Log in

View Full Version : Prosecutor Quits Heather Ellis Case: 15 Years for Cutting Line at Wal-Mart?


The Batman
November 15th, 2009, 09:51 PM
If you hadn't heard about the case of Heather Ellis, a 24-year-old black college student facing 15 years in prison after being accused of cutting a line at Wal-Mart, the case has now had a major development. The prosecutor in the case, Stephen Sokoloff, has recused himself. The removal occurred after a motion was filed in which Sokoloff was accused of "making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused."

The complaint revolved around a letter that Sokoloff sent to a reporter who'd written a story on the case. In Sokoloff's words: "Over the last several months, the defendant and her supporters have made a concerted attempt, through the traditional media and the Internet, to portray me as an overly aggressive and racially biased prosecutor."

The case generated a firestorm of national controversy when the Ku Klux Klan sent threatening cards to the family when they planned to hold a rally at the courthouse.

Georgetown University professor and attorney Christopher Metzler, had this to say, "The question is whether Stephen Sokoloff's voluntary recusal is part of a strategy to delay the case in the hopes that media attention will die. Just because a prosecutor removes himself from a case, does not mean that he removes his influence from the case. If a special prosecutor is appointed, that does not end the accusations that Ellis may not be given a fair trial."

As you probably know, I have called around the nation for a rally to support Heather in her case. I have spoken with her family, read the arrest reports, watched the Wal-Mart surveillance video and studied the case thoroughly. My conclusion is that, based on the officers' own words, there is hardly anything that could have happened inside that Wal-Mart to justify sending a college student, who has no criminal record and is on her way to medical school, to prison for up to 15 years.

In my outreach on the case, I do not want to allow a big truth to be turned into a sequence of small lies. The big truth in all this is that Heather does not deserve to go to prison for what she is accused of doing. If left without service from the Wal-Mart clerk (as Heather alleges), many of us can agree that this would be a justifiable reason to be outraged. What is also true is that if Heather had been the child of a prominent elected official in the town of Kennett, I doubt that she would be facing these felonies. Thousands of Americans seem to agree, as we've received word of buses coming from all around the country.

My position on the Heather Ellis case remains unchanged: It is nothing more than a symptom of bigger concerns, such as the fact that (according to the head of the Eastern Missouri ACLU), African Americans are 50 percent more likely to be pulled over by police officers in Kennett and are twice as likely to be searched when compared with their white counterparts. My focus is on cases such as that of 15-year-old Walter Currie, of nearby Poplar Bluff, who was burned alive in a racially motivated incident.

My call is for Dunklin County to be subject to a state and federal investigation. If there is nothing wrong, then the investigation will find nothing. In the event that city and county officials are working together to destroy the lives of innocent citizens, though, it is our duty to uncover the truth. That is what we are fighting for and that is what we will request. My father was a cop for 25 years, and while I have tremendous respect for good officers, I've also learned to understand the temptation for officers to abuse their authority. This should not be tolerated.

This case is not about Heather Ellis, and it's not about prosecutor Stephen Sokoloff. It is about America, the Constitution and the search for fairness and equity.
________________
This is so fucking stupid if the woman would have stfu and got her dumbass out the store none of this would be happening the reason why I'm so pissed right now is because this is happening in my fucking town. Seriously now the fucking KKK is going to march tomorrow along with stupid Black equality groups. OMFG this is ugh

TheKingDavis
November 15th, 2009, 10:01 PM
This is bogus. (not the story, just the point) why send her for 15 years over a damned line at walmart

Kaleidoscope Eyes
November 15th, 2009, 10:03 PM
Well, what you've posted alone doesn't really give much info so I'm a little confused. I gather that this is about more than just cutting in line at Wal-Mart, but I can't figure out what actually happened or why her race has become such an issue. I'm gonna be doing a little more research into this I think, haha, because now I'm intrigued (although confused).

The Batman
November 15th, 2009, 10:03 PM
Ok that article is kinda biased and one sided but it has some things in there that i want to keep so here's one from our local paper.
____________

A motion filed in a Dunklin County courtroom brings a new twist to the case against Heather Ellis, a case that has garnered national media attention.

Ellis, an African-American woman from Kennett, is charged in connection with an incident at the Kennett Walmart in 2007 during which she was arrested and charged with two counts of the Class C felony assault on a law enforcement officer, one count of the Class B misdemeanor peace disturbance and one count of the Class A misdemeanor resisting arrest. Ellis was charged as a result of a scuffle that broke out in a checkout line at the store, following Ellis being accused by associates employed by Walmart of cutting in line.

The motion in question, filed by Ellis' attorney on November 2, involves Ellis' legal representation requesting Dunklin County Prosecuting Attorney Stephen Sokoloff to recuse himself from the case.

Sokoloff is accused by Ellis' camp of "...making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused."

According to the three-page document, Sokoloff replied to a story written on the case by Michael I. Niman of Progressive Populist.

The article, entitled "Felony charge for cutting in line while black in Missouri," tells Ellis' side of the story in which she claims to have been racially targeted by both Walmart employees and Kennett police officers. The story also accuses a police officer of intimidating her family with a Ku Klux Klan (KKK) business card.

Sokoloff wrote a two-page letter in response to the article in which he accused Niman of having done no background research and spoke of his "disregard for objective facts and its reliance on biased and purposefully misleading statements and outright lies."

