Mississippi Criminal Defense Law Blog

Criminal Law News Update

Kevin W Frye — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 12:44:00 GMT

On Tuesday The Daily Mississippian ran this story detailing recent events in a case in which I am involved. The headline reads "Ole Miss student found innocent."

Crime Lab Analysis and Trials

Kevin W Frye — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 16:50:00 GMT

Yesterday the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, read it here. The decision will have a major impact on criminal trials in Mississippi involving crime lab data, as the court, in an opinion penned by Justice Scalia, held that crime lab certificates may not be admitted as evidence against a defendant without the accompanying testimony of the analyst.

The legal issue here is the defendant's right to confront his accuser set forth in the 6th Amendment. The 6th Amendment states the following:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

The clause emphasized above is commonly called the "confrontation clause." The Supreme Court based Melendez-Diaz on its previous ruling in Crawford v. Washington which held that "a witness’s testimony against a defendant is...inadmissible unless the witness appears at trial or, if the witness is unavailable, the defendant had a prior opportunity for cross-examination."

It is common practice in many Mississippi courts to admit the crime lab report without testimony from the analyst. In some courts, if the defendant requests the analyst be present to testify the court orders that defendant to pay for the analyst's time. The ruling in Melendez-Diaz places this burden on the State by holding that the prosecutor must produce the analyst for cross-examination.

See additional commentary from the SCOTUS Blog here and the Wall Street Journal Law Blog here.

We already knew this, but still...

Kevin W Frye — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 13:08:00 GMT

...I was surprised to find a police chief willing to admit tickets were being written to assist a city budget during the economic downturn. This story from the Clarion Ledger today details the Petal Police Chief's disagreement with the Petal Mayor and Board of Aldermen, an excerpt:

Police Chief Lee Shelbourn said Monday he was told to double the number of citations and set up more roadblocks to help ease Petal's budget crisis.
But Mayor Carl Scott and the Board of Aldermen deny giving such instructions.
Shelbourn would not disclose who gave him the instructions. He said his department did as it was told but isn't planning to do it anymore.
"The Police Department is not supposed to be a money-making organization," he said. "Our purpose is to provide public safety to the citizens of Petal ... to where they can feel safe at night."
The denials from the city administration came swiftly after Shelbourn's comments were posted Monday at www.hattiesburgamerican.com.
"Nobody can tell the chief what to do by state law," said Mayor Carl Scott. "Anybody can have discussions with him, but you can't tell him what to do."

The reality of traffic tickets being used to pad local government budgets isn't surprising, but it is surprising and refreshing to see a local dispute of this sort detailed in the news.

The Local Voice: Local Favorites Awards 2009

Kevin W Frye — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 13:51:00 GMT

Stepping slightly off topic for today, I want to express my appreciation to the readers of The Local Voice for recognition in the Local Favorites Awards 2009. I was interested to see the tie with Oxford's most infamous attorney, but happy for the good company of Tom Freeland, aka "NMC", Jay Carmean, Rosy Posey and Lucky atop the favorite attorney category. I see many friends on the list in a variety of categories - I encourage you to review the listings for yourself. Congratulations to all the favorites, and special shout-out to Holli's Sweet Tooth, winner of the Dessert category and home of the best lemon sorbet in town!

ATTORNEY
1. (TIE!) Dickie Scruggs, Kevin W. Frye (13%)
2. Tom Freeland (10%)
3. Jay Carmine (8%)
Rosamond Posey (5%)
Lucky Tucker (5%)

Mississippi's Constitutional Right to Bail

Kevin W Frye — Wed, 13 May 2009 16:11:00 GMT

I have discussed the routine steps of a criminal prosecution in a previous post: If I am arrested for a crime, what happens to me next? Generally, after being arrested, the first concern of a person accused of a felony is making bail. The setting of bail following arrest is controlled by the Constitution of the State of Mississippi. Specifically, Article 3, Section 29 provides that:

Excessive bail shall not be required, and all persons shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, except for capital offenses (a) when the proof is evident or presumption great; or (b) when the person has previously been convicted of a capital offense or any other offense punishable by imprisonment for a maximum of twenty (20) years or more.

