IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT STATE OF MISSISSIPPI ve OF JONES COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI CAUSE NO. 2022-16-KR2B. BRANDON LEE GARDNER BROOKE TAYLOR STRINGER ORDER ON MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE There came on for hearing the Motion for Change of Venue filed by the Defendant Brooke Taylor Stringer, joined in by the co-Defendant Brandon Lee Gardner. In this case, the defendants have been indicted for the capital murder of Rosalee Stringer, the 6-month-old daughter of the Defendant Brooke Taylor Stringer. The child died, according to the medical records and the State’s expert, of “nonaccidental traumatic head injury” on October 28, 2019. From the exhibits submitted by Defendant Stri yer at the hearing, the following is a summary of publications/articles regarding the child’s death and the subsequent arrest of the defendants: PUBLICATION Laurel Leader Call Newspaper WDAM TV website witv website Laurel Impact News “Justice for Rosalee” “2 arrested on capital murder charges in Jones Co.” “Jones County mother, boyfriend charged with capital murder in 2019 death of infant” “Mother and boyfriend charged with Capital Murder in 2019 death of six- month-old” DATE December 17, 2021 December 17, 2021 December 17, 2021 December 17, 2021 FILED JAN 13 2073 CONCETTA BROOKS CIRCUIT CLERK JONES COUNTY, MS_Dark Horse Press website Laurel Leader Call Newspaper website WDAM TV WDAM TV Laure! Leader Call ‘Newspaper website ‘The Demon’s Den Laure! Leader Call ‘Newspaper website WHLT TV Mississippi News Laurel Leader Call Newspaper website The Charles Smith Blog Laurel Leader Call ‘Newspaper website Laurel Leader Call Newspaper “Jones County Couple Charged with Capital Murder in 2019 Infant Death” “EDITORIAL: Seeking justice for baby Rosalee” “UPDATE: Man charge with capital murder out on bond” “Woman charged in capital murder of 6- month-old bonds out of Jones Co. jail” “Mother charged in baby’s death out on bond.” “Woman charged in capital murder of 6- ‘month-old bonds out of Jones Co. jail” “Trial date set for accused baby killers” “Trial date set for Jones County couple accused of killing 6-month-old girl” “Trial date set for Jones County couple accused of killing 6-month-old girl” “BACK OFF!” “Accused baby killers seek new venue, new judge” — with LLC Facebook discourse attached “Accused baby killers seek new venue, new judge” “Trial set for Aug. 29 moved to January” December 17, 2021 December 20, 2021 December 23, 2021 January 12, 2022 January 12, 2022 January 12 2022 May 2, 2022 May 3, 2022 May 3, 2022 May 20, 2022 May 25, 2022 September 9, 2022 September 10, 2022 Photographs published with the various publications/articles include photos of the defendants in jail uniforms, defendants’ mug shots, and photographs of the infant.Attached to the Defendant Stringer’s Motion are seventy (70) affidavits of individuals asserting under oath that Defendant Stringer cannot receive a fair or impartial trial in Jones County, Mississippi based upon observation and awareness of public sentiment against Defendant Stringer. ‘The Court noted at the hearing that in multiple instances, two to three of the affiants reside at the same address. Further, a number of the affidavits appear to be from multiple individuals residing on the same road, Nonetheless, the affidavits filed by the Defendant far exceed the requirements of Miss. Code Ann, §99-15-35. Miss. Code Ann. §99-15-35 provides that when the Motion for Change of Venue is supported by the affidavits of two or more credible persons that by reason of prejudgment or grudge or ill will to the defendant in the public mind she cannot have a fair and impartial trial in the county where the offense is charged to have been committed, the circuit judge may change the ‘venue to another county. That section has been interpreted to mean that upon the filing of a Motion for Change of Venue supported by two such affidavits affirming the defendant's inability to receive a fair trial, there arises a presumption that an impartial jury cannot be obtained. Welde v. State, 3 So.3d 113 (2009). The Mississippi Supreme Court has set out certain elements that, when present, serve as an indicator that the presumption is irrebuttable. One such element is whether the case is a capital case, based on a heightened standard of review. /d. This