# Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Slaughter v. Mississippi > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386015_0605%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition for Writ of Certiorari - **Published:** January 1, 2003 - **Citation:** 537 U.S. 1107 ## Text Supreni Court, US FILED 02 6 1 4 AUG 2 3 2002 OPPIGE OF THE CLERK In The Supreme Court of the United States Jodon Antonio Slaughter Petitioner V. The State of Mississippi Respondent On Petition for Writ of Certiorari To The Mississippi Supreme Court PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI Michael W. Crosby Attorney at Law | Counsel of Record 2111 25th Ave. Gulfport, MS 39501 228-822-2727 Ms. Bar No. 07888 , scaliaaiaiianaisiiaiee we tenes ictalisimenoninnniae —---- ++i eta nce icine iccinaetpicsanae —) LEMUEL “BUCK” MURRAY, was thereupon called as a witness for and on behalf of the State, and, having been duly sworn, testified as follows: MR. CROSBY: Your Honor, before his testimony, we had a matter of that motion that we were -- we discussed bringing up [520; RE 111] concerning the exclusion of this testimony, which I would say it would be — THE COURT: His testimony? MR. CROSBY: Yes, sir. This is Buck Murray, correct? MR. SIMPSON: That’s who it is. (PAUSE IN PROCEEDINGS>) MR. SIMPSON: May we approach? THE COURT: Yeah. (ALL COUNSEL APPROACHED THE BENCH, AND THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD OUTSIDE THE HEARING OF THE JURY:) THE COURT: On what basis? MR. SIMPSON: I think this is just about the federal investigation stuff. MR. CROSBY; Uh-huh (affirmative). And it’s more detailed on it. And also - THE COURT: Have you got a formal motion on this so I can know what the motion is about? MR. CROSBY; No. THE COURT: Well, then I’m overruling it and you won't o into any of it, because I’m tired of this. MR. CROSBY: And I won’t be allowed to make a proffer? THE COURT: What? MR. Crosby: I won't be allowed to make a proffer? [521; RE 112] THE COURT: You can do it after his testimony. (BENCH CONFERENCE CONCLUDED, AND THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HAD IN THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY) THE COURT: Proceed. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Would you state your name, please? A. Lemuel Murray. Q. Are you also known as “Buck”? COURT REPORTER: Your first name again, please? THE WITNESS: Lemuel, LEMUEL. BY MR. SIMPSON: Q. Mr. Murray, let me get you to keep your voice up loud so everyone can hear you, please, and speak slowly enough that the court reporter can write down everything you say, all right? A. Okay. Q. Where do you reside, Mr. Murray? A. Atlanta, Georgia. Q. How long have you lived in Georgia? A. All my life. Q. What business are you in? A. Automobile industry. Q. Do you know the defendant, Jodon Slaughter? A. Yes, sir. Q. How long have you known him? A. Since around 19839, ‘90. Lemuel “Buck” Murray - Cross (Proffer/Jury out) 534; RE 118 BY MR. CROSBY: Q. And you said that in response to the question by Investigator Barnes, who said: “who did he say he had coming up to blow his head off?” And your reasons was: “He just said he had some boys coming up from Miami, “ correct? A. No, that’s not correct. _ THE COURT: All right. Mr. Crosby, you ve shifted gears now, and you've gone into a matter of a statement that apparently this witness made to Officer Barnes from Gulfport; is that right? MR. CROSBY: Yes, sir. That's -- THE COURT: I don’t have an problems with your using that in cross-examining this witness, so we re wasting time for you to go through all of this and try to cross-examine him at this time. MR. CROSBY: The only reason that I would do this now is because in talking about Miami, -- THE COURT: Well, we're wasting time right now. What he told the officer from Gulfport, you can cross-examine him as to that. But the matter of the investigation in Atlanta, Georgia, the Grand Jury testimony, all of that is going to be excluded, and I stand by my ruling on that. Now, you may feel that it has some relevance, but I don’t think that it has any relevance. And under 403, although relevant evidence -- relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by consideration or undo delay, waste of time and needless presentation of cumulative evidence. Now, the thrust of your position in this case seems to be that the victim in this case was someone who was assisting the government in investigating your client. That falls completely in line with the exclusion of character evidence of the victim, and I cite you to the comments under the rule of -- under 404. It says: “The victim’s character is irrelevant. The fact that a bad man rather than a good man was murdered or beaten is inconsequential,” citing the cases. The only time that it would be admissible would be to show that there was a -- that the victim was the [536: RE 120] first aggressor. That's it. MR. CROSBY: Well, obviously, I haven't stated it correctly, then, if that’s - THE COURT: Well, if you haven't stated it correctly, that is exactly my interpretation of it, so let’s move on, okay? MR. CROSBY: I would -— THE COURT: You still have not asked this man the question which I really need to know: Has he been convicted of a crime which falls within the matter of character assassination, I'll call it. BY MR. CROSBY: Q. Have you been convicted of a crime? A. Ever convicted of a crime: Q. Yes, sir. A. Yes, sir. Q. What would those crimes be? A. [had two DUI’s, things of that nature. Q. Anything involving bad checks, fraud, stealing, grand larceny? A. Never. Q. Now, when you said that