The Mississippi Supreme Court has held that "[t]he constitutional right to bail before conviction has become so fundamental that it is favored by the public policy of the state." Lee v. Lawson, 375 So.2d 1019 (Miss. 1979). The Court has also held that the purpose of bail bonds is to insure the defendant's presence at trial, and has listed nine factors which are to be taken into account by the lower court when considering bond, those being:

the seriousness of the crime charged;
the extent of punishment by Mississippi statute;
criminal record and record on bail, if any;
reputation and mental condition;
length of residence in the community;
family ties and relationships;
employment status and record of employment and financial condition;
the identity of responsible members of the community who would vouch for his reliability; and
any other factors that bear on the defendant's mode of life or ties to the community which would involve his failure to appear.

Ex parte Dennis, 334 So. 2D 369, 373-74 (Miss. 1976). Additionally, the Dennis Court stated “[t]he justifiable premise for bail is that its denial punishes prior to a guilty verdict while an accused is clothed with the presumption of innocence.” Id. at 371. Thus, in the vast majority of circumstances an accused is given a bond amount and when that amount is posted is freed on bail until the next court date.

Arizona v. Gant: Supreme Court ups 4th Amendment Standard in Vehicle Searches

Kevin W Frye — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 15:46:24 GMT

Yesterday the Supreme Court of the United States scaled back exceptions to the 4th Amendment granting police the authority to search a vehicle without a warrant following the arrest of a suspect. In Arizona v. Gant, found here, the Supreme Court addressed a scenario where the suspect "was arrested for driving with a suspended license, handcuffed, and locked in the back of a patrol car, police officers searched his car and discovered cocaine in the pocket of a jacket on the backseat."

The issue before the Court was whether this warrantless search fell within any of the existing exceptions to the 4th Amendment ("The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."). Justice Stevens, writing for the majority, held that previous exceptions to the 4th Amendment do "not authorize a vehicle search incident to a recent occupant’s arrest after the arrestee has been secured and cannot access the interior of the vehicle."

For additional analysis and commentary on the opinion visit Simple Justice, Defending People, and a public defender.

DUI while driving a bar stool...

Kevin W Frye — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 14:38:00 GMT

...it can happen in Ohio. The story can be found here, on thesmokinggun.com, which reports "Ohio cops this month arrested a man for drunk driving on a motorized bar stool. That's right, a motorized bar stool..." The picture is priceless.

While there are quite a few funny DUI stories, the reality is that there are a number of consequences if you are convicted of driving under the influence in Mississippi. Always know your rights, and be aware of what the police are looking for in a typical DUI traffic stop.

Eyewitness Identification - Imperfect to say the least...

Kevin W Frye — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 16:31:00 GMT

I happened upon this fascinating read on Slate today. An excerpt:

Describe the last person who served you a coffee. What if I helped refresh your memory? Showed you some photos of local baristas? Pulled together a helpful lineup? Cheered exuberantly when you picked the "right" one? Now imagine that instead of identifying the person who made your venti latte last week, we had just worked together to nail a robber or a rapist. Imagine how good we would feel. Now imagine what would happen if we were wrong.
Last month, a Texas judge cleared Timothy Cole of the aggravated sexual assault conviction that sent him to prison in 1986. Although his victim positively identified him three times—twice in police lineups and again at trial—Cole was ultimately exonerated by DNA testing. The real rapist, Jerry Wayne Johnson, had been confessing to the crime since 1995. Unfortunately, Cole died in prison in 1999, long before his name was cleared.

Our eyes deceive us. Social scientists have insisted for decades that our eyewitness identification process is unreliable at best and can be the cause of grievous injustice. A study published last month by Gary Wells and Deah Quinlivan in Law and Human Behavior, the journal of the American Psychology-Law Society, reveals just how often those injustices occur: Of the more than 230 people in the United States who were wrongfully convicted and later exonerated by DNA evidence, approximately 77 percent involved cases of mistaken eyewitness identification, more than any other single factor.

