The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals has ruled Judge
Glenn Thompson has three weeks to "respond to the
allegations" against him. The ruling was 4 to 1, with Sue Bell
Cobb dissenting. This means the CCA was not prepared to
give dwm a new trial, and hold the old one for naught--at least
not yet. They're giving Thompson a chance to explain
himself--which he didn't do in his "new trial" ruling.
It appears this is an unusual ruling. Since Judge Cobb
(Alternate Chief Justice of the Court of the Judiciary) argued
the CCA might not even have the authority to do it, I wonder
if it means she's never seen it happen before in her 9 years on
the CCA, and 12 years prior to that in District Court.
Thompson's response should be VERY interesting. It's not
what he was expecting, that's for sure.
And I wonder how the press will cover this...
I'll bet most of the "outlets" won't find it newsworthy at all,
and those that cover it will present it as a minor
technicality...that everything is normal when a trial judge has
to respond in writing to fifty pages of articulate allegations in
a petition against him and the defense lawyers by the State of
|Pursuant to the provisions of Rule 21 (a), Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure,
the respondent is hereby granted twenty-one (21) days to respond to the allegations
contained in this petition for writ of mandamus.
McMillan, P.J., and Baschab, Shaw, and Wise, JJ., concur.
Cobb, J., dissents with opinion.
Done this the 8th day of July, 2003.
|"hateful busybody with an unrequited case of
jail house love..." -Yecnor P
|Never interrupt your enemy when they're
|Diane Murphy got three front-page stories in the Daily.
The five members of the Court of Criminal Appeals got ignored.
I guess this is part of their alleged unbiased, ethical, professional
|I submit that Catherine Halbrooks presented her
case in court with the same dignity and intelligence
that is currently displayed on the dwm fan club's