Shelby County District Attorney Amy Weirich

67 Pages·2016·8.2 MB·English

IN DISCIPLINARY DISTRICT IX
OF THE
BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE
IN RE: AMY P. WEIRICH, DOCKET NO. 2016- SLO 33 ~9-KH
BPR No. 14441, Respondent,
an Attorney Licensed to Practice
Law in Tennessee
(Shelby County)

PETITION FOR DISCIPLINE

Comes now the Petitioner, the Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court
of Tennessee, by and through Disciplinary Counsel, pursuant to Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9, and files this
Petition for Discipline against Amy P. Weirich.
1. The Respondent, Amy P. Weirich, is an attorney admitted by the Supreme Court of
Tennessee to practice law in the State of Tennessee. Ms. Weirich’s most recent office address as
registered with the Board of Professional Responsibility is 201 Poplar Avenue, Suite 301,
Memphis, Tennessee, 38103-1945, being in Disciplinary District Ix. Ms. Weirich was licensed
to practice law in Tennessee in 1990 and her Board of Professional Responsibility number is
14441.
2. Pursuant to Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9, § 8.1, attorneys admitted to practice law in
Tennessee are subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, the Board of
Professional Responsibility, the Hearing Committee, hereinafter established, and the Circuit and
Chancery Courts.

3. Pursuant to Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9, § 1, the license to practice law in this state is a
privilege and it is the duty of every recipient of that privilege to act at all times, both professionally
and personally, in conformity with the standards imposed upon members of the bar as conditions
for the privilege to practice law. Pursuant to Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9, § 11.1, acts or omissions by an
attorney which violate the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State of Tennessee shall constitute
misconduct and be grounds for discipline.
4, The Respondent has failed to conduct herself in conformity with said standards and
is guilty of acts and omissions in violation of the authority cited. On December 30, 2015, the
Board recommended imposition of a public censure pursuant to Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9, § 15.1(d). On
January 19, 2016, Respondent demanded as of right that a formal proceeding be initiated pursuant
to Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 9, § 15.1(e).
FILE NO. 37419-9-PS
5. On August 26, 2014, the Board of Professional Responsibility (“Board”) opened
an investigative file based upon the complaint of ethical misconduct received by William Shelton
and based upon a decision of the Tennessee Supreme Court in the matter of State of Tennessee v.
Noura Jackson, 444 8.W.3d 554, (Tenn. 2014).
6. A true and exact copy of Mr. Shelton’s complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
A true and exact copy of the opinion in State of Tennessee v. Noura Jackson, 444 S.W.3d 554,
(Tenn. 2014), is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
7. On August 26, 2014, the Board sent Ms. Weirich a letter informing her of the
complaint. A true and exact copy of the letter dated August 26, 2014 is attached hereto as Exhibit
C.
8. On September 10, 2014, Ms. Weirich, through counsel, provided a response to the
complaint of misconduct. A true and exact copy of the response is attached hereto as Exhibit D.
9, The alleged ethical misconduct by Ms. Weirich arises from her actions while
serving as Assistant District Attorney General for Shelby County in the prosecution of Noura
Jackson.
10. Ms. Weirich was the lead prosecutor in the trial. Stephen Patrick Jones, Assistant
District Attorney, served as co-counsel.
11. | Noura Jackson (“defendant”) was tried for the first degree murder of her mother,
Jennifer Jackson, in February, 2009. The defendant was represented by attorneys Valerie Corder
and Arthur Quinn at trial.
12. The defendant exercised her constitutional right to remain silent and she did not
testify at the trial.
13. The prosecution called over forty-five witnesses and introduced over three hundred
trial exhibits. The trial lasted for two weeks.
14. The prosecution’s theory at trial was that the defendant murdered her mother in
order to gain control of property of her deceased father and to receive proceeds from her mother’s
life insurance policy.
15. At the commencement of final closing argument; Ms. Weirich improperly
commented on the defendant’s right to remain silent and to refrain from testifying.
16. Ms. Weirich stated in a loud tone of voice: “Just tell us where you were! That’s
all we are asking, Noura!”
17. Ms. Weirich was walking across the courtroom, towards the defendant, addressing
the jury when she made the statement.