The story doesn't qualify as news, as the data has been known for some time. But it is an interesting analysis of one flaw in our justice system and a reminder to us all that reasonable doubt isn't always reasonable. I recommend reading the entire piece.

Mississippi Criminal Law News Roundup

Kevin W Frye — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 13:33:00 GMT

This month has been busy for me, so I've neglected the blog a bit. While I've been working a number of interesting stories have emerged in Mississippi criminal law. They have all been covered elsewhere, so here's a quick roundup.

First, Scruggs II (if you don't know what this is you should take some time to learn) has had a great number of very interesting developments, including guilty pleas, sentencings and a new indictment. Check out the archives at folo for all the news and informed commentary you can handle.

Second, a Jackson blogger has been keeping tabs on a local Lafayette County Assistant District Attorney. Check out Jim Craig's World and his interesting posts, (1), (2) and (3), on Lafayette County ADA Tom Levidiotis.

Finally, Jim Craig's World has also picked up on one of my posts from November where I discussed the "Mississippi Department of Corrections, Budget Cuts & Plea Negotiations". He posts here about a recent court ruling which may require California to release a large percentage of its prison population due to overcrowding. That post is followed by one which reviews my discussion of the Mississippi prison population, here.

Happy reading!

Incarceration Policy and the Justice System

Kevin W Frye — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 03:32:00 GMT

The American Bar Association has published this essay discussing America's ever-expanding prison population and its negative impact on the justice system. An excerpt:

At midyear 2007, U.S. prisons and jails held 2,299,116 inmates, meaning more than 1 percent of American adults were incarcerated. We top the world in per capita imprisonment, increasing our lead every year. Since 2000, while the total U.S. population increased by 7 percent, our prison population has grown by 19 percent. Our massive imprisonment costs needless billions and, perversely, hinders effective crime control. We need to reduce our prison population...

A rational criminal justice system would—while shortening sentences of certain offenders—keep others out of prison altogether. With alternative treatments and punishments, a state shrinks its prison budget, allows convicts to keep their jobs and support their families, and makes recidivism less likely.

But alternative programs work only when properly funded. A state spending every dollar on prisons may think it cannot afford drug treatment programs and fully staffed probation offices, especially when the economy demands budget cuts. The opposite is true: States cannot afford to neglect these programs or they will pay down the road tenfold—in prison costs, welfare budgets and elsewhere. Beyond monetary costs, citizens will suffer needless increased crime when offenders who never belonged behind bars eventually return to the community more dangerous than before...

My previous post, Mississippi Department of Corrections, Budget Cuts & Plea Negotiations, addressed the expense of incarceration in Mississippi as opposed to alternative methods of punishment, and detailed the Mississippi Department of Corrections' new cost-saving measures. Let us hope that as our country grows older and wiser our thoughts on criminal punishment continue to mature as well.

Mississippi Legislature Considers Ignition Interlock Devices For DUI First Offense

Kevin W Frye — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 02:31:00 GMT

Pressured by MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Drivers), the Mississippi Legislature is considering a bill which would mandate ignition interlock devices as a penalty for a first-offense DUI conviction. MADD is known to advocate over the top penalties for drinking and driving, and forced installation of ignition interlock devices is more of the same. The Commercial Appeal has this story, an excerpt:

First-time convicted drunken drivers would have to install devices on their vehicles that would prevent them from driving if they are legally drunk under a bill unveiled Wednesday.

Current Mississippi law requires the ignition interlock devices for second and subsequent drunken driving convictions. The legislation would require the devices after a motorist's first drunken-driving conviction.

Ignition interlock devices don't work, and they are a poor policy solution. What's to stop a person with a DUI conviction from driving a different vehicle?

New Racial Profiling Law in Mississippi?

