Note - This website moved Sunday Feb, 1o to a new address- http://www.folo.us Please go to http://www.folo.us to enter your comment! Thanks.
Returning to the Shelton saga (64-page pdf), it’s time to meet our protagonist: Byram, MS, lawyer J. Keith Shelton . . .
Jennings Hires Mr. Shelton to Represent Him in Possible Claims Against Judge Patton Under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for Possible Violation of Jennings’ Civil Rights
In the late fall of 1996, attorney Keith Shelton met with James Jennings, who told him the facts of his case against Judge Houston Patton. Shelton said that if the facts were as he’d just heard, he believed a claim against Judge Patton for violating Jennings’s civil rights had merit — but he wouldn’t be able to take this case on contingency. Eventually, however, they agreed that Shelton would handle the claim against Patton for a $2,500 retainer (waived in return for Jennings’ investigative work for Shelton) and a 50/50 (less $2,500) contingency fee.
Shelton, uneasy about trying a case that could negatively impact his future practice in Hinds County, began what would prove a fruitless search for “out-of-area” co-counsel. Sometime between mid-February and mid-March of 1997, he also spoke with Jacqueline Pierce, asking her if Judge Patton had actually made it clear that Jennings would have to agree to give up his $35,000 judgment to get out of jail. Her reply: “He most very definitely did.”
She went back over all she knew of the story, and when Jennings and Shelton asked her whether she would testify to that, she said, “James, all I know to do is tell the truth.” She repeated that she believed rules and laws had been broken and that Jennings’ constitutional rights had been violated.
Mr. Shelton Contacts Judge Patton to Discuss Settlement of the Potential §1983 Lawsuit
At about this time — March 26 or thereabouts — as Shelton was preparing to file suit on the §1983 claims, Jennings asked that he first call Judge Patton to seek a settlement. Shelton called the judge and asked to meet. Before leaving for this visit, he saw Jennings to clarify exactly what terms he wanted. Then, meeting with Patton, Shelton asked whether he was interested in talking settlement on Jennings’ claims to avoid a lawsuit. The judge said he felt he’d done nothing wrong to Jennings and was confident he’d have no trouble with the claims, adding that he felt the court record would support his contention of no fault on his own part.
Because Shelton hadn’t seen any paperwork on the judicial-perfomance complaint and wasn’t sure Jennings had formally filed one, he didn’t mention it. But Patton brought it up. Though Shelton said he didn’t know a lot about it, Patton told him he was bothered by the complaint and the investigation stemming from it, adding that any settlement would have to include the condition that Jennings “drop his complaint.”
Shelton repeated that he didn’t know a lot about this yet, but all they could promise was that Jennings would inform the JPC that his claims against Patton had been satisfied. As he understood it, he continued, a JPC complaint works just like Bar complaints against attorneys: since Jennings would have no power to dismiss it, informing the Commission was all he could do, and any positive effect that might have was the best they could hope for. Patton acknowledged that his understanding of “dropping” the complaint agreed with Shelton’s.
(By the way, an affidavit later supplied to the complaint tribunal by the executive director of the JPC would confirm that, upon receipt, a complaint becomes the sole property of the Commission; further input from the complainer is meaningless because JPC considers only whatever information its own investigation gathers.)
Telling the judge that he respected his belief that he’d done no wrong, Shelton took his leave. Back at the office, he recounted to Jennings all Patton had said, including his inquiry about the JPC complaint. Though fully aware it would mean nothing, they agreed that, should Judge Patton settle, Jennings would tell the JPC that his claims had been satisfied. As they parted, Shelton stressed to Jennings that he didn’t believe any agreement to settle would soon be forthcoming from Judge Patton.
That this was a misapprehension on Keith Shelton’s part accounts for what you’re about to read in Part 3 . . .
lotus