is a capital case. However, the Court has also held that a Motion for Change of Venue is not automatically ‘granted in a capital case, but is largely a matter within the sound discretion of the court, Jd. In the Welde case, the defendant attached two affidavits from citizens who stated Welde could not receive a fair and impartial trial. During the pre-trial hearing on the motion, the State presented five witnesses (the Board of Supervisors of Itawamba County) who each testified that Welde could in fact receive a fair and impartial trial. There the court reserved a ruling on the motion pending voir dire examination at trial. Only one prospective juror that recalled news media 3coverage on the case felt that he had already formed a fixed opinion on the verdict. The court denied the motion and found that where the evidence was conflicting on the question of whether the defendant could receive a fair and impartial trial, the appellate court generally defers to the opinion of the trial judge. In Fisher v, State, 481 So.2d 203 (Miss. 1985), later reversed on other grounds, the Court emphasized that venue decisions were committed to the “trial court judge’s sound discretion, not his unfettered discretion.” Id, at 215. “The sound exercise of the discretion vested in the trial judge when faced with a motion for change of venue must be informed by the evidence presented at the venue hearing coupled with the trial judge’s reasoned application of his sense of the community...” Jd. In the Fisher decision, the Mississippi Supreme Court noted the practice at that time of judges not ruling at the conclusion of the venue hearing but rather taking the matter under advisement pending voir dire examination of the jurors at trial. Jd, at 223. With regard to this, the Court held: Absent unusual circumstances, the trial judge should rule on the motion at the conclusion of the venue hearing and in any event prior to the summoning of the prospective jurors for trial. If as here the evidence offered at the venue hearing creates a substantial doubt whether this defendant can receive a fair trial before a Lauderdale County jury, the trial judge should so rule and not wait to see if voir dire of the prospective jurors may cure his doubts. Id. ‘The Court in Fisher concluded that “the accused is entitled to a ruling on his motion prior to the time when the trial judge ‘knows’ that there are sitting in the courtroom at the county's expense dozens, if not hundreds of prospective jurors. Our observations above regarding the problem of unmasking juror bias... militate against waiting for trial before ruling in the first instance on a motion for change of venue.” 481 So.2d at 224. 4In Weeks v. State, 493 So.2d 1280 (Miss. 1986), the Mississippi Supreme Court reiterated its point in Fisher “that absent unusual circumstances the trial judge should rule on the motion at the conclusion of the venue hearing and in any event prior to summoning prospective jurors. We said in essence that the trial judge should not wait to see if voir dire cures doubts created by at a venue hearing. It is not reversable error to do otherwise, however.” 493 So.2d at 1287. More recently, the Court of Appeals of Mississippi decided Davis v. State, 196 So.3d 194 (Miss. Ct. App. 2016). There the defendant had filed a Motion for Change of Venue supported by affidavits from a political party leader, an attorney, a physician, and members of the Southaven Board of Aldermen. The State failed to put forth any witnesses to rebut the defendant’s showing that he was entitled to a change of venue. The State did argue, however, that it believed that a fair jury could be empaneled and requested that the court go forward with voir dire. The trial court reserved its ruling until after voir dire and thereafter denied the change of venue. ‘At the voir dire examination in Davis, sixty-two out of eighty-eight members of the venire responded that they had read, seen or heard about the case. Nine of the twelve jurors empaneled ‘were among those that had read, seen or heard something about the case. The Court of Appeals reiterated that under Mississippi law, upon a proper application for a change of venue a presumption arises that an impartial jury cannot be obtained. id. at 198. The Court noted that the procedure employed by the trial court in waiting to see if voir dire cures doubts