Kevin W Frye — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 13:26:00 GMT

The Mississippi Legislature is considering a law which would ban racial profiling in Mississippi (the ACLU has this information describing racial profiling). The proposed legislation would impose a fine up to $1,000.00 and/or prison sentence up to 1 year upon officers who engage in racial profiling and would require law enforcement agencies to "keep accurate records of all traffic stops and detentions identifying the reasons for the stops and the race of the person being stopped or detained."

The Clarion Ledger has this article - some excerpts:

Several Mississippians told a state House panel Tuesday they had been victims of racial profiling and asked legislators to toughen laws against the practice.

Two metro-area police chiefs testified they believe racial profiling is occurring in the state, while Jackson's chief questioned the need for legislators' involvement.

"A lot of folks think just because they've not experienced it, it doesn't exist," said House Judiciary B Committee chairman Willie Bailey, D-Greenville.

Mississippi is one of about 25 states with no law on racial profiling. Others have laws that define the practice, and some mandate that law enforcement keep traffic stop records that include the race of those who are stopped and searched by police.

Ridgeland Police Chief Jimmy Houston, who is white, and Canton Police Chief Robert Winn, who is black, both testified they believe racial profiling is a problem in Mississippi.

"We can't deny the fact that it's happening," said Winn, whose own department faced allegations of profiling in 2004 when an officer was accused of shaking down Hispanic residents for money. The officer eventually pleaded guilty to extortion.

Houston said he has conducted two officer investigations in the past six months related to profiling. "The last one has resulted in the dismissal of a young officer," he said.

The Legislature should be commended for discussing this critical issue.

Subscribe to the Mississippi Criminal Defense Law Blog

Kevin W Frye — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 04:34:00 GMT

For those who are regular readers, or semi-regular readers, or maybe those who simply happen across the blog once and think I might post something of interest in the future...I'd suggest that you enter your email address in the "Subscribe" box near the top of the page. Each new post will be delivered to your email address for you to read at your leisure. If you use an RSS reader this is certainly not necessary, but if you have no idea what an RSS reader is I'd suggest that the simple step of subscribing to the blog is the easiest way to stay current on my posts.

Mississippi Forfeiture Law

Kevin W Frye — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 03:46:00 GMT

My criminal practice includes a number of felony drug cases - defendants charged with possession, possession with intent, or sale of a controlled substance. Often these cases come with an added twist. A forfeiture proceeding. Mississippi law allows a wide variety of property to be seized, and potentially forfeited, when it is alleged to be connected with a violation of controlled substances laws. To effect a forfeiture the State must essentially prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that an item of property was "used" or "intended to be used" in violation of the law.

Some items of property subject to forfeiture are intuitive - drugs, drug containers, paraphernalia and items used to manufacture drugs are all routinely forfeited. However, some items are more difficult to understand. For example - vehicles, money, books and real estate. The Clarion Ledger recently published an article describing the forfeiture successes of the Hattiesburg Police Department, found here. An excerpt:

The Hattiesburg Police Department has picked up about $1.4 million in forfeiture money over the past several years.
Documents show the department used the money for new vehicles and other equipment, along with training materials and machinery tools...

The department received the most forfeiture revenue in the 2007 fiscal year - $473,625.

In 2006, HPD saw $386,626 in forfeiture funds, preceded by $162,716 in 2005 and $237,852 in 2004.

Revenue decreased during the 2008 fiscal year to $120,759.

For the current fiscal year, which began Oct. 1 and ends Sept. 30, the department has received $7,890, according to the most recent numbers.

"These funds don't replace our agency's normal budget (but) may be used for any law enforcement purpose," Misenhelter said.

The funds are a tremendous help, especially with the recent state budget cuts, said Hattiesburg City Council President Kim Bradley.

The policy of forfeiture raises a number of thorny issues. One of the biggest surrounds the inherent conflict that arises when forfeited property directly benefits the officers making the seizure. The substantial property and funds seized by law enforcement in many instances are used to buy equipment for those very officers. And those nice cars you see being driven by police, the Camaros and Escalades, forfeited property.

Certainly then it is not in the best interest of law enforcement to admit that any particular seizure was errant, especially during this difficult economic climate. That much is made clear by the Hattiesburg City Council President's quote above. Further, the law itself encourages prosecutorial overreach by incorporating the "intended to be used" language. Almost any scenario involving a vehicle or cash can easily lend itself to a State argument that the property was "intended to be used" in violation of the law.

The Critical Decision: Trial or Guilty Plea?

Kevin W Frye — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 23:57:00 GMT

I've been following an interesting and most important discussion between some fellow criminal law bloggers. The issue is the sentencing disparity following a guilty plea as opposed to following trial. Those involved in the criminal law system are well aware of this practice - prosecutors routinely recommend plea deals far superior (if less time = superior) to those recommended following a guilty verdict at trial. Scott Greenfield aptly describes the issue on his blog Simple Justice, an excerpt:

Theoretically, a person should not be penalized for the exercise of a constitutional right, for to do so would be to undermine and negate the existence of that right. But how then can one explain why the same person, whose alleged criminal conduct is well known to prosecutor and judge alike in advance of trial, is offered a sentence of 5 years (for example) before trial, but should he lose at trial, will be sentenced to 20 years? The only intervening event is a trial, a right guaranteed by the 8th Amendment to the Constitution. The defendant has done nothing more than fulfill his duty as an American by putting the government to its proof...

...Systemically, courts cannot admit that there is such a thing as the trial penalty, for to do so would be to concede that the system is inherently wrong and, indeed, unconstitutional. But as we all know, it's real, it's there and it's a possibly the most significant part of the discussion between lawyer and client about whether to plead guilty or go to trial. So when our "tough on crime" politicians and their supporters demand ever-increasing sentences of incarceration, it would behoove them to consider that these aren't really the sentences that judges are expected to impose, despite all the ugly rhetoric about how we need to lock people away forever to protect ourselves and our children. Rather, the top sentence is the wedge to be used to strike fear in the hearts of defendant[s], guilty and innocent alike, to forgo the exercise of their right to trial and, should they lose, be compelled to pay the trial penalty.

I recommend Scott's entire piece, found here. As for the effect of this practice locally - the Lafayette County Circuit Court has disposed of more than sixty felony cases in the past six working days without a single trial. Every case has been disposed of by plea. This can primarily be attributed to the hiring of a new Assistant District Attorney and the announced policy of plead now or go to trial and expect a recommendation of the maximum punishment thereafter. I agree with Scott's conclusion:

...our system imposes a very hefty penalty on the defendant who seeks to put the government to its proof, with no cognizable purpose other than to dissuade a defendant from doing so. The sad fact is that many defendant[s], indeed most, will decide against "rolling the dice" by going to trial, even though they may be innocent or have a good defense, because of the enormous cost of losing. Twenty years in prison may not have much of an impact on the decision to engage in criminal conduct, but it can have an awfully big impact on the decision to take a case to trial.

Mississippi Model Jury Instructions Commission

Kevin W Frye — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 02:02:00 GMT

The Mississippi Supreme Court has announced the creation of the Mississippi Model Jury Instructions Commission which aims to simplify existing jury instructions by replacing them with "plain language" instructions. This is certainly a welcome announcement. The existing instructions are anything but simple - they are flat-out confusing to jurors who are expected to render judgment on the lives of others. The Memphis Commercial Appeal has this story - an excerpt:

The problem of confused jurors rendering poor verdicts has plagued courtrooms in Mississippi and across the country for decades.

Many states -- among them Florida, California, Texas and Vermont -- have sought to rectify the situation by rewriting jury instructions into plain English...

Now a commission led by Mississippi Supreme Court Justice George C. Carlson Jr. will tackle the issue.

Carlson said his experience as a lawyer, trial judge and appellate judge has shown him that "the focus has not been on the very ones whose understanding of the law is critical to the fair disposition of any case, namely the lay citizens in the jury box."

