Ex parte Jones County Grand Jury, First Judicial Dist., s. 95-CA-01309-SC

Decision Date18 December 1997
Docket NumberNos. 95-CA-01309-SC,95-CA-01383-SCT,s. 95-CA-01309-SC
Citation705 So.2d 1308
PartiesEx parte JONES COUNTY GRAND JURY, FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT. (Two Cases) STATE of Mississippi v. Jeannene T. PACIFIC. (Two Cases)
CourtMississippi Supreme Court

Travis Buckley, Ellisville, William Harold Odom, Laurel, for Appellant.

Thomas E. Royals, Cynthia A. Stewart, Thomas E. Royals & Associates, Jackson, for Appellee.

Before PRATHER, P.J., and JAMES L. ROBERTS, Jr., and MILLS, JJ.

PRATHER, Presiding Justice, for the Court:

I. INTRODUCTION

¶1 This case arises from an attempt by the Grand Jury of the First Judicial District of Jones County to subpoena financial records from the Jones County District Attorney, Jeannene Pacific. The records at issue related to over $35,000 in expenditures from the Jones County Worthless Check Unit to Pacific and her staff as "salary supplements" and to various local businesses for the entertainment of Pacific and her staff. 1

¶2 Pacific contended that the Grand Jury had been unduly influenced, and successfully moved before a special judge for a stay in the proceedings of the Grand Jury. In issuing the injunction, the special judge held that this particular Grand Jury had been unduly influenced, and limited his ruling to that Grand Jury. The Grand Jury appealed.

¶3 Technically, this case is moot, because the trial court's injunction only applied to that particular Grand Jury, which has since been discharged. However, this Court finds that this situation is capable of repetition, yet evading review. Therefore, this opinion is written primarily to guide the trial court, should this situation reoccur. The only issue addressed herein is the propriety of the injunction.

¶4 This Court notes with appreciation the service of the special judge in disposing of this difficult and unusual case. However, this Court holds that a Grand Jury cannot be enjoined from conducting lawful investigations and deliberations. This is particularly true in the case sub judice, because the Grand Jury is obligated by the State Constitution and the Mississippi Code to consider charges against public officials and to investigate the expenditure of county funds. Furthermore, because the proceedings of the Grand Jury are secret, there is no indication that the Grand Jury's subpoena related to an investigation of Pacific specifically.

II. STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS

¶5 This case evolves from a complex set of facts surrounding Pacific's alleged mishandling of over $35,000 from the Jones County Worthless Check Unit. These expenditures had been the subject of numerous investigations, including investigations by the State Auditor's Office, the Attorney General's Office, a Special Grand Jury in the Second Judicial District of Jones County [hereinafter the Laurel Grand Jury], and the Laurel LeaderCall newspaper. These investigations led to personality conflicts between Pacific and numerous others. Those conflicts created the backdrop against which the case sub judice occurred.

¶6 The record reflects that, in October, 1994, the State Auditor's Office investigated the expenditures and determined that Pacific and her staff should repay the money. Pacific and her Assistant repaid approximately $30,000; however, at the time of the hearing at issue, some money disbursed as a "salary supplement" to one of Pacific's investigators remained outstanding. 2 The State Auditor did not recommend criminal prosecution regarding the misuse of these funds.

¶7 In February, 1995, Attorney Travis Buckley filed a civil lawsuit against Pacific on behalf of his client, Jeff Pittman (as a taxpayer), and demanded repayment of the Worthless Check Unit's funds. Jeff Pittman is the son of Tom Pittman. On February 27, 1995, the Grand Jury of the First Judicial District of Jones County [hereinafter the Ellisville Grand Jury] was duly empaneled, and Tom Pittman was appointed Foreman.

¶8 On March 1, 1995, Pacific moved to dismiss Pittman as Grand Jury Foreman and alleged that he was biased against her. 3 Pacific also moved for Circuit Judge Billy Joe Landrum to recuse himself from hearing the motion to dismiss Pittman as Grand Jury Foreman. The record evinces some possible sources of tension between Pacific and Judge Landrum. 4 Indeed, in a related case, the special judge convicted Pacific of criminal contempt for making derogatory comments regarding Judge Landrum. 5

¶9 Judge Landrum denied Pacific's motion to recuse himself from hearing Pacific's motion to remove the Grand Jury Foreman. Thereafter, a hearing was held on Pacific's motion to have Pittman removed as Grand Jury Foreman, and Attorney Travis Buckley 6 appeared as an amicus curiae. The motion was denied. 7

¶10 On August 8, 1995, the Ellisville Grand Jury issued a subpoena to Pacific for "[a]ny and all records sent to the State Auditor's Office, including but not limited to forms submitted to State Auditor on a timely basis reflecting expenditures as it pertains to the bad check unit, and copies of any and all receipts and expenditures relating to the bad check unit." The subpoena was to be complied with on or before August 14, 1995.

¶11 On August 11, 1996, Pacific moved to quash the Grand Jury subpoena, and alleged that the checks issued on the Worthless Check Unit's account were all executed in the Second Judicial District of Jones County. Pacific further contended that the matter had already been investigated by the Laurel Grand Jury (which returned no bill against Pacific). Therefore, Pacific argued that the Ellisville Grand Jury was collaterally estopped from investigating her. In a separate filing, Pacific also moved to recuse Circuit Judge Landrum from hearing the motion to quash the subpoena. Judge Landrum granted the motion to recuse, and this Court appointed a special judge to consider the matter.

