON APPEAL BY JORDAN... 2 ARGUMENT... 3 CONCLUSION... 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE... 7 i

3 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI WILLIAM MICHAEL JORDAN A/K/A BOOTY VS. APPELLANT NO KA COA STATE OF MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI COMES NOW THE APPELLANT, William Michael Jordan a/k/a Booty, by and through counsel, and petitions this Court, pursuant to Rules 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Mississippi Rules of Appellate Procedure, to grant certiorari review of the Mississippi Court of Appeals December 8, 2015 Decision and in support thereof would show unto this Honorable Court the following: On December 8, 2015, the Mississippi Court of Appeals affirmed the Trial Court s conviction and sentence of Appellant William Jordan in Count I, murder and Count IV, felon in possession of a firearm and sentenced in Count I to thirty-five (35) years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections with five (5) years suspended and thirty (30) years to serve, followed by five (5) year s supervised post release supervision and then five (5) years unsupervised post release supervision, and in Count IV to Ten (10) years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, to be served concurrently with the sentence in Count I. The Court of Appeals Opinion and Judgment is attached hereto as Appendix A. The Appellant s Motion for Rehearing was filed on December 18, 2015, a copy of the Appellant s Motion for Rehearing is attached hereto as Appendix B. 1

4 The Court of Appeals denied the Appellant s Motion for Rehearing on May 3, 2016, a copy of the Court of Appeals notice denying the Motion for Rehearing is attached hereto as Appendix C. The Appellant has exhausted all of the Appellate Court remedies and petitions this Honorable Supreme Court of the State of Mississippi pursuant to Miss. R. App. P. Rule 17. ISSUES FOR CERTIFICATION REVIEW I. The Court of Appeals Decision conflicts with the prior decision of Brooks v. State, 903 So. 2d 691, (Miss. 2005) for the proposition that in that case, the Mississippi Supreme Court held that it was reversible error to admit evidence of rap lyrics discussing murder. II. The case involves fundamental evidentiary issues and important questions of trial procedure that require review to prevent future conflicts. III. The admission of the rap video denied Jordan a constitutionally guaranteed fair trial. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES ON APPEAL BY JORDAN I. Whether the trial court erred by admitting the YouTube video into evidence, including opinion testimony concerning the YouTube Video. A. Whether the trial court erred by admitting YouTube video, without viewing it or conducting a balancing test as to prejudicial effect versus probative value, and overruling continuous objections of Defendant based on hearsay, relevance, and admissibility under M.R.E B. Whether the trial court erred by admitting YouTube video into evidence without proper authentication by prosecution, with only verification by the investigator based on hearsay. The prejudicial effect outweighed any probative value. C. Whether the trial court erred by allowing the prosecution to present opinions of investigator Knight concerning the truthfulness of witnesses hearsay testimony, and opinion testimony concerning the YouTube video. 2

5 III. Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Verdicts in Counts I and IV of the Indictment; The Verdicts are strongly against the overwhelming weight of the evidence in this case and the Verdicts evidenced bias and prejudice against the Defendant. ARGUMENT The case involves novel evidentiary issues concerning the admission of the rap video, trial procedure, and preservation of objections requiring evidentiary standards for admission of evidence through social media, tweeting, s and rap YouTube videos. The Dissent of the Court of Appeals, written by Judge Fair, succinctly outlines the facts as follows: See Court of Appeals Opinion (attached as Appendix A) (hereafter Ct. App. Op. ) at ( 63-68). The case against Appellant Jordan consisted of the accounts of two witnesses, Smith and Baker, both of whom fingered Jordan long after the fact and then only after being arrested themselves. There was no physical evidence implicating Jordan, nor was any murder weapon recovered. Id. at 26 ( 63). During the trial the prosecution was allowed to bolster its case through the extensive use of a rap video featuring one of Jordan s co-defendants, Charles Henderson. The video - in which Jordan played only a minor part was a song where the narrators violently threatened, and then killed, an old friend who had turned state s evidence. Id. at 26 ( 64). The prosecution never proved that the video was intended to threaten the witnesses in this case. The video contains no explicit threats against the witnesses and the song contains myriad details that do not match the facts of the case. It was never shown when the video was made. Id. at 26 ( 65). The trial court allowed the video into evidence without, so far as the record reveals, actually watching it. Instead, he relied on the testimony of a police investigator as to the 3

