January 7, 2022

VIA EMAIL ONLY

Lucian T. Pera, Esq.
ADAMS AND REESE LLP
6075 Poplar Ave., Ste. 700
Memphis, TN 38119
(lucian.pera@arlaw.com)

Re: Commercial Appeal’s Reporting on District Attorney Race

Mr. Pera-

As we discussed this morning, I represent Shelby County District Attorney General Amy
Weirich and her re-election campaign in the 2022 Shelby County District Attorney General race.
I am writing you in your capacity as counsel to Gannett Co., Inc. and it’s publication, The
Commercial Appeal.

General Weirich was recently contacted by a reporter with The Commercial Appeal and invited
to respond to an open letter published by a local political group, People for Fairness and Justice
(“PFJ”) that disparaged General Weirich and included multiple false claims. A copy of the letter
can be found at https://www.fairnessandjustice.com/about.

While the independent publication by PFJ served as an irritant to my clients, the Commercial
Appeal’s expressed intent to re-publish the letter is troubling, as the letter itself defames General
Weirich by including multiple factual inaccuracies. Indeed, the Commercial Appeal’s
publication would serve to elevate, endorse and validate the false statements contained in the
letter.

A summary of PFJ’s false statements is listed below:

Noura Jones
A statement is made that General Weirich “hid critical evidence” in the Noura Jones case leading
to the conviction being overturned. General Weirich never hid evidence in the case, and no court
ever determined that she did so. PFJ’s statement is factually inaccurate.

Michael Rimmer
A statement is made that suggests General Weirich’s top prosecutor was censured by the Board
of Professional Responsibility for hiding evidence. This statement is intended to assert that the
prosecutor worked at the direction and control of General Weirich at the time of the incident.
The actual incident occurred prior to her becoming the District Attorney General. Indeed, it is
inaccurate to suggest that the individual in question was “one of her top prosecutors” at the time
the subject incident occurred. PFJ’s statement is intended to deceive.

Braswell
A statement is made that “an envelope was discovered with Weirich’s initials and instructions
that it was not to be given to the defense.” This is factually inaccurate. The assertion that an
envelope was found in a trial court file was thoroughly litigated in court and found to be without
merit. That ruling was upheld on appeal. PFJ’s statement is factually inaccurate.

Thomas
A statement is made that, “Thomas’s conviction and death sentence were reversed because Amy
Weirich did not disclose that one of the main witnesses for the prosecution was paid for her
cooperation.” This is factually inaccurate. The trial record confirms that General Weirich had no
knowledge that the U.S. Attorney’s office had reimbursed a witness for travel and lodging during
a years prior federal trial. PFJ’s statement that she failed to disclose information necessarily
includes the assertion that she had knowledge of the underlying fact. She did not; and the trial
record confirms that she did not. PFJ’s statement is untrue.

While my clients recognize that political campaigns often involve persuasive and insulting
language that includes misleading inuendo, she reasonably relies on the news media’s duty to
publish only that which is factual. The Commercial Appeal’s plan to publish PFJ’s letter in its
present form is a breach of that duty

It is our hope that your client reconsiders its stated plan to publish the inaccurate letter from PFJ.

Sincerely,

WISEMAN BRAY PLLC

Chris Patterson