He also suggested that Niman speak with any of Ellis' three fired attorneys who withdrew following "threats from her family."

Sokoloff goes on to state that one officer allegedly received a split lip from a "punch thrown by the 'innocent' Ms. Ellis."

In his defense, Sokoloff said in a written statement, that "over the last several months, the defendant and her supporters have made a concerted attempt, through the traditional media and the internet, to portray me as an overly aggressive and racially biased prosecutor."

"They have distorted the facts and my record to try to divert the public's attention from her (Heather Ellis') conduct," Sokoloff alleged.

The prosecuting attorney also explained that the statements he made regarding the case were contained in a private email to the author of an article about the case that was not public, not intended for publication.

On November 5, after a hearing on Ellis' request for Sokoloff's recusal, the judge presiding over the matter, Joe Satterfield, denied the request stating there was no legal basis for it.

According to Sokoloff, the court found that the statement(s) he made, were properly made under the Missouri Supreme Court Rules relating to pre-trial publicity as it was made to correct misinformation disseminated by Ellis or others on her behalf.

"Now that the judge has found there was no impropriety on my part, I have considered the matter at some length," Sokoloff said following Satterfield's decision. "I have determined that to remove any possible basis for a claim of bias, either at trial or in any future appeal, and to refocus attention on the actual issues and facts of the case, I will voluntarily recuse myself."

The Dunklin County Prosecutor said he has already filed notice of this voluntary motion through the courts, which records support, and that a request was also made to appoint a special prosecutor to try the case in his absence.

"It is my understanding that the court has appointed an experienced and competent prosecutor to carry the matter forward to trial or other resolution," Sokoloff added.

Court records indicate the attorney filling Sokoloff's shoes in the case will be Morley Swingle, the elected prosecutor of Cape Girardeau County.

"It is my hope and expectation that the case will go forward as scheduled, so that the matter can be fully and finally resolved," Sokoloff said.

Although Judge Satterfield did make a decision to deny Ellis' request to recuse Sokoloff from the case, another motion filed by the defendant remains undecided upon by the judge, according to court records. That motion is a response to the state's motion in limine, a motion to withhold or allow evidence, which was filed last month.

Among the requests made by the state are that the following not be allowed as evidence: the general reputation of the victim (law enforcement officers alleging assault), dishonesty of witnesses, evidence of other complaints or accusations against victims relating to previous arrests, any evidence of matters claimed to have arisen at the police station after the arrest, evidence of the purpose of Ellis' trip to Walmart, character evidence of defendant except by general reputation in the community, testimony on the impact of the incident on the defendant and asks to strike the testimony of three witnesses who have reportedly been uncooperative.

The order also requests that Ellis refrain from "wearing or displaying any religious symbols or religion-specific clothing or any testimony relating to the defendant's faith, religious beliefs or training."

Ellis took issue with a number of the requests.

In response to the state's request regarding religious attire, it states that Ellis "objects to any attempts by the state to restrict the religious attire of members of the public who may attend the trial. Those members have a constitutional right to freedom of religion and expression that should not be restricted by the state. A member of the public attending the trial should be at liberty to wear appropriate religious garments if they choose."

The paragraph goes on to state that Ellis should be permitted to address religion and religious training during voir dire, jury selection, to ensure a fair jury is selected.

Satterfield will have to make a public ruling on those specific motions before it is determined whose arguments will stand.

The Ellis trial is currently scheduled to be heard by a jury in a Dunklin County courtroom before Judge Joe Satterfield at 9 a.m., on Wednesday, Nov. 18, 2009. The Daily Dunkin Democrat will attend and report any developments in the case.

Kaleidoscope Eyes
November 15th, 2009, 10:41 PM
That clears things up a bit, thanks Thomas.

If police officers had to come in over cutting in line, it sounds like she was causing a bit of a ruckus to start with. I'm guessing what, someone asked her not to cut in line and she got bitchy? I don't know what could cause store security or the police to get involved over something like that, and for her to be so offended that she'd assault them. I guess she felt that, "Ma'am could you please move to the back of the line," or whatever was said to her, was too harsh a punishment? I don't even know how race became involved here. It seems a key part of her version of the story but then the prosecutor, upon handing the case over to someone else, admits that her family keeps trying to perpetuate the whole race issue (which he believes is to distract from the issue of what actually went down). Maybe he's biased because it's his job to prosecute, but it does put an interesting spin on her story.

Also, if her own family is threatening and scaring off the lawyers being paid to defend her, it definitely says something for her character given that it's her family in question. You don't look too innocent and victimized when an officer has a split lip and three lawyers (four, if you count the prosecutor) have given up the job after dealing with you and your family.

I have to say, that even if there is some basis to this theory that being black was the problem and not her own conduct, I'm really not believing that it's the main issue here.

And the moral of the story is:
If there's some serious issue with cutting in line at Walmart and you're annoyed with it, just move to the back of the line and everyone will shut up about it. Don't punch the officer who has to be brought in to talk to you about it.

The Batman
November 21st, 2009, 10:35 PM
She took the plea bargain which is 4 days in jail and 2 years probation they dropped the felony charges which was the original deal they wanted to give her. Funny how when they put 15 years in prison on the table you're no longer just trying to "prove your innocence"

Strength
November 22nd, 2009, 01:38 AM
15 years is indeed ridiculous but what is stupid is she cried out "racism" afterward.