fbpx
Connect with us

Mississippi Today

Lexington man says police assaulted him for filing lawsuit

Published

on

Lexington man says police assaulted him for filing lawsuit

A man who sued the Lexington Police Department alleging violence and racism says an officer assaulted him in retaliation for that litigation.

That man, Malcolm Stewart, is “still in pain” after being bonded out of jail, said Jill Collen Jefferson, whose nonprofit JULIAN brought the lawsuit on behalf of Stewart and four other Black . “He went to the hospital immediately after being released. He had a knot on the back of his head.”

Police Chief Charles Henderson disputed the accusation by Stewart, who was charged April 16 with aggravated assault on an officer, failure to comply and disturbing the peace. There are certain people who “make these accusations every time they're ,” the chief said.

Advertisement

He encouraged an outside investigation of this case, predicting that in the end, “We're going to come out on top.”

The police department came into the national last summer when the Mississippi Center for Investigative , now part of , obtained a recording of a white law enforcement officer bragging about killing 13 people in the line of duty, saying, “I shot that n—– 119 times, OK?” 

Jefferson identified the voice as then-Police Chief Sam Dobbins, who was fired the next day by the council in Lexington, an 85% majority Black town on the edge of the Mississippi Delta. The council chose Henderson to take his place.

Stewart's arrest came less than a week after U.S. District Judge Tom S. Lee dismissed Stewart's claims in an October lawsuit.

Advertisement

In that litigation, Stewart alleged that Henderson threatened to kill him in September 2019 as he sat in his car on private property because Stewart had refused to leave the premises — an allegation Henderson denied in court records.

Stewart quoted Henderson as saying, “If you don't get the f— off this lot, your 's gonna be wearing a black suit or a black dress by Sunday.”

Henderson, who is now running for constable, called Stewart's claim “misleading” in court records.

In that litigation, Stewart also said he worked off outstanding fines by servicing police vehicles, only to be arrested after a community meeting where he voiced concerns about police.

Advertisement

On June 30, Stewart said that an officer saw him in a car and “reached in and yanked his shirt collar, … continuing a pattern and practice of excessive force and retaliation.”

Jefferson said Stewart was arrested on a charge of possession of stolen property.

“He was in a car that didn't belong to him,” she said. “He's a mechanic. He was fixing the car and didn't know it was stolen. The police still charged him.”

Lee concluded that the bodycam showed that the officer had probable cause to arrest Stewart and used reasonable force. The judge dismissed Stewart's false arrest claim.

Advertisement

In an April 17 letter, Jefferson told Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division that Stewart “somehow exceeded his prepaid gas amount and went inside the station to advise the clerk. Words were exchanged which resulted in the clerk calling 911.”

When an officer arrived, he “struck Mr. Stewart in the back of the head,” she wrote. “Malcolm Stewart suffered injuries in the process.”

She asked the Justice Department to join in the litigation to protect members of the Black community from police harassment and attacks. “This is a last-ditch effort,” she said. “There is no accountability for these .”

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

Advertisement

Mississippi Today

Senate passes Medicaid expansion ‘lite’ with veto-proof majority

Published

on

mississippitoday.org – Sophia Paffenroth and Taylor Vance – 2024-03-28 17:37:35

An austere version of expansion, which for more than a decade has been blocked by legislative , passed the Senate on Thursday 36-16 – a veto-proof majority – with significant changes to the original bill and now heads back to the House for consideration.

House Bill 1725, with the Senate's strike-all amendment, would increase Medicaid eligibility to those making up to 99% of the federal poverty level, about $15,000 annually for an individual, and would be entirely contingent on the federal government approving a work requirement of 120 hours a month. 

That's significantly different from the version of the bill that passed the House, which increased eligibility to those making up to 138% of the federal poverty level, about $20,000 annually for an individual, and would expand Medicaid regardless of whether or not the work requirement was approved. 

Advertisement

Senate Medicaid Chairman Kevin Blackwell, R-Southaven, called the strike-all a more “conservative, responsible” option and described  it a “hand up, not a handout.” The Senate plan turns down roughly $1 federal dollars a year since it doesn't qualify as “expansion” according to the Affordable Care Act.

Republican Lt. Gov. Delbert Hosemann, who oversees the Senate, said that covering more low-income Mississippians under Medicaid would improve the 's dismal labor participation rate – the lowest in the country

“If we as a society, as a state, believe we should have individuals who are working, stay in the workforce, pick up our labor force participation rate, then we need to do what Sen. Blackwell and the Senate did today.” 

Senate Democrats introduced several amendments, which Republicans, who hold a majority in the chamber, successfully opposed. The amendments called for: increasing the income eligibility threshold, changing the work requirement from 120 hours a month to 80 hours a month, and lowering a recertification requirement from four times a year to twice a year. 

Advertisement

The Democratic senators strongly criticized the Senate plan to reporters after it passed but voted in favor of it to keep the bill alive – in hopes that the plan will improve later during House and Senate haggling. 

