Oral arg. – COA – March 28, 2017

At 10:30 the Court will hear William Mack v State.

Mack was convicted of aggravated assault.  On appeal he argues that the judge erred in dismissing several potential jurors.  One woman was excused because she lived in the same neighborhood as the victim and Mack even though she was never asked if that would affect her ability to be fair.  The court did not dismiss potential jurors  who knew the police officers involved, four  more  who had either been victims of aggravated assaults or had family members who were victims, and six  potential jurors on the venire who had sat on a jury in a criminal trial prior to this case and had found the defendant guilty.  Mack testified at trial and was asked whether he had given a statement to police.  He responded that he had not.  Mack argues that this was error because it amounts to a comment on his right to invoke his right not to incriminate himself.  He argues that the jury instruction should have used the term “deadly weapon” and not gun. Finally, he argues insufficient evidence and that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.

Mack brief

State’s brief

Mack reply brief

Watch the argument  here

At 1:30 the Court will hear Khavaris Hill v. Hinds County, Tyrone Lewis, et al. 

Hinds County officers were riding in an unmarked Sheriff’s car when they were passed by a car driven by Hill recklessly and at a high rate of speed.  The officers gave chase. Hill got on I-220, then exited the interstate, and hit a minivan.   When officers arrived, Hill’s car was smoking.  Hill was removed and taken away by ambulance.  He later filed suit in federal court.  That court dismissed the federal claims with prejudice and the state law claims without prejudice.  Hill them filed suit in state court.  That court granted summary judgment because Hill was committing criminal acts when the alleged tortious conduct was committed thereby barring any recovery under the Tort Claims Act, § 11-46-9(1)(c).  Hill appeals.

Hill brief

Hinds County brief

Hill reply brief

Watch the argument here

 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s