 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Stewart v. District Attorney for the Eighteenth Circuit Court District for the State of Mississippi8/23/2005
Stewart only told the sheriff's officers in both Orleans Parish and Jones County that he had never been to Jones County, Mississippi. Each time he expressed this to the officers, they told him to tell the judge or tell someone who was in a position to remedy the situation. Stewart failed to do this. The only individual who had any indication that there could potentially be a problem was Riley. Riley testified that he never went to see Stewart while he was incarcerated because Riley was aware that Stewart was represented, or soon to be represented, by counsel. Riley stated that he would be unable to speak to Stewart if he was represented so he never had an opportunity to see the individual incarcerated. Riley testified to this fact as follows:
Q: I was going to ask you, between March the 6th and March the 9th, before he had his preliminary hearing, did you attempt to go talk to him?
A: I didn't attempt to go talk to him because I knew he had an attorney. Once he got in our jail, we found out that he had - - he was gonna hire his own attorney, so I never talked to him.
Q: Did you go back and check any of the other files?
A: No. There was no reason to.
Q: You sure you had the right man?
A: At that time I was sure it was the right man.
. Based upon Stewart's actions, and the information known to the district attorney's office, it cannot be stated that any of the actions taken were unreasonable. With the public policy consideration in mind, which calls for a prosecutor's ability to practice law without the constant fear of being sued, as well as Stewart's conduct, to hold the district attorney liable for the actions in this case would be an unjust result. As expressed by the Fifth Circuit, "A constitutional violation does not occur every time someone feels that they have been wronged or treated unfairly." Sanchez, 139 F.3d at 467 (quoting Shinn ex rel. Shinn v. College Station Indep. Sch. Dist., 96 F.3d 783, 786 (5th Cir. 1996)). The case sub judice is one such instance. Therefore, the defense of qualified immunity is applicable and the district attorney's office has incurred no liability to Stewart.
. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JONES COUNTY GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO THE APPELLANT.
KING, C.J., LEE, P.J., CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, AND BARNES, JJ., CONCUR.
IRVING, J., DISSENTS WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION JOINED BY BRIDGES, P.J., AND ISHEE, J.
IRVING, J., DISSENTING
. I cannot agree with the majority that Gary Stewart's due process rights were not violated. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.
. In 1998, Stewart, who is black and lives in Louisiana, was indicted on ten counts of false pretense stemming from a check writing spree in which a white male using Stewart's identity passed several worthless checks in and around Laurel, Mississippi. At the time of the indictment, the district attorney's office had a picture of the white male posing as Gary Stewart. This picture was in the files of the district attorney's office when Stewart was arrested in New Orleans, Louisiana on February 24, 2000, pursuant to a capias issued by the Circuit Court of Jones County on February 27, 1998, and on March 31, 1998.
. When Stewart was arrested on February 24 2000, the Louisiana authorities advised the Mississippi authorities that the Gary Stewart whom the Louisiana authorities had arrested did not have the same birth date as the Gary Stewart who was the subject of the arrest warrant. Melvin Riley, the chief investigator for the district attorney's office, was one of the Mississippi autho
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Mississippi Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|