Firm News

Klotz Law Firm Wins New Trial for Client in Murder Appeal

AP Release (March 19, 2008) The state Court of Appeals has ordered a new trial for William Scott, who was convicted of capital murder in the 2002 shooting death of a Jackson woman.

The Appeals Court said the court record showed Hinds County Circuit Judge Tomie Green was told that Scott had confessed to the crime to his attorney. Scott's attorney also told Green that Scott intended to lie on the stand about the confession, according court documents.

The Appeals Court said this occurred before Green presided over a pretrial hearing on a motion by Scott to suppress his confession.

Appeals Judge Donna M. Barnes, writing in Tuesday's decision, said the court agreed with Scott that he was denied an impartial hearing and an impartial trial.

Barnes said Scott should get a new hearing and a new trial before another judge.

"We see no escape from the conclusion that a reasonable person, knowing that a
judge has been informed by the defendant's lawyer that the defendant confessed, would harbor serious doubts about the judge's impartiality in ruling on the motion to suppress," Barnes wrote.

Scott, of Decatur, Ga., was sentenced by a Hinds County judge in 2005 to life in prison without parole.

Scott was charged in the July 9, 2002, shooting death of Paula Dinkins, who was killed in an apparent robbery attempt at the business where she worked.

Prosecutors said Scott lived in Jackson at the time of the robbery-shooting and was a regular client of the check cashing business where Dinkins worked.

In a dissenting opinion, Appeals Judge Larry E. Roberts said Scott was convicted by a jury and Green's role was to preside over the hearing about whether to allow Scott's confession as evidence for the prosecution.

"The trial judge was not called upon to determine whether Scott was guilty. The circuit court's duty at the suppression hearing was to determine the legal admissibility of an alleged incriminating statement given by Scott while in custody in Georgia.

"The trial judge's decision was based solely on the sworn testimony and evidence presented during the actual suppression hearing, not on what Scott's lawyer may have said during a conference in the judge's chambers," Roberts wrote.

Courts beginning to see need for balance in crack cocaine sentencing.

NACDL Press Release. Washington, DC (February 26, 2008) Representatives of a coalition of citizens, community activists and criminal justice organizations are in Washington to participate in Crack the Disparity Lobby Day, which is being held in conjunction with the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Securitys cocaine sentencing hearing today. The Hearing on Cracked Justice Addressing the Unfairness of Cocaine Sentencing is scheduled for 2:00 p.m. in Rayburn Building Room 2237. In conjunction with that hearing, members of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) from around the country are flying in to lobby their representatives and senators in favor of pending legislation which would reduce federal penalties for possession of cocaine base (crack) and bring them more into line with the penalties for powder cocaine. NACDL is the nations only bar association devoted exclusively to criminal defense, the fair administration of justice and due process in state and federal courts.

The current penalty scheme is unjust, and legislative correction of the sentencing disparities is long overdue, said NACDL President Carmen Hernandez. The present ratio treats possession of even a very small quantity of crack approximately 100 times more severely than the powder form of the drug.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in the fact that 83 percent of inmates serving time in the federal system for crack cocaine are minorities, and their sentences are more than 50 percent longer than inmates serving time for cocaine powder, Hernandez said. This is true even though crack defendants tend to be low-level street dealers. In fact, the average sentence for possession of crack cocaine is far longer than the average sentences for violent crimes such as robbery and sexual abuse.