Post News . Share Ideas . Inspire Innovation . Get Informed . Get Involved

Thursday, June 6, 2013

Marcus Jackson Civil Trial on Monday's Schedule


Marcus Jackson (NCDOC photo)
While sexual predator and former Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Officer Marcus Ramon Jackson has long been released from his short sentence behind bars, the last known civil suit related to his actions while on the job is still set to come before the Court.  While a jury trial was originally called, documents filed more recently show a bench trial is set for Monday, June 10, 2013 in the U.S. Western District Court of North Carolina before the Honorable Judge Graham Mullen at 10:30 a.m.

Judge Mullen set out at number of specific requirements in the order shown below on May 25th, including a requirement to discuss the possibility of settlement.  However the trial remains on the court schedule as of 6/6/13.  All subpoenas were to be issued immediately and there are orders about how evidence and exhibits are to be prepared and distributed.

Smith & Arnold will be representing two women as consolidated plaintiffs.  Marcus Jackson does not have an attorney of record.

Chief of Police Rodney Monroe will be well-represented on the dime of Charlotte tax funds by two attorneys from Womble Carlyle:  James P. Cooney, III and Marcey Rose Selle, along with Richard Harcourt Fulton representing the City of Charlotte

Read in this prior post more details about Jackson’s lengthy list of crimes, Monroe’s false statements to the public about his involvement with Internal Affairs about Jackson’s earlier known activity, and restraining orders that had been granted before Jackson was even a police officer.  Monroe admitted Jackson should never have been admitted to be an officer.  The post also talks about millions in settlements and fees paid to attorneys, not to mention the internal attorneys’ fees, employees’ time spent in deposition and preparation for those… it’s lots of money to add to the trauma induced by at least one bad actor with a badge.

Some on Charlotte’s City Council at the time voiced a desire to see Jackson’s personnel file and perform an investigation into how Chief Monroe and Internal Affairs had handled the entire matter, as well as how the hiring process was run.  In the end, they inexplicably voted not to know how this critical part of the city was being run.


Citynewswatch editorial staff would argue the sentence Jackson received was nowhere near long enough for the offenses committed under color of law he committed.  He is now out of jail.  He’s a registered sex offender.  Those are the facts.
He can not be tried again.  He probably does not have any appreciable assets to be held in civil judgment, so if he is making any effort to reform and repent, the decent thing to do would be to get on the stand and TALK.  For the women involved, freely admit to and document everything he did to them specifically.

For the department, there is a long list of things that happened leading to his hiring and retention which shouldn’t have happened.  He knows it.  We know it.  Monroe and others have admitted to some of them (after being caught and forced to) but nobody has the full story.  All the other cases were settled, and so there was no public testimony about his hiring, who may have sponsored him, if he received any special conditions on hiring, why his falsifying reports was permitted, if there were others we don’t know about still, if he did in fact inform anyone about his restraining order before being hired or at any other time, etc… 

It’s past time to finish cleaning house.

It’s going to be very interesting to see who’s on the witness list.  Let’s hope some of the local media cover this trial.


Plaintiff, )
v. )                               O R D E R
Defendants. )

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION. This case is set for trial on Monday, June 10, 2013, at 10:30 a.m. The parties are hereby directed as follows:
1.         By Monday, May 13, 2013 at 4:00 P.M. the parties are required:
(a) To discuss the possibility of settlement.
(b) To exchange copies of exhibits, number and become acquainted with all exhibits and agree to the extent possible on the authenticity of exhibits.
(c) To file a trial brief and a joint statement of the issues remaining for trial.
(d) To file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in all non-jury matters.
2.         You will be expected to comply with the provisions of the pretrial order regarding trial preparation. COUNSEL ARE NOTIFIED THAT FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DEADLINES WILL RESULT IN SANCTIONS.
3.         All cases are subject to call for trial when reached, regardless of their position on the calendar. As this is a bench trial, no jury will be selected.
4.         Issue any needed subpoenas immediately upon receipt of this Order.
5.         When presenting judgments or orders for the trial judge’s signature, you are required to submit them in Microsoft Word format via CyberClerk. If you are not a registered ECF user, or if are appearing pro-se, you need to show that you have sent copies to opposing counsel and to submit the original and three copies for the use of the Court, plus sufficient copies for all counsel of record in the case. Upon entry of the judgment, the Clerk will at that time serve the filed copies to counsel.
6.         Exhibits: Parties are expected to use presentation technology available in the courtroom to display evidence to the jury. Training on the equipment should be arranged well in advance of trial with the courtroom deputy. See “Courtroom Technology” link on the district website at Counsel shall provide in electronic format any exhibits of documents, photographs, videos, and any other evidence that may be reduced to an electronic file, for the use of Court personnel and the Court’s Jury Evidence Recording System (JERS) during trial. Documents and photographs shall be in .pdf, .jpg, .bmp, .tif, or .gif format; video and audio recordings shall be in .avi, .wmv, .mpg, .mp3, .wma, or .wav format. Each electronic exhibit shall be saved as a separate, independent file, and provided to the Court on a storage device, such as cd, dvd, or flash drive. Exhibit files shall be named consistent with their order and name on the exhibit list. For example:
Exhibit 1 - photograph of....
Exhibit 2(a) - contract
Exhibit 2(b) - video deposition of....
7. If you have or discover a serious objection to trial which you think ought to result in a postponement, please file your motion to continue electronically or in writing if you are not a registered ECF user or if you are appearing pro-se.


Signed: April 25, 2013

Tuesday, June 4, 2013


June 3, 2013, the United States Supreme Court released a split opinion saying the government has a right to collect DNA from innocent people (we are all presumed innocent until proven guilty) without a warrant or exigent circumstances.

Read the full Maryland v. King opinion here.  The Supreme Court reviewed the Maryland case “When officers make an arrest supported by probable cause to hold for a serious offense and bring the suspect to the station to be detained in custody, taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee’s DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.”

The presentation of the Opinion of the Court begins on page 5. 

The dissent of opposing judges begins on page 34.

Both are important reading.

The test cases are sometimes easy to consider, but the concepts and ideals are what's important.  What do you think?