created at the venue hearing had been criticized by the Mississippi Supreme Court in the Weeks decision. The Davis Court reversed the trial court for denying the change of venue in light of the fact that the State failed to rebut the presumption that arose upon Davis’ application for a change of venue. It noted that “Unlike in Welde, the State simply requested to proceed with voir dire without putting forth any witnesses or submitting any affidavits.” Jd. ar 199.Benita Pate ats banieedc eA a 26 Nine 2 ana te & ” Bart kee ant te ugha it eon corsvect ae le Bie 2 iwi Mit ats Bet ll BIG aye cd andl te cacdusied stots ages deollic cur det os tae onkT setrigblé ‘by ston Bae? Ke yt oath pli cit ae anon vobt face gah aah mae cae unig gt io ate beak oat bogey ud bubnarses dle st weet ovis Me : : Ha acta Bay a w]e EM seta iting saa catia guaran dlThe Court of Appeals ended the reversal in Davis by expressing its concern with the State's approach of relying solely on voir dire as a means of rebutting the presumption with respect to a change of venue. The Court noted that it had found no other jurisprudence supporting that strategy and that condoning it would mean §99-15-35 served no purpose. Jd. at 200. In addition, the Court observed that the defendant’s trial strategy was arguably adversely affected since he did not know where his trial would be held until the moming of the trial, when the trial court denied the motion to change venue following jury selection. In the case at hand the State offered no testimony of witnesses or witness affidavits to rebut the presumption resulting from the Defendant's Motion with required accompanying affidavits. ‘That, coupled with the fact that this is a capital case with defendants on trial for their lives, and a large amount of media coverage, the Court finds that the Motion should be granted. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that the Motion for Change of Venue is GRANTED. The venue for the trial of this case shall be Neshoba County, Mississippi. The trial of this case shall commence on Tuesday, June 20, 2023 at 9:00 am, at the Circuit Courtroom of the ‘Neshoba County Courthouse at Philadelphia, Mississippi. Patti Duncan Lee, the Circuit Clerk for Neshoba County, Mississippi, is hereby directed to draw a venire of not less than 300 names of prospective jurors and issue a summons to each juror for the purpose of empaneling jurors to serve on the jury for this case commencing June 20, 2023. ‘The Clerk is directed to summons the said jurors to report at 8:00 a.m. on Tuesday, June 20, 2023, to the Circuit Courtroom at the Neshoba County Courthouse in Philadelphia, Mississippi, and for doing so said Clerk shall be allowed the fee pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. §25-7-13(2)(1)(n) for said service, to be billed to and paid for by Jones County, Mississippi. For the convenience of the Neshoba County jurors and since sequestration is not required in this case, the jurors shall not be sequestered.The Circuit Clerk of Jones County shall transmit to the Circuit Clerk of Neshoba County a certified copy of this Order, ‘The Cireuit Clerk of Neshoba County shall then file the Certified Order and designate a docket number for this case for future reference. All pleadings, motions and orders of the court, and other matters thereafter filed shall bear the both the case number for Jones County and the assigned case number for Neshoba County and shall be filed with the Cireuit Clerk of Jones County. The Circuit Clerk of Jones County shall comply with the requirements of Miss. Code Ann. §99-15-37 and attach her certificate to all the required record entries and papers under the Clerk’s hand with the seal of the court annexed and shall forward, sealed up, by special messenger or deliver it herself, together with all the original subpoenas in the case, to the Circuit Clerk of Neshoba County. In the event there should be an appeal of a verdict in this case, the duties of the Clerk in regard to the appeal shall be handled by the Cireuit Clerk of Jones County, Mississippi. SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED on this the Je lay of January, 2023. CIRCUIT COURT JU tiny, Sea emcee rey cimatu i seo at orbs gecsayaipseeranestana Lnotitintitamareenrce soni co rate a a cn Baie "ans1 Frags betaps aah Pease ie at seed Horanmntae a ie kim . : sebeuty: oh