they were ratting him out, what did you mean by that, or said that Kelvin Reynolds -- A. Fifth Amendment, sir. APPENDIX 3. Slaughter v. Mississippi, 2000-KA-01533-SCT,95 (Feb. 14, 2002). Order denying rehearing (May 23, 2002) Supreme Court of Mississippi Court of Appeals of the State of Mississippi Office of the Clerk Betty W. Sephton (Street Address) Post Office Box 249 450 High Street Jackson, Mississippi 39205-0249 Jackson, Mississippi 39201 Telephone: (601) 359-3694 Facsimile: (601) 359-2407 e-mail:sctclerk@mssc.state.ms.us May 23, 2002 This is to advise you that the Mississippi Supreme Court rendered the following decision on the 23rd day of May, 2002. Supreme Court Case # 2000-KA-01533-SCT Trial Court Case # 99-331 Jodon Antonio Slaughter v. State of Mississippi Motion for rehearing filed by appellant is denied. *NOTICE TO CHANCERY/CIRCUIT/COUNTY COURT CLERKS* If an original of any exhibit other than photos was sent to the Supreme Court Clerk and should now be returned to you, please advise this office in —— immediately. APPENDIX 4. Trial Court ruling on jury instructions. Charge Conference (Jury Out) 667 Judge, when I went into this trial, there was a distinct possibility that we would have some of the other co-defendants or other indicted defendants testify. And we didn’t know right up until - in fact, them attorneys have been here and sat in the courtroom and gave every indication they were desperate to try and work out a deal where their clients would testify, and that’s why I used the vague word of “alleged accomplice.” I kept it vague because I didn’t know who all was going to testify. But I would need to modify this, because there was only one alleged accomplice in this, and — namely, Regina Richardson. THE COURT: Well, you want to redo this to make it read that the testimony of Regina -- whatever her name is -- Well, reword it however you want to word it to make it specific for her. MR. CROSBY: I would submit: “The testimony of Regina Richardson, an alleged accomplice, is to be considered,” et cetera. The rest of it would remain the same. MR. SIMPSON: To which we would object. THE COURT: On what basis? [668: RE 127] MR. SIMPSON: Two bases: One, she’s not an accomplice. She’s not indicted for murder. She’s indicted for accessory after the fact, which is not a lesser included offense. You can’t be found guilty of accessory after the fact as a lesser included to murder. It’s a separate stand-alone crime in and of itself, and an accomplice has to be one - someone who is willingly there, present and participates in some overt act towards the furtherance of the crime. There's no such evidence of that at all. The only testimony is that she did not know in fact that that crime was fixing to take place. 3 ~ My second objection is that it singles out the testimony of a single witness, which is impermissible. MR. CROSBY: Well, we have to - I'm sorry. THE COURT: I’ve not thought about it in the nature of the charge that she was charged with, accessory after the fact. But those instructions that have been given in this nature do relate to those who participated in the crime itself. MR. SIMPSON: Willingly participated. THE COURT: Do you have some authority on that? This give me a problem [669: RE 128] here because it - because technically, she was not 4 -- there’s no evidence that she was a participant in this crime other than driving out there. You never were able to get anything out of her that she knew in advance of what was going to happen; that she willingly went out there for that purpose. And the only thing that has come out is, is that she was indicted as an accessory after the fact, and that that was dismissed. MR. CROSBY: Here’s what she did say, and it was contradictory, but it was said at one point or the other, either brought out in her prior statements or in her testimony, that she was expecting there to be some kind of — THE COURT: Argument, fight maybe. MR. CROSBY: -- an argument and possibly even as much as a pistol whipping, although, not a killing. When she participated in this, she turned her lights off on her car, she drove around, she helped get to this location, and then she -- her conduct subsequent to that without any threats being made to her, she continued to help and -- allegedly help in the concealment of evidence and such, which would all be -- could have been used [670; RE 129] against her as someone who was a principal being -- I mean, if you go in to roba bank or steal a car or take a car away from someone, the violence, rob a Quick Stop, you could — I mean that’s felony murder. MR. SIMPSON: If you have that intent prior to the overt act in furtherance of the crime. There’s no evidence that she had any knowledge, intent or did anything in furtherance of committing any assault upon the gentleman. And in fact, You Honor, S — I mean, all he wants to do is attack the credibility of Regina Richardson. He has instruction D-3 regarding prior inconsistent statements. That instruction is there for the jury to attack her credibility. To try to include her as an accomplice, someone who is engaged in the furtherance of the crime, there are no facts to support that. THE COURT: Of course, I guess what her answers were, were — that could perhaps be considered to be self-serving, her saying that she did not anticipate there being any problems, that at one point in time, she testified as I recall, that she — when the — she saw the defendant take a gun from the bag and stick it in his --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386015_0605%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.