Ad darkens judicial race in final stretch

Written by Byron Hensley and Chip Ramsey | 19 July 2010

TSI Staff, This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

A campaign flyer which was been mailed to many local residents has stirred a controversy in the Coffee County Circuit Judge race.
“Judge Vanessa Jackson gave this seemingly lax one-year of jail time to someone with at least five prior arrests,” says the flyer. Jackson, who was appointed to fill the unexpired term of the late Judge John Rollins, is running for election to the post for a full term. Also seeking the job is Manchester attorney Mark Williams.
“In Coffee County, serious crime should have serious consequences,” according to the flyer, which criticizes a sentence Judge Vanessa Jackson made in a murder-for-hire case last year involving a Tullahoma Police Officer.
“As sitting judge, Vanessa Jackson allowed a sentence with just one-year in the Coffee County Jail on the perpetrator of a murder-for-hire plot to kill a Tullahoma Police Officer and another person…The murder-for-hire was against an Officer who had been involved in previous investigations of the criminal.”
The flyer references the 2009 case of Dana Burl, who was convicted of attempting to hire a woman to kill Tullahoma Police Investigator Harry Conway and a friend of Conway’s. It includes reprints of two stories from the Tullahoma News regarding the case, one of which notes that in March Burl was given a 10 year sentence, to begin after Burl completes a sentence in a stalking case. sentenced to 10 years, a sentence which ended in June.
District Attorney General Mickey Layne was critical of the mailer, and the implication that Jackson is “soft on crime.”
“It’s very much unfair,” Layne said about the the mailer. “The judge merely accepted the negotiated disposition. She carried out the wishes of the victim. In no way is she soft on crime – in fact, the opposite is true. She imposed the maximum sentence. We asked her to imposed the maximum sentence.”
In a statement, Jackson also denied the “soft on crime” charge.
“Throughout this campaign for Circuit Court Judge, I have tried to conduct myself in an honest, fair and dignified manner,” Jackson said. “I am extremely disappointed that the Committee to Elect Mark Williams has chosen to mail a misleading pamphlet to the voters of Coffee County.
“This pamphlet implies that as sitting Judge I am soft on crime because I imposed a ten year sentence on Dana Burl to serve one year in jail and nine years on probation. However, Mr. William’s pamphlet fails to tell the voters that there was not a trial in this case and the sentence was a plea agreement worked out by the District Attorney General’s Office.
“After considering all the facts of the case, the strength of the evidence, the likelihood of a conviction and consulting with the victims of this crime, the District Attorney General’s Office determined that it would be in the best interest of the citizens of Coffee County to make sure that Ms. Burl served time in jail, rather than conducting a trial with the possibility of a ‘not guilty’ verdict.
“For over a year as Circuit Court Judge, it has been my observation that the District Attorney General’s Office takes it obligation to protect the citizens of Coffee County very seriously when entering a plea agreement,” Jackson said. “It is very unfortunate that Mark Williams’ campaign has resorted to this type of misleading tactics to try to influence the voters of Coffee County.”
Williams defended the mailer and its message. “The mail piece is factual. As a judge, Vanessa Jackson allowed the sentence of one year in the county jail for a double murder-for-hire plot against a government employee.”
Williams said that while sentence may have been requested by the district attorney, Jackson as judge is not bound by the agreement, and could have given a longer sentence.
“Judges have the final discretion in plea bargains,” he said. “According to rule 11C3 of the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure, the judge may accept or reject the plea deal.
“The judge is a neutral and detached representative of the people, in whom the people have entrusted the ultimate power of judgment as to plea agreements,” Williams said. “A plea bargain is not complete unless it is approved by the judge, who determines if the plea bargain is appropriate. The people hire the judge to be the ultimate one to make that determination. That’s why the people put the judge on the bench. The judge does not have to acquiesce to what the DA says.”