Jury instructions are the combined effort of prosecutors, defense attorneys and the judge.

Generally, they follow existing "pattern" instructions for each charge. Legal experts say most judges prefer to stick close to boilerplate language because it usually tracks the statutes and has passed muster with appeals courts.

In the 1980s, research found many jurors had difficulty understanding and applying the law to the facts.

The problem was recognized much earlier.

In 1954, Massachusetts District Judge Charles E. Wyzanski Jr. wrote in a civil case that the "object of a charge to a jury is not to satisfy an appellate court that you have repeated the right rigamarole of words, but to try to make jurors who are laymen understand what you are talking about."

More than 50 years later, the work continues.

A list of the Commission members can be found on The Mississippi Bar Association website, here. Let's all hope the Commission works quickly.

On talking to the police...

Kevin W Frye — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 01:15:00 GMT

I have posted more than once that talking to the police in a routine traffic stop or other encounter is a bad idea. Not surprisingly, this is an often reprised subject on other blogs as well. Today I ran across a great post on this topic by Robert Guest, who publishes the Dallas Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog. His post -- "your cop is not cool" -- hits on something I experience with many young clients. An excerpt from his post:

Cool Cop/De Minimis Arguments- A very misguided hope that their cop will be "cool" and let the suspect go. Related to the "I just had a joint in my car, I thought I would get a warning", de minimis justification.

Most people expecting a cool cop have a story to tell about another cop who was cool, and let them or a friend go. A word to the public- your cop is not cool.

Most officers, especially traffic enforcement (DPS etc) live for drug searches. If DWI is the capital murder of traffic stops, then finding drugs is like solving a bank robbery. Cops love finding drugs. Watching their excitement on film leads me to believe some get high on busting drug users.

Don't consent to a search or volunteer information about contraband. Consider, instead, asking for an attorney or refusing a consent search.

I know you are nervous. I know that you think the recreational use of drugs is not a reason to arrest someone. But cops don't think like that. The love arresting you, and they aren't cool.

Robert's point is that cops have a job to do, and that job doesn't include a polite slap on the wrist. In Oxford this "cool cop" scenario comes up regularly because (1) college students make up a significant portion of the population and (2) a good number of local law enforcement officers are young men and women. Apparently, for college students, talking to a cop that is a member of their generation gives them a false sense of security.

Drug Bust by Oxford's Metro Narcotics Unit

Kevin W Frye — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 20:45:00 GMT

The Oxford Police Department's Metro Narcotics Unit made more than 17 arrests on Thursday and Friday in a sting operation. The Oxford Eagle published the following story, which can be found here.

In its second operation of the year, the Lafayette Count Metro Narcotics Unit busted 15 University of Mississippi students Thursday for selling drugs.

The four-month long undercover operation led to the arrest of 17 people Thursday for various charges of selling marijuana, selling cocaine, sale of ecstasy and possession of the same.

Fifteen of those arrested were Ole Miss students, according to information provided by Metro.

On Thursday, Metro Narcotic officers confiscated one handgun during the roundup and $11,661 in cash.

In the March operation, 13 people were arrested for dealing drugs, including five Ole Miss students.

The total number of cases investigated from January through November has been 224.

“Operations of this caliber could not be done without the help and cooperation of all the local, state and federal agencies in our area,” said Cmdr. Searn Lynch.

I don't have the time or space to cover all of the potential ramifications of an arrest for the sale of the various drugs mentioned in the story. But, the information I have about this "round-up" is that the majority of the arrests were for the sale of small amounts of marijuana. The Mississippi Code, Section 41-29-139 (full text found at the preceding link), provides the penalties for sale of marijuana and other drugs - Section 41-29-139(b)(3) provides that in the case of a sale "of thirty (30) grams or less of marihuana, such person may, upon conviction, be imprisoned for not more than three (3) years or fined not more than Three Thousand Dollars ($3,000.00), or both." So, for those arrested in the drug bust this week and charged with the sale of 30 grams or less of marijuana, the maximum penalty is 3 years in prison and a $3,000.00 fine. For persons charged with multiple sales, sales larger than 30 grams, or sales of drugs other than marijuana, the penalties only increase.

