Case: 25CI1:16-cr-00110-WLK

Document #: 12

Filed: 10/20/2016

Page 1 of 5

Case: 25CI1:16-cr-00110-WLK

Document #: 12

Filed: 10/20/2016

Page 2 of 5

Case: 25CI1:16-cr-00110-WLK

Document #: 12

Filed: 10/20/2016

Page 3 of 5

Case: 25CI1:16-cr-00110-WLK

Document #: 12

Filed: 10/20/2016

Page 4 of 5

Case: 25CI1:16-cr-00110-WLK

Document #: 12

Filed: 10/20/2016

Page 5 of 5

Case: 25CI1:16-cr-00110-WLK

Document #: 13

Filed: 10/24/2016

Page 1 of 6

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HINDS COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI

FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

V.

CAUSE NO. 25CI1:16-cr-00110-WLK

BENJAMIN W. ALLEN, III

DEFENDANT

RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY BY

DISTRICT ATTORNEY
COMES NOW Ben Allen, by and through his attorney and makes this Response to the
Request for Additional Discovery, and for cause would show the following:
1.

Mr. Allen, by and through his attorney provided discovery to the Hinds County

District Attorney on or around June 23, 2016. On that date a Motion to Dismiss was filed
together with numerous exhibits. The Motion to Dismiss and the Exhibits contained the names of
witnesses and exhibits that constituted reciprocal discovery. It has been in the possession of the
District Attorney since June 2016. Included in those Exhibits were the audited tax returns of the
Downtown Jackson Partnership. (Exhibit H to the Motion to Dismiss). The Tax returns were
performed by BKD, Inc., the twelfth (12th) largest accounting firm in the United States with over
250 partners and 2500 employees. The Downtown Jackson Partners is a private, nonprofit
corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Mississippi. It was originally
incorporated in 1993 under the name Capital Center, Inc. It is in good standing in Mississippi.
The name was later changed to Downtown Jackson Partners, and it qualified as a 503(c)(4)
nonprofit under the I.R.S. Code. Downtown Jackson Partners operates and manages the Business
Improvement District Plan, which is a group of private land owners in Jackson who established

Case: 25CI1:16-cr-00110-WLK

Document #: 13

Filed: 10/24/2016

Page 2 of 6

and voted to set up the B.I.D. under Mississippi Law. All of the supporting documents for the
B.I.D. and incorporation were filed with the Motion to Dismiss. See Exhibits A-G. Downtown
Jackson Partners is a private corporation and the BID is a private entity established by law.
2.

In his motion, the District Attorney seeks additional so-called reciprocal

discovery from Mr. Allen pursuant to 9.04, URCCC. However, the District Attorney seeks
discovery from Mr. Allen and his attorneys as if this were a civil matter. 9.04 does indeed require
Mr. Allen to provide reciprocal discovery but with two very important limitations. First, the
disclosures are subject to constitutional limitations. Secondly, the defendant is only required to
produce discovery which he may offer in evidence. 9.04 (C) 1-3. The documents requested
from Mr. Allen do not constitute reciprocal discovery for the simple reason that Mr. Allen
does not plan to offer any of these items in evidence at trial.
3.

The District Attorney is seeking the personal tax returns of Mr. Allen. The

personal tax returns of Mr. Allen are not relevant to any inquiry before the Court and are not the
subject of discoverable material sought under 9.04 since they will not be offered in evidence by
the defense. Mr. Allen does not seek to introduce his person income tax returns into evidence.
4.

In paragraph six (6) the District Attorney asking for a broad range of documents

that do not constitute reciprocal discovery under Rule 9.04 and that are not relevant. To the
extent any such documents exist, some would be protected by the work product privilege and the
attorney-client privilege. Nevertheless, Rule 9.04 does not require the production of this
evidence for the District Attorney since the items will not be offered in evidence by the defense.
If the District Attorney believes this evidence exits, he is free to make the calls and inquiries to
law enforcement agencies. Nothing in the law or rules requires the accused to do the work for the
prosecutor.

Case: 25CI1:16-cr-00110-WLK

5.