18. Ms. Weirich gesticulated by raising both arms to point and gesture at the defendant
while making the statement.
19. It is a well-settled principle that a prosecutor may not comment upon a defendant’s
exercise of the Fifth Amendment right not to testify.
20. Immediately after Ms. Weirich’s comment, the defense objected and moved for a
mistrial.
21. The trial court denied the defense motion; however, the court delivered curative
instructions to the jury on the subject of Ms. Jackson’s constitutional right to remain silent and the
impropriety of ascribing any negative inference to the exercise of this right.
22. The defense later raised Ms. Weirich’s inappropriate comment as a reversible issue
on appeal.
23. Ms. Weirich contended that her statement was merely a summation of the testimony
of Ms. Eidson, a relative of the defendant who testified at trial.
24. Ms. Eidson, defendant’s aunt, testified at trial that she posed a question to the
defendant in a phone call after the defendant was arrested, “Noura, tell me where you were and
who were you with when Jennifer was murdered.”
25. Ms. Weirich offered no introduction, explanation, or context prior to making her
inappropriate comment to indicate that she was offering a summation of earlier testimony.
26. Further, Ms. Weirich utilized first person, plural pronouns “we” and “us” in the
statement she made to the jury.
27. Ms. Weirich’s statements served as a demand to the defendant, posed on behalf of
everyone in the courtroom, to explain herself.
28. The Tennessee Supreme Court held that Ms. Weirich’s argument to the jury
constituted an improper comment on the defendant’s decision not to testify. The Court concluded
that the remark was not merely a summation because her comments were significantly different
from the actual trial testimony of Ms. Eidson. (See Exhibit B, pp. 31-40)
29. The Tennessee Supreme Court concluded that Ms. Weirich’s inappropriate
comment entitled the defendant to a new trial. (See Exhibit B)
30. Based upon the well-settled principle that it is improper for a prosecutor to
comment upon the defendant’s right not to testify, the statements made by Ms. Weirich in oral
argument were not relevant or supported by admissible evidence.
31. Ms. Weirich’s conduct caused actual injury to the opposing party, to third parties
who participated in the trial, to judicial resources, and to the administration of justice.
32. By her acts and omissions, Ms. Weirich has violated Rules of Professional Conduct
3.4(e)(1), Fairness to Opposing Party and Counsel, and 8.4(a) and (d), Misconduct.
Rule 3.4: FAIRNESS TO THE OPPOSING PARTY AND COUNSEL!
A lawyer shall not:
(e) in trial,
(1) allude to any matter that the lawyer does not reasonably believe is
relevant or that will not be supported by admissible evidence;
RULE 8.4: MISCONDUCT!
It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
(a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly
assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;
(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;
AGGRAVATING FACTORS
33. After misconduct has been established, aggravating factors may be considered to
justify an increase in the degree of discipline.
' Rule adopted September 17, 2002 and effective March 1, 2003.
5
34. Ms. Weirich has substantial experience in the practice of law which justifies an
increase in the degree of discipline.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the Board of Professional Responsibility respectfully requests that the
Hearing Panel hear testimony and receive evidence in this cause and to make such finding of fact
and order such disciplinary action as it may deem appropriate.
Respectfully submitted,
Se (Sovutt
Sandy Garrett, BPR No. 13863
Chief Disciplinary Counsel
10 Cadillac Drive, Suite 220
Brentwood, Tennessee 37027
(615) 361-7500
Deputy Chief Disciplinary Counsel
10 Cadillac Drive, Suite 220
Brentwood, Tennessee 37027
(615) 361-7500
NOTICE TO PLEAD
TO: Amy P. Weirich, Esq.
201 Poplar Avenue, Suite 301
Memphis, Tennessee, 38103-1945
You are hereby notified that you are required to file your Answer with Rita Webb, Executive
Secretary, Board of Professional Responsibility, 10 Cadillac Drive, Suite 220, Brentwood,
TN 37027 and serve a copy of your Answer upon Disciplinary Counsel within thirty (30) days
after service of this Petition. If you fail to file an Answer, the matters shall be deemed admitted
and a default judgment taken
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served upon counsel for the Respondent, Jef
Feibelman, Esq., at Burch, Porter, and Johnson, PLLC, 13 North Court Avenue, Memphis, TN
38103, by First Class and by Certified Mail No. 7012 1640 0001 7224 0191, Return Receipt
Requested, on this the 25th day of January, 2016.