“This bill was not perfect,” Senate Minority Leader Derrick Simmons said. “We would love to see more individuals covered. We would love not to have any hurdles or restrictions on additional access to care coverage. But we did not want to lose an to keep this bill alive as we work through this .”

Sen. Joey Fillingane, R-Sumrall, also attempted to amend the bill by removing two of the exemptions to the work requirement – for primary caregivers of under six years old and those diagnosed by a doctor to have a disability – and requiring co-payments for individuals fulfilling the work requirement. A few hardline conservatives supported his efforts, but both amendments were ultimately shot down by senators. 

Sixteen senators voted ‘No' on the plan: Jason Barrett, R-Brookhaven; Andy Berry, R-Magee; Jenifer Branning, R-Philadelphia; Lydia Chassaniol, R-Winona; Kathy Chism, R-New Albany; Joey Fillingane, R-Sumrall; Angela Burks Hill, R-Picayune; Chris Johnson, R-Hattiesburg; Tyler McCaughn, R-Newton; Michael McLendon, R-Hernando; Rita Potts Parks, R-Corinth; Brian Rhodes, R-Pelahatchie; Joseph Seymour, R-Vancleave; Daniel Sparks, R-Belmont; Ben Suber, R-Bruce; Neil Whaley, R-Potts Camp. 

Advertisement

House Medicaid Chair Missy McGee, R-Hattiesburg, told Mississippi Today that she does not intend to agree with the Senate's amendment and plans to hammer out a compromise in a conference committee. 

“I'm happy the Senate passed a bill,” McGee said. 

Though the Senate's plan has stricter eligibility requirements than the House version, Republican Gov. Tate Reeves, a longtime opponent of expansion, privately told senators at the Governor's Mansion on Tuesday that he would veto the bill if it reached his desk.

If the second-term governor does veto the bill, a two-thirds majority of lawmakers in both legislative chambers would need to join together to successfully override him and pass the measure into . Both chambers passed their versions with veto-proof majorities.

Advertisement

Hosemann did not directly answer whether he believes there is an appetite in the GOP-controlled Senate to override a potential veto, but he said the work requirement in the Senate bill is a “good first step” toward addressing Reeves' concerns about the bill. 

“We're going to get with our House counterparts here and maybe that step forward is sufficient for the governor,” Hosemann said. “I don't think there was anybody here that didn't feel the weight of having people who are working have a catastrophic and not get back into the workforce.” 

House members have until April 19 to either agree with the Senate plan or to work on a compromise in a conference committee.

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

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Mississippi Today

Judge erred, double jeopardy shouldn’t apply, say AG attorneys seekng to retry acquitted assailant

Published

on

mississippitoday.org – Mina Corpuz – 2024-03-28 13:30:00

Nearly a year after a north Mississippi judge acquitted a 22-year-old who stabbed a man in the neck, nearly killing him, '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 following an acquittal or conviction. 

Advertisement

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

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. 

Advertisement

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 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   – Mitchell's father – and Rogers then talked, and when Rogers reacted negatively, Mitchell approached from behind and stabbed Rogers in the neck three times. 

Advertisement

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 of Mississippi and then Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary in Cordova, Tennessee, where he graduated days before his 2023 trial began. 

Advertisement

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[] to be intentionally unavailable” to testify in court, but it did not find what from his testimony would be favorable to the defense. 

Advertisement

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. 

Advertisement

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 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. 

Advertisement

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. 

Advertisement

Meg Garvin, executive director of the National Crime Victim Law Institute at Lewis & Clark College in Oregon, provided feedback to 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 highlights a misunderstanding about what victims' rights are. Victims asking for their rights to be protected doesn't make them a party. 

Advertisement

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.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Mississippi Today

Mississippi lawmakers look to other states’ Medicaid expansions. Is Georgia worth copying?

Published

on

mississippitoday.org – Sophia Paffenroth – 2024-03-28 10:58:47

As the Mississippi Republican-led considers expanding for the first time after a decade-long debate, Senate leaders have referenced other Southern states' expansion plans as alternatives to full expansion. 

On Wednesday, the Senate Medicaid Committee passed the House Republican expansion bill with a strike-all and replaced it with its own plan, which Medicaid Chairman Kevin Blackwell, R-Southaven, called “expansion light.” The Senate is expected to take the bill up for a floor vote Thursday, with a plan that's nearly identical to Georgia's. 

Problems with “Georgia Pathways”

Advertisement

policy experts don't think Georgia's plan is worth emulating. The state's plan, called “Georgia Pathways,” misses out on the increased federal match of 90% that the grants to newly expanded states, and it also doesn't qualify for the additional $690 million federal dollars that would make expansion to Mississippi for four years.

And the plan, touted as a conservative alternative to what critics call “Obamacare,” has cost state taxpayers $26 million so far, with more than 90% of that going toward administrative and consulting costs, according to KFF News. Implementing work requirements is costly and labor intensive because it involves hiring more staff and processing monthly paperwork to confirm enrollees are employed. 

