 |
 |
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
s that Stewart should have protested loudly at his arraignment that he was not the Gary Stewart who was being sought by the Jones County authorities. Well, I do not know how Stewart could have been more eloquent or clear than he was when, at his arraignment, he answered "not guilty" when the court asked him how did he plead to the charges. After all, he had protested, to no avail, to the arresting authorities in Louisiana and to the Jones County sheriff deputy that he did not commit the acts and had never been in Mississippi. What else could be reasonably required of Stewart, a law abiding citizen, who had no familiarity with the criminal justice system. Are some citizens required to prove their innocence, or is the state required to prove the guilt of all citizens? The majority improperly focuses on Stewart's inactions when the focus should be on the inactions of the district attorney's office which was callously indifferent to the rights of this black individual.
. It appears to me that there is certainly a material issue of fact as to whether the actions of the district attorney's office constitute simple negligence or gross negligence. Thus, the final question is whether the district attorney and his assistants are immune from liability under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act notwithstanding their possible gross negligence in this case.
. The majority agrees with the circuit court that immunity is appropriate. The circuit court found that Stewart's claims are "barred by the doctrine of governmental immunity, judicial immunity and/or sovereign immunity and [that the district attorney] is exempt from liability under the provisions of Miss. Code Ann. ยง 11-46-9(1)(a)(b)(c)(d) and (f)."
. The referenced code section and subsections state:
(1) A governmental entity and its employees acting within the course and scope of their employment or duties shall not be liable for any claim:
(a) Arising out of a legislative or judicial action or inaction, or administrative action or inaction of a legislative or judicial nature;
(b) Arising out of any act or omission of an employee of a governmental entity exercising ordinary care in reliance upon, or in the execution or performance of, or in the failure to execute or perform, a statute, or ordinance or regulation, whether or not the statute, ordinance or regulation be valid;
(c) Arising out of any act or omission of an employee of a governmental entity engaged in the performance or execution of duties or activities relating to police or fire protection unless the employee acted in reckless disregard of the safety and well-being of any person not engaged in criminal activity at the time of injury;
(d) Based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a governmental entity or employee thereof, whether or not the discretion be abused;
(f) Which is limited or barred by the provisions of any other law;
. It is readily apparent that subsection (a) is inapplicable. The arrest of Stewart, based on inaccurate data, does not arise out of a legislative or judicial action or an administrative action or inaction of a legislative or judicial nature. While there was a warrant issued for a Gary Stewart, it was a warrant for a Gary Stewart with a birth date of May 3, 1959, not for a Gary Stewart with a birth date of June 12, 1967. More importantly, even conceding arguendo that the arrest may have arisen out of a judicial action, it was not the initial arrest but the illegal continued detention of Stewart that gave rise to this cause of action. Had the district attorney adequately investi
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.
|
|