Krisanh Nodges, BPR No. 17086 @
Deputy Chief Disciplinary Counsel
Ud/2Z0/ Z0L4 Luidgo SOL é> 0 JHE URS SIURE Us2Z4 PAGE U2
\ {
(
BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE
MEMORANDUM OF COMPLAINT
Your Name: Sg Mr. OC Mrs. 0 Ms. OMiss other _ Ce i Lf L Ahn She [trn
Your Home Address: [GLO Charstene, Gepmanfoory, TM 38/58
Cley State ip
bit \she(toy (~IB amity ACT
Check box, iFincarcerated: O Inmate 10#:
AO- T}F 1B ET SANG 4O\- GS4- LTO
Your Work Phone: Your Cell Phone:

Your Employer: Sele sec esenen

Your Work Address: SAM*S% at heine
City State Zip
How do you prefer to receive correspondence? JNtome address (Work Address
Name of Lawyer You Are Complaining About: (Fill out a separate form for each attorney. Do nat list law
firm.)
Ayn y We, cich Lawyer Phone: (Of ~ 24 ~~ [foo
¢ ,
Address of Lawyer: 2°) Pop lars Ave Led floor He mphis TH SEUSS
City Stat Zip
Date of first contact with Attorney: 1,006 — Date of last Contact with Attorney: 2 be t
js your case: Criminal C)Case# coum DAS Y cater District: Eastern (7 Middle [) Western [1]
The above lawyer is: My attorney PA Opposing attorney (Other, Explain:
CLEARLY DESCRIBE YOUR COMPLAINT AND ATTACH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
As the TNS Sepreme Court concluded Peirich
Wo lated 4, 2 f N outa Dx ck gon's conrp tut ) aA | Cr Os,
Naw Shep wb lic I, disagrees 09} th the Cout poling ‘
LH notiwittlhy and Ateongly disciplined ,cs
Shovld we pot eApect more Ac Titetional
vio lg pehs. fro a4 Aer andlor het « FRree arr pystectT
The pep {s urhatetoill- e hoard de and_wh C44
arl t +t 2 Board do jt po
f.
v
rFP a Aye mNe, E=, CEIVED
ROEM oe
AUG 2 “ida n
PAGE | OF 2 BOARD OF PROFESSid
SUPREME COUR Exhibit A
Wd/ 25/2014 Lbi45 WLér od [HE US SIURE YS24 PAGE 63
\ Q
(
If more space is needed, please attach other pages. Please do nat write on back.
OPTIONAL: PLEASE PROVIDE THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF SOMEONE WE CAN CONTACT IF WE HAVE
DIFFICULTY CONTACTING YOU:
NAME OF CONTACT PERSON:1) Mr. 71 Mrs. (1 Ms. CIMiss Other

ADDRESS OF CONTACT PERSON:
City State Zip

NOTE: The fillng of this complaint does not create an attorney-cliant relationship and the Board will not provide you
any legal advice. The Board does not intervene in any on-going legal matter. The Board cannot require a lawyer to
do, or not do, anything untll a finding of misconduct Is made. Due to our significant caseload, we can make no
prediction when a determination may be made on your complaint. Filing a complaint with the Board will not
preserve your lagal rights and remedias. You should pursue independent legal advica and counsel concerning your
legal matters, You may have limited time (statute of limitations) to file a legal malpractice lawsuit,
The information given in this complaint is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. | am aware that the lawyer
may be notifled of my complaint.
YOUR SIGNATURE:D IRE Any. Me OK Date: B- AS TY

MAIL TO: Board of Professiona) Responsibility
10 Cadillac Drive Suite 220 Gorin
Log Greer 1¥
Brentwood, TN 37027 3G DS
FAX NO: 615-367-2480 DC: SO Action: Crom
Case Type: Can

PAGE2 OF 2
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE FILED

AT JACKSON
AUG 99 2014
November 6, 2013 Session Cler k _-

Rec'g By of the Courts
STATE OF TENNESSEE v. NOURA JACKSON
Appeal by permission from the Court of Criminal Appeals
Criminal Court for Shelby County
No. 05-05757 Chris Craft, Judge

No. W2009-01709-SC-R11-CD

JUDGMENT
This case was heard upon the record on appeal from the Court of Criminal Appeals,
application for permission to appeal having heretofore been granted, and the briefs and
argument of counsel; and upon consideration thereof, this Court is of the opinion that the lead
prosecutor’s remark during final closing argument at trial amounted to a constitutionally
impermissible comment upon the defendant’s exercise ofher state and federal right to remain
silent and not testify. We are also of the opinion that the prosecution violated the defendant’s
constitutional right to due process by failing to turn over until after trial the third statement
a key witness gave to law enforcement officers investigating the murder. We further hold
that these errors were not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
In accordance with the opinion filed herein, it is therefore ordered and adjudged that
the Court of Criminal Appeals’ judgment upholding the defendant’s conviction and sentence
is reversed, the defendant’s conviction of second degree murder is vacated, and this matter
is remanded for a new trial, which shall be conducted consistently with this decision.
Costs of this appeal are taxed to the State of Tennessee, for which execution may issue
if necessary. .