¶12 On September 1, 1995, Pacific petitioned the trial court to stay temporarily and permanently further proceedings against her by the Ellisville Grand Jury. She again alleged that the transactions involving the funds from the Worthless Check Unit took place in the Second Judicial District and not the First Judicial District of Jones County. She also repeated her contention that the matter had already been investigated by the Laurel Grand Jury, and no indictment was issued.

¶13 In addition, Pacific claimed that Tom Pittman (member and previous Foreman of the Ellisville Grand Jury) was biased and prejudiced against her, and Pittman only resigned as Grand Jury Foreman as part of a sham to "pretend fairness toward" her. She also alleged that the Ellisville Grand Jury had no prosecutor directing it 8 and had been run by Judge Landrum. She further contended that Attorney Buckley "may well be advising Pittman and, therefore, the Grand Jury. Buckley has been seen meeting with Judge Landrum at critical times in the Ellisville investigation."

¶14 Furthermore, Pacific claimed that "Pittman may try to manipulate the [Ellisville] Grand Jury in such a way as to have her indicted without all members being present or by other device." Pacific alleged that she would not be given a chance to defend herself before the Ellisville Grand Jury. She argued that she could not do her job as District Attorney because she was "being harassed" by the "illegally managed" Ellisville Grand Jury.

¶15 That same day, Pacific amended and supplemented her petition to stay the proceedings of the Grand Jury. She alleged that the Grand Jury had been improperly influenced, citing Hood v. State, 523 So.2d 302 (Miss.1988). In support of both the motion to stay and the amended/supplemental motion to stay, Pacific filed the affidavit of Talitha Hendry, an employee of the Jones County District Attorney's Office. On August 14, 1995, the date Pacific's subpoena was to have been returned, Pacific had posted Hendry "outside [the door of the Ellisville Grand Jury room] where [Hendry] could hear." Hendry's affidavit contained a summary of those who entered and exited, what items they had in their possession, and how long they stayed in the Grand Jury room that day.

¶16 On September 8, 1995, the special judge began conducting hearings on Pacific's various motions. The hearings were concluded September 14, 1995, and the special judge ruled that the motion to quash the subpoena was moot because the date had passed for return of the subpoena. The special judge granted Pacific's motion to stay the proceedings of the Ellisville Grand Jury, and issued the following bench ruling:

Now the Court finds that if a crime was committed, and I am not judging whether it was or not, but if a crime was committed of larceny or embezzlement, in this Court's opinion it was committed in the Second District of Jones County, and that's where it should have been tried, or should be tried.

The Court further finds that there has been some undue influence presented to the present grand jury, and if it was not contaminated by that it probably has certainly been contaminated by these hearings.

The Court would order that that grand jury not to proceed further on this case--the case of the District Attorney and the funds.

Now this is not working any hardship on the Court because the Court can discharge that grand jury and empanel another grand jury whenever they want to....

And they can empanel a grand jury in this district if they think it should be presented here, but I understand it has been presented here at one time. I think the Court is free to empanel another grand jury whenever and wherever he would like, but I would not permit this presently constituted grand jury of the First District to proceed further on this case.

That's the subject of my order there.

Thereafter, the special judge issued his order permanently enjoining the then "present" Ellisville Grand Jury from "further investigation of Jeannene Pacific and her office involving checks written from accounts of the Bad Check Unit."

¶17 The Grand Jury moved for...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Yancy v. Shatzer
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • September 16, 2004
    ... ... the question, we conclude that our judicial power does not include the authority to ... to decide only justiciable controversies." First Commerce of America v. Nimbus Center Assoc., 329 ... See, e.g., Stowe v. School Dist. No. 8-C, 240 Or. 526, 528, 402 P.2d 740 (1965) ... In Mid-County Future Alt. v. Metro. Area LGBC, 304 Or. 89, 92, ... Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 700, 117 S.Ct. 1636, 137 L.Ed.2d ... The issue, therefore, is not moot."); Ex parte Jones County Grand Jury, 705 So.2d 1308, 1313-14 ... ...
  • In re Adoption Miss. Rules of Criminal Procedure
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • December 13, 2016
    ...Mississippi, Inc. v. State,Page 76 132 So. 3d 568, 572 (Miss. 2014) (quoting Ex parte Jones County Grand Jury, First Judicial Dist., 705 So. 2d 1308, 1315 (Miss. 1997)) ("Grand juries have 'broad investigative power and wide latitude in conducting an investigation'").Rule 13.3 Grand Jury Fo......
  • Entergy Miss., Inc. v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • February 20, 2014
    ... ... grand jury subpoena duces tecum served upon Entergy ... customers in two zip codes in Madison County. The subpoena followed Entergy's refusal to ... As in the first subpoena, Entergy was commanded to produce the ... in conducting an investigation ... ” Ex parte Jones County Grand Jury, First Judicial Dist., ... ...
  • Alexander v. State, No. 2003-KA-00887-COA.
    • United States
    • Mississippi Court of Appeals
    • June 15, 2004
    ... ... convicted in the Circuit Court of Lamar County for the sale of a controlled substance pursuant ... for the June 2001 term of the Lamar County grand jury, but he was not indicted. The grand jury ... Ct.App.2002); Ex parte Jones County Grand Jury, First Judicial Dist., ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT