Skip to comments.Miss. Supreme Court To Take Over Pardons Case (Feb 9)
Posted on 02/02/2012 4:49:04 AM PST by WKB
JACKSON, Miss. -- The Mississippi Supreme Court will hear arguments next week about whether several pardons issued by former Gov. Haley Barbour violated the state constitution.
In a ruling issued Wednesday, the state high court granted a request from attorneys representing four pardoned former Governor's Mansion trusties to move the case from the Hinds County Circuit Court.
Attorney General Jim Hood has argued that pardons issued by Barbour, including those granted to convicted murders David Gatlin, Charles Hooker, Anthony McCray, Joseph Ozment and convicted robber Nathan Kern, violated a state constitutional requirement that notice be posted for 30 days in the newspapers representing the area where the crimes were committed.
Attorneys for Gatlin, Hooker, McCray and Kern all asked that the Mississippi Supreme Court consider the case rather than the lower court.
The justices will hear arguments on Feb. 9 in Jackson.
"Which is an extremely accelerated schedule," said Mississippi College School of Law professor Matt Steffey.
A hearing that was scheduled for Friday before Hinds County Circuit Court Judge Tomie Green has been canceled, court officials said.
I've heard of Miss America, Miss (fill in the State), but Miss Supreme Court?
Please ... NO pictures.
Talk to WAPT all I do is copy and paste.I paste you decide. :>)
I’m almost curious enough to research what the Mississippi Constitution has to say about pardons.
Stayed tuned to this thread for the results!!!
In all criminal and penal cases, excepting those of treason and impeachment, the governor shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons
All of it?
Seems to me that Mr. Barbour had the power to pardon every single resident of the state, all the inmates in the prisons, all the speeders shuffling though traffic court, all “persons of interest” in crimes that haven't been solved yet, and all the innocent newborn babies inclusive.
Start the whole state off with a clean slate.
And nobody’s got to like it.
There is a little more at the link about the 30 day rule. But the argument is the pardon covers that to.
In all criminal and penal cases, excepting those of treason and impeachment, the governor shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons, to remit fines, and in cases of forfeiture, to stay the collection until the end of the next session of the legislature, and by and with the consent of the senate to remit forfeitures. In cases of treason he shall have power to grant reprieves, and by and with consent of the senate, but may respite the sentence until the end of the next session of the legislature; but no pardon shall be granted before conviction; and in cases of felony, after conviction no pardon shall be granted until the applicant therefor shall have published for thirty days, in some newspaper in the county where the crime was committed, and in case there be no newspaper published in said county, then in an adjoining county, his petition for pardon, setting forth therein the reasons why such pardon should be granted.
So...no mention of the fact that Hood, the attorney general, advised Barbour’s office on the pardons? Before he sued?