Nearly a year after a north Mississippi judge acquitted a 22-year-old who stabbed a man in the neck, nearly killing him, attorney general's office lawyers want to re-prosecute the case. 

They are appealing the ruling, saying the victim's absence at trial, the reasoning the judge used for his ruling, did not violate the defendant's constitutional rights and prevent trial from proceeding.

But legal experts say a retrial can be a high barrier to overcome because of double jeopardy,  a clause in the U.S. and state Constitution that prevents defendants from being retried for the same crime following an acquittal or conviction. 

“This is a textbook case of double jeopardy,” said Matt Steffey, a professor at Mississippi College School of Law. 

In his May 11, 2023 dismissal of the attempted murder indictment and acquittal for Lane Mitchell, Union County Circuit Court Judge Kent Smith focused on the victim's absence, finding that it violated the defendant's due process and compulsory process rights, which is the ability to subpoena and secure favorable witnesses to testify. 

“This precedent thus makes the state responsible for and unable to go forward on nearly every criminal cause when a recalcitrant victim refuses to appear at trial,” the state wrote in a March 4 appellant's brief filed with the Court of Appeals. 

The victim, Russell Rogers of Tennessee, nearly bled out and suffered a stroke. As a result of the stabbing, he was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and other mental issues and placed under a conservatorship. 

The state is asking the Court of Appeals to correct the trial court's “misstatements of law.” Alternatively, the state is asking the court to reverse and remand the trial judge's order and in its place issue an order that would allow the state to retry Mitchell. 

The defense has 30 days to respond to the appellant's brief, which is expected sometime early next month if no extensions are granted. The state will then have time to reply, and then the case can be submitted. Oral arguments were not requested. 

The 2019 stabbing

On Feb. 9, 2019, Rogers spent several hours in  Tallahatchie Gourmet in New Albany. When then-18-year-old Mitchell arrived there, he joined his parents and their friends in the bar area. 

Video presented in court and included in records as pictures shows Mitchell, about an hour after his arrival, taking a knife from the bar and holding it behind his back as Rogers talked with a waitress. The manager  – Mitchell's father – and Rogers then talked, and when Rogers reacted negatively, Mitchell approached from behind and stabbed Rogers in the neck three times. 

Mitchell testified he was trying to defend his father and the waitress, according to court records. The defendant said he thought Rogers had a gun, but in fact he was unarmed. 

Mitchell and Rogers had not met or talked prior to the stabbing, according to court records. 

Months after the stabbing, a Tennessee probate court found Rogers met criteria to be considered disabled and appointed his father, Robert Rogers, as his conservator. Russell Rogers remains under the conservatorship. 

Mitchell enrolled in two colleges while under indictment, first at the University of Mississippi and then Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary in Cordova, Tennessee, where he graduated days before his 2023 trial began. 

The attorney general's office took over the case in 2021 when the district attorney recused himself from the case. 

Victim testimony central in case 

Mississippi law states victims can exercise their right to be present and heard in court proceedings, but their absence does not prevent the court from moving forward with a proceeding. Victims can be served with a subpoena, which Mitchell's attorneys sought to do with Rogers.

The state argues the trial court seemed to ignore the Tennessee probate court's order quashing the defense's attempt to subpoena Rogers, saying his mental health problems stemming from the attack made him incapable of testifying.

The state argues the trial court only determined Rogers “appear[ed] to be intentionally unavailable” to testify in court, but it did not find what from his testimony would be favorable to the defense. 

The defense wanted to question Rogers about his behavior the night of the stabbing and prior conduct and mental health issues, but the state wrote these factors “would not be material to a showing that Michell acted reasonably or that [Rogers] was the initial aggressor.”

Additionally, Rogers didn't witness the stabbing because Mitchell approached him from behind, the brief states. Regardless, the state argues, Mitchell's intent to defend others was already presented to the jury through other witnesses. 

The defense has argued in court filings and at trial that the conservator inserted himself into the case, including accusing him of working with the prosecution and denying access to the victim. 

The state had denied these claims, noting Robert Rogers was following his fiduciary duties as conservator when fighting the subpoena and other efforts. 

Acquittal and double jeopardy

 Another issue raised in the state's brief is how the trial court violated the Mississippi Rules of Criminal Procedure by dismissing the indictment against Mitchell and entering an acquittal.

No rule of criminal procedure allows an indictment to be dismissed because a witness failed to appear, and acquittal isn't the proper remedy under the rules, the state argues. Instead, the valid remedies for a discovery violation are continuance or mistrial, which would have needed to have happened before a jury was sworn in and double jeopardy was in place. 

In its alternative remedy, the state asks the Court of Appeals to reverse and remand the trial court's decision and order a mistrial, which the state says would preserve its right to retry Mitchell. 

Former Mississippi Court of Appeals judge and Supreme Court Justice Oliver Diaz called acquittal an unusual position for a trial court and an example of how Judge Smith of the Union County court acted in a way that other trial courts don't tend to do. 

He said the state may be asking the Court of Appeals to clarify the law and find that the judge ruled improperly, instead of seeking retrial and running into double jeopardy. 

“(A)ny judges in the future who consider this issue can know clearly and [it's] well stated by the court [that] you can't just order an acquittal if a victim doesn't show up,” he said. 

Crime victims' rights

Rogers and his conservator are asking the Court of Appeals to allow them to file an amicus curiae brief for the court to consider additional information, including victim's rights. 

A March 11 proposed amicus brief argues the trial judge's refusal to submit the case to the jury stripped Rogers of his constitutionally-protected rights as a victim. As of Thursday, the brief has not been approved. 

Meg Garvin, executive director of the National Crime Victim Law Institute at Lewis & Clark College in Oregon, provided feedback to help craft the amicus brief. 

She said the Mississippi Constitution gives crime victims the right to be treated with fairness, dignity and respect, and just because those terms are broad, it doesn't mean they are empty. 

Mitchell's attorneys want the court to deny the amicus brief, citing a May 2023 Supreme Court order denying an emergency petition filed by the conservator to halt the trial court from filing a judgment of acquittal. In it, Justice Leslie King said the victim and conservator lack standing to contest the disposition of Mitchell's case, or any charge. 

Garvin said this challenge highlights a misunderstanding about what victims' rights are. Victims asking for their rights to be protected doesn't make them a party. 

She said it is possible for someone to exercise another's rights on their behalf, such as what happens for parents acting on behalf of their children or on behalf of someone who is mentally incapacitated, including someone under a conservatorship. 

If Mitchell's case is upheld, it would be a sign that Mississippi victims' rights aren't meaningful or are being adequately considered, Garvin said. 

“The statement to the victim would be you actually don't have rights, you are just a piece of evidence in a case against someone else,” she said.

This article first appeared on Mississippi Today and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.