6 contents testimony which, viewed in the best possible light, consisted of errors, exaggerations, and unsubstantiated opinions. At worst, the investigator just lied about what the video showed. Throughout the trial, the prosecution made inflammatory and highly prejudicial claims about the video that turned out to be unsubstantiated. Id. at 26 ( 66). The majority affirmed Jordan s conviction based on the assertion of a procedural bar. Although Jordan s attorney could have objected more forcefully and articulately, he did present all of the necessary arguments to the trial court. With all due respect to the majority, allowing the video and accompanying testimony into evidence was clearly error, and it was preserved for appeal. Id. at ( 67). The admission of the video and the associated, unfounded allegations of the prosecutors denied Jordan a fair trial. I would reverse his conviction and remand for a new trial. Id. at 27 ( 68). On behalf of William Michael Jordan, Appellant, one could make no better legal, articulated, forceful and succinct arguments as stated in the Dissent incorporated herein. See Ct. App. Op. Dissent at ( ). CONCLUSION As stated in the Ct. App. Op. Dissent at ( ), the video was allowed into evidence based on false or misleading testimony, and the prosecution failed to ever establish the proper predicate to introduce it under Rule 404(b). The prosecutor repeatedly claimed, without any evidence, that the video was made after the killing for which Jordan was on trial and that it was a threat against the witnesses. The video is violent and offensive, and it appears to show Jordan associating with drug dealers, using drugs himself, and endorsing violent retribution against witnesses. The prosecutor even used it to insinuate that Jordan was 4

7 a gang member, that he was sending coded signals, and that he was behind an anonymous threat to one of the witnesses (which was, itself, improperly allowed into evidence). It was capped off by Jordan being unfairly cross-examined about the song s vulgar and violent lyrics, line by line. The cumulative harm of these errors is overwhelming, and the error was preserved for appeal. Id. at 43 ( 109). Jordan was tried and convicted solely on the word of two witnesses who did not implicate him until more than a year after Coleman s death, and only after being arrested themselves. Smith s testimony might even be viewed as exculpatory although he claimed to have seen Jordan with a gun before and after the shot, he did not see the shot itself, and when he looked back after hearing it, Jordan was much too far away from the victim to have inflicted a contact wound, as described by the medical examiner. Even Baker (who did claim to have seen the shot) put Jordan too far away to have inflicted a contact would, a serious inconsistency given the absence of evidence corroborating Baker s story. Id. at ( 110). The prosecution s improper bolstering of its case with the rap video denied Jordan a fair trial. Id. at 44 ( 111). William Michael Jordan, Appellant, respectfully submits that the propositions and authorities cited and briefed above warrant certiorari review of the Court of Appeals decision in this case pursuant to Rules 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Mississippi Rules of Appellate Procedure. Accordingly, Jordan requests this Court to grant certiorari review and remand this case for a new trial. 5

8 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, this the 11 th day of May, WILLIAM MICHAEL JORDAN, APPELLANT BY: /s/charles W. Wright, Jr. CHARLES W. WRIGHT, JR. (MSB No. 7395) REBECCA TAFF WRIGHT (MSB No ) CHARLES W. WRIGHT, JR., PLLC POST OFFICE BOX 1677 MERIDIAN, MS (601) ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT 6

9 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby certify that I have on the 11 th day of May, 2016, I electronically filed the above and foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using the MEC system, which sent notification of such filing to the following: Hon. Jim Hood Attorney General P.O. Box 220 Jackson, MS John R. Henry, Jr. Office of the Attorney General P.O. Box 220 Jackson, MS Further, I hereby certify that on this day I have mailed by United States Postal Service the document to the following non-mec participants: Hon. E.J. Bilbo Mitchell District Attorney P.O. Box 5172 Meridian, MS Hon. Robert W. Bailey Lauderdale County Circuit Court Judge P.O. Box 1167 Meridian, MS This the 11 th day of May, /s/charles W. Wright, Jr. CHARLES W. WRIGHT, JR. (MSB No. 7395) REBECCA TAFF WRIGHT (MSB No ) CHARLES W. WRIGHT, JR., PLLC POST OFFICE BOX 1677 MERIDIAN, MS (601) ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT 7