A previous post which details the progression of a criminal prosecution may be relevant to some readers: If I am arrested for a crime, what happens to me next?

Mississippi Department of Corrections, Budget Cuts & Plea Negotiations

Kevin W Frye — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 22:47:00 GMT

The Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC) has announced that it will release some inmates early, and place others on house arrest, in an effort to cut costs. An excerpt from today's Clarion Ledger story:

About 300 state inmates will be removed from county jails, 154 from regional jails and 50 from private prisons beginning as early as January as the Mississippi Department of Corrections trims its budget by $6.5 million.

MDOC will further reduce cost by increasing the number of inmates on house arrest and parole. Roughly 1,225 inmates are on house arrest and 3,000 are on parole.

"We have sent a list of 2,900 nonviolent inmates to the Parole Board," Corrections Commissioner Chris Epps said of those who could be considered for early parole.

The cost of housing inmates is substantial, and I find it encouraging in these slow economic times that MDOC plans to increase the number of inmates in "alternative" incarceration (such as house arrest). The Department's own figures show that these programs are substantially less expensive than traditional incarceration. According to MDOC numbers from the 2007 fiscal year housing an inmate at Parchman costs $45.48 per day, while the Intensive Supervision Program (house arrest) costs just $9.96 per day. Clearly a cost savings of $35.52 per day (Yes, I did the math for you.) is substantial. The cost difference between housing an inmate for one year in Parchman versus one year on house arrest? $12,964.80.

Why is this story important? First, I certainly support the early release of inmates to cut costs - in fact, I'd support the decision even if we weren't in a terrible economic crises. Second, I represent clients charged with various felonies, many of whom are eligible for house arrest. Further, in many of those cases house arrest may be the desired outcome for my client (and for the taxpayer!). In those cases where plea negotiations are appropriate, this decision by MDOC may prove to be an additional bargaining tool with the prosecutor or judge.

Hazing & Criminal Penalties

Kevin W Frye — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 17:00:00 GMT

Today the Clarion Ledger published this article detailing the indictment and prosecution of eleven University of Southern Mississippi students on charges of conspiracy and hazing. Some excerpts from the article:

University police served indictments Thursday on 10 students. The 11th was out of state and will be served next week, police said.

They are charged in an Aug. 28 incident at the Kappa Sigma fraternity house during a "Little Sister" initiation. Each is charged with conspiracy to commit hazing, two counts of first-degree hazing and one count of second-degree hazing...

One of the victims spent more than two weeks in intensive care at Forrest General Hospital. The second was treated and released.

The mother of the victim who remained at the hospital said her 19-year-old daughter attended the initiation at Kappa Sigma. She said part of the initiation included syrup poured in her daughter's hair and vodka poured down her daughter's throat with her head tilted back. Her daughter, a sophomore from Waveland, had a blood-alcohol content of 0.47, which is more than five times the legal limit.

The university revoked Kappa Sigma fraternity's charter and closed the house on campus a week after the incident.

The Forrest County grand jury met last month, District Attorney Jon Mark Weathers said. An indictment is not made public until those charged are officially notified or arrested.

The blog has previously discussed the crime of conspiracy -- more information can be found here. As for the crime of hazing, Mississippi law states that a person is guilty of hazing in the first degree when "in the course of another person's initiation into or affiliation with any organization, he intentionally or recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of physical injury to such other person or a third person and thereby causes such injury." A person is guilty of hazing in the second degree when "in the course of another person's initiation into or affiliation with any organization, he intentionally or recklessly engages in conduct which creates a substantial risk of physical injury to such other person or a third person." Penalties range from a $1,000.00 fine to 6 months in jail and a $2,000.00 fine.