“Georgia's plan has proven to be very profitable for large companies like Deloitte (the primary consultant for Georgia's project) but has provided health care to almost no one who needs it,” said Joan Alker, Medicaid expert and executive director of Georgetown University's Center for Children and Families. “It's been a terrible waste of taxpayer dollars so far.”

If the Senate plan were signed into law, Mississippi would fare the same – receiving its regular federal match of only 77% instead of 90% – and risk large administrative costs for enforcing a 120-hour-a-month work requirement and a provision that says recipients must be recertified four times a year.

Advertisement

Work requirements ‘costly' to enforce

In theory, a work requirement isn't controversial. A majority of Mississippi lawmakers in both chambers want to reserve Medicaid coverage for those who are working or exempt, with legislation that incentivizes employment in the state with the lowest labor participation rate. The problem, experts say, is that in practice, it can do more harm than good. 

Policing and enforcing the work requirement costs more than it would cost to insure the small population of unemployed people who would become eligible for Medicaid under traditional expansion, explained Morgan Henderson, principal data scientist at the Hilltop Institute, a nonpartisan research group that conducted several studies detailing what Medicaid expansion would look like in Mississippi. 

“Medicaid work requirements are costly to implement,” Henderson said. “States have to develop new administrative systems which can cost millions, or tens of millions, of dollars. Additionally, employment requirements can be confusing and burdensome for individuals, so people who are legitimately employed and income-eligible for Medicaid may be denied coverage – thus, hurting the exact individuals who are supposed to qualify for Medicaid with work requirements.”

Advertisement

In Georgia, only 3,500 people have signed up since the program began in July – despite the millions of dollars taxpayers have paid to the program and ' previous estimate that roughly 25,000 people would sign up in the first year and 52,000 by the fifth year. 

Lt. Gov. Delbert Hosemann said in an interview in February that the Mississippi Senate plan likely wouldn't be as strict as Georgia's, calling their work requirement “onerous.” 

But the Senate plan is even stricter than Georgia's, calling for at least 120 hours of work a month instead of the 80 hours required in Georgia. 

In Arkansas, a work requirement was briefly implemented in 2018 before it was overturned.

Advertisement

A study by the New England Journal of Medicine found Arkansas' work requirement to be unsuccessful at increasing employment. The main consequence of the state's work requirement was an increase in the number of uninsured persons compared to full expansion and “no significant changes” in employment associated with the policy, according to the study. 

In addition, “more than 95% of persons who were targeted by the policy already met the requirement or should have been exempt.”

What's next?

The only expansion bill still alive in the Mississippi Legislature is House Bill 1725, authored by Speaker Jason White, R-West, and Missy McGee, R-Hattiesburg, which is now before the Senate. The bill, as passed by the House, has a provisional work requirement, but would expand Medicaid to 138% of the federal poverty level – even if a work requirement is not approved by federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. 

Advertisement

That's important because during the Biden administration, the federal government  has rescinded work requirement waivers previously granted under the Trump administration and has not approved new ones. 

But the Senate version is entirely contingent on the work requirement, calling for a minimum of 120 work hours a month and quarterly recertification. Eligibility also only goes up to 100% of the federal poverty level. 

If the Senate were to stand firm on the work requirement, expansion might not go into effect until well into 2025. That is, if a new administration takes office. 

A provision in North Carolina's recent expansion bill could prove useful as Mississippi lawmakers debate the details of expanding Medicaid.

Advertisement

A North Carolina expansion bill passed in 2023 is a mostly-traditional expansion plan with a unique work requirement provision. Expansion originally passed without a work requirement, but included a provision that says if or when a federal administration that favors the concept takes office, the state will change Medicaid eligibility rules and adopt the work requirement. 

If Mississippi were to include this kind of language in its own bill, it could expand Medicaid in 2024 or at the start of 2025, instead of waiting well into a new presidential term.

In theory, work requirements make sense, Henderson said. But they haven't produced the desired outcome of increasing the labor force participation rate in other states. That fact, coupled with the costly administrative burden of enforcing them and the unfortunate consequence of eligible enrollees losing coverage make the work requirement an unworthy pursuit, Henderson and Alker conclude. 

“In theory, it's true that, under Medicaid expansion, individuals earning slightly more than 138% of the federal poverty level could have an incentive to reduce their earnings in order to qualify for Medicaid,” said Henderson. “However, there are reasons to believe that this will be rare.”

Advertisement

The three reasons Henderson gives are: “First, not all workers know their exact income as a fraction of the current federal poverty limit, which changes every year and is a function of household size. Second, not all workers can control their hours. Third, individuals earning just above 138% of the federal poverty level have access to generous subsidies through the insurance marketplace, which could reduce the incentive to reduce income to qualify for Medicaid.”

And in practice, Henderson said, “no studies I'm aware of have found evidence of Affordable Care Act Medicaid expansions adverse effects on employment outcomes.”

The Senate is expected to vote on House Bill 1725 on Thursday. While the bill only needs a three-fifths vote to pass the floor, it realistically needs a two-thirds majority from both chambers to show it has the potential to override a threatened veto from Republican Gov. Tate Reeves.

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

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News from the South

Trending