published for thirty days, in some newspaper in the county where the crime was committed andin case there be no newspaper published in said county, then in an adjoining county, his petition
for pardon, setting forth therein the reasons why such pardon should be granted."
Miss.Const. § 124 (1890).
4.Although the case had been randomly assigned to Judge Weill, Judge Green reassigned
the case to herself, on the ground that Judge Weill was in trial.
Order of Re-Assignment
(Jan. 11, 2012); attached as Exhibit C.
5.On January 11, 2012, without notice to Petitioners, the Attorney General appeared before
Judge Green and requested a Temporary Restraining Order.’ A true and correct copy of the
hearing transcript is attached as Exhibit D.
6.The hearing was entirely
as the only attorneys who appeared were the Attorney
General and three attorneys who are employed and supervised by the Attorney General. For
example, Special Assistant Attorney General David K. Scott represented Honorable ChristopherEpps, Commissioner of the Mississippi Department of Corrections ("MDOC"), who is the lead
"Defendant." During the hearing Mr. Scott (who, when asked by the Court if he had had an
opportunity to review the Attorney General’s Petition, responded merely "I’ve briefly reviewed
January 11 hearing, page
lines 6-8) was unable to identify even one legal
argument to be made on behalf of his client and in opposition to his employer, including, for
example, that the State knew where several of Petitioners were at the time suit was filed but had
Per the Order that was issued, Petitioners were given no notice because "their locations are
unknown at this time." The Attorney General, however, did not represent to the Court that any effort had
been made to contact them. To the contrary, he explained exactly how he would contact Petitioners -after the hearing.
January 11 hearing p. 12 lines 11-18. After the hearing the Attorney
General was in fact able to contact Petitioners to serve the TRO. Petitioners allege that it was not at all
impractical for the Attorney General to give notice to Petitioners, and that there was no proper excuse forfailing to do so, nor for the Circuit Court’s failure to insist upon notice.