1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Judge apologizes to slain jogger Ahmaud Arbery’s…

Criminal Justice

Judge apologizes to slain jogger Ahmaud Arbery’s family after tossing charges against district attorney

By Debra Cassens Weiss

February 10, 2025, 9:21 am CST

A Georgia judge has tossed the charges against a prosecutor accused of favoring a former white investigator in her office before he was charged in the 2020 death of Black jogger Ahmaud Arbery.

Former Brunswick, Georgia, District Attorney Jackie Johnson had been charged with violating her oath of office and obstructing a police officer in the investigation that followed Arbery’s death. Her trial began in January, according to PBS News.

Judge John R. Turner of Glynn County, Georgia, granted a directed verdict on the obstruction charge Feb. 3 after concluding that prosecutors failed to present sufficient evidence that Johnson obstructed the death investigation. Turner tossed the oath-violation charge two days later after defense lawyers argued that the indictment didn’t accuse Johnson of crimes in connection with the charge and listed the wrong oath of office.

Publications covering the tossed charges are Courthouse News Service, Law360 and the Associated Press.

Arbery, 25, was shot and killed after two white men pursued him in a pickup truck because they thought that he was a suspect in several break-ins in the area. A white neighbor who joined the pursuit in his truck recorded the incident on video. No arrests were made for more than two months.

The leaked video later showed that the shooter was Travis McMichael. His father, Gregory McMichael, a former police office who once worked for Johnson, had joined the chase. The man who shot the video was William “Roddie” Bryan. All three were convicted in November 2021, when jurors rejected arguments that they were making a citizen’s arrest and that Arbery was shot in self-defense when Arbery tried to grab a gun. They were also convicted of federal hate crimes in August 2022.

Several witnesses had testified that Johnson never directed anyone to refrain from arresting the McMichaels, according to Courthouse News Service. Johnson testified that she immediately recused herself from the case when she found out that her former employee was involved. When she saw the video, Johnson said, she thought that the slaying “looked like murder,” and she informed the Georgia Bureau of Investigation about calls that she had received from Gregory McMichael.

Turner apologized to Arbery’s family members after tossing the final charge, according to Courthouse News Service.

“This is not a decision I wanted to make, but feel like I must,” he said.

Turner also said he feels “sadness for the death of this young man and what his family has gone through.”

Johnson was represented by lawyer Brian Steel, who also represented rapper Young Thug in a high-profile criminal trial. Steel said Johnson should not have been charged.

“It’s a sad day. Ahmaud Arbery was slaughtered for no reason, and then-Attorney General Chris Carr piggybacked one of the greatest tragedies in our state and nation and indicted an innocent woman,” Steel told Courthouse News Service.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

The trial of a 24-year-old woman in Georgia accused of killing her 20-month-old son and tossing his body in a dumpster began on Monday with prosecutors telling jurors that in the days leading up to the toddler’s death, the victim’s mother had been having relationship issues, taking a spate of narcotic drugs, and later told police a bizarre array of stories.

At one point during an interview with police, Simon explained that she stopped at a secluded dumpster in the middle of the night shortly after her son’s disappearance because she was throwing away “spoiled shrimp pasta.”

As previously reported, Leilani Simon in December 2022 was indicted on 19 criminal counts, including malice murder, felony murder, concealing the death of another, and making false statements to police in the slaying of young Quinton Simon. Authorities allege that Simon on Oct. 5, 2022, intentionally killed her son with an unknown object “that when used offensively against a person did result in serious bodily injury,” and “cause Quinton’s death.”

The felony murder charges stem from accusations that Simon killed Quinton while also committing felonious acts of aggravated assault and first-degree cruelty to a child by “maliciously” causing Quinton “cruel and excessive physical pain” in a manner that was unknown to the grand jury at the time of the indictment.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Arrested citizen journalist wasn’t ‘martyr’…

First Amendment

Arrested citizen journalist wasn’t ‘martyr’ for journalism, 5th Circuit says in tossing her First Amendment suit

By Debra Cassens Weiss

January 25, 2024, 9:24 am CST

Police and prosecutors have qualified immunity that protects them in a lawsuit filed by a citizen journalist arrested for publishing nonpublic information provided by a police source, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at New Orleans tossed the suit filed by Laredo, Texas, citizen journalist Priscilla Villarreal in a 9-7 en banc opinion issued Jan. 23.

The appeals court said the defendants—including Laredo, Texas, police officers, Webb County, Texas, prosecutors and others—had qualified immunity. Judge Edith H. Jones wrote the majority opinion.

The seven dissenters included four conservatives, Reuters reports.

They are Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod, Judge Don R. Willett, Judge James C. Ho and Judge Andrew S. Oldham. Elrod is an appointee of former President George W. Bush, and the others are appointees of former President Donald Trump.

Villarreal had sued in 2019 for alleged violations of the First, Fourth and 14th Amendments under Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act. Her suit stems from her arrest for publishing the name and occupation of a U.S. Border Patrol employee who died after jumping from a Laredo public overpass and for publishing the name of a person killed in a traffic accident.

Villarreal was charged under a law that makes it a crime to solicit or receive nonpublic information from a public servant, with the intent to obtain a benefit. She petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, which was granted by a judge who held that the law was unconstitutionally vague. She then filed her Section 1983 suit.

“Villarreal and others portray her as a martyr for the sake of journalism,” Jones wrote. “That is inappropriate. She could have followed Texas law, or challenged that law in court, before reporting nonpublic information from the backchannel source. By skirting Texas law, Villarreal revealed information that could have severely emotionally harmed the families of decedents and interfered with ongoing investigations. Mainstream, legitimate media outlets routinely withhold the identity of accident victims or those who committed suicide until public officials or family members release that information publicly. Villarreal sought to capitalize on others’ tragedies to propel her reputation and career.”

Villarreal can’t overcome the defendants’ claim of qualified immunity unless the defendants violated a constitutional right and the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged misconduct.

Jones said Villarreal couldn’t make that showing because she was arrested based on a reasonable belief by the defendants that there was probable cause her conduct violated a Texas law that had not yet been declared unconstitutional.

Four judges wrote dissents that were joined by five and sometimes six other judges.

Willett wrote this in his dissent: “While the majority says the officers could not have ‘predicted’ that their thought-out plan to lock up a citizen journalist for asking questions would violate the First Amendment—a plan cooked up with legal advice from the Webb County district attorney’s office, mind you—the majority simultaneously indulges the notion that Villarreal had zero excuse for not knowing that her actions might implicate an obscure, never-used provision of the Texas Penal Code.

“In other words, encyclopedic jurisprudential knowledge is imputed to Villarreal, but the government agents targeting her are free to plead (or feign) ignorance of bedrock constitutional guarantees. In the upside-down world of qualified immunity, everyday citizens are demanded to know the law’s every jot and tittle, but those charged with enforcing the law are only expected to know the ‘clearly established’ ones. Turns out, ignorance of the law is an excuse—for government officials.”

Ho began his opinion this way: “If the First Amendment means anything, surely it means that citizens
have the right to question or criticize public officials without fear of imprisonment. The Constitution doesn’t mean much if you can only ask questions approved by the state.”

The case is Villarreal v. City of Laredo.