Document #: 13

Filed: 10/24/2016

Page 3 of 6

In paragraph 7, the District Attorney asks for the production of new rules, by-laws

which are implemented and approved by Downtown Jackson Partners. There is no requirement
under Rule 9.04 for the accused to provide documents belonging to Downtown Jackson Partners
to the District Attorney. Furthermore, there is no definition of what is meant by new. Does it
mean since 1996, or after 2000, or after former employee Linda Brune was found to have
wrongfully taken money for Downtown Jackson Partners. No guidance is provided in this regard.
Mr. Allen does not seek to introduce any documents beyond those produced in the Exhibits.
6.

In paragraph 8 the District Attorney asks for any campaign contributions made to

any sitting Judge in Hinds County, Mississippi. First, campaign contributions are recorded at the
Secretary of States Office and the District Attorney is capable of finding this information on his
own. Second, the Downtown Jackson Partners are not charged with any crime in this matter.
Downtown Jackson Partners is the victim of a crime due to a former employee theft. The
nonprofit corporation does not make contributions to Judges and the Executive Committee, the
Board of Directors, or the Advisory Board is under no obligation to provide this information. All
of the prior Board Members, Advisory Members, and Executive Members are listed in the
discovery provided to the District Attorney. Since Mr. Allen will not introduce such evidence at
trial 9.04 does not require him to produce it to the District Attorney. This information is readily
available to anyone at the Secretary of States Office and the District Attorney can obtain it if he
so desires.
7.

In paragraph 9 the District Attorney asks for payments to any and all media

outlets, including blogs and/or websites, from any and all members of Downtown Jackson
Partners. The Downtown Jackson Partners is not subject to Rule 9.04 and does not have to

Case: 25CI1:16-cr-00110-WLK

Document #: 13

Filed: 10/24/2016

Page 4 of 6

provide information to the District Attorney. Furthermore, this information is not relevant to the
issues before the Court.
8.

In paragraph 10 the District Attorney asks for payments by Downtown Jackson

Partners to Brad Franklin aka Kamikazi. Whatever this matter concerns it is not relevant to the
issues before the Court. Downtown Jackson Partners is not subject to Rule 9.04, since it is not a
party to this matter. DJP is a victim of theft yet the district attorney is treating the nonprofit like a
criminal defendant. Rule 9.04 requires reciprocal discovery, it does not require and accused to
help the district attorney or any law enforcement agency develop their theory. The tax returns for
audit tax returns for DJP are included in the Exhibit and the information sought might be in those
documents.
9.

In paragraph 11 the District Attorney asks for a smorgasbord of information from

Coxwell & Associates, PLLC, Downtown Jackson Partners, and anyone else that might be
connected with the arrest of District Attorney Robert Shuler Smith. It is difficult to answer this
request because of its bizarre nature. First, it is not relevant to any inquiry before the Court. The
request by the District Attorney would seem to suggest that all the entities are involved in a
conspiracy against him, which is nonsensical.

Second, Downtown Jackson Partners is not

subject to the discovery rule in this case. None of the entities set forth in the District Attorneys
request are subject to the reciprocal discovery rule.
Lastly, and as a way of setting the record straight, no person at Coxwell & Associates, PLLC,
had anything to do with Mr. Robert Shuler Smiths arrest or indictment. Mr. Smiths scurrilous
allegation should be stricken from the record. Mr. Smith has absolutely no basis for making this
allegation. Mr. Allens attorneys request that the District Attorneys remarks about Coxwell &

Case: 25CI1:16-cr-00110-WLK

Document #: 13

Filed: 10/24/2016

Page 5 of 6

Associates, its attorneys and employees be stricken from the record and request any and all other
relief as deemed appropriate from the Court.
BENJAMIN W. ALLEN, III

BY:

/s/ Mrrida Buddy Coxwell

MRRIDA BUDDY COXWELL

Case: 25CI1:16-cr-00110-WLK

Document #: 13

Filed: 10/24/2016

Page 6 of 6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Mrrida Buddy Coxwell, attorney of record for the Defendant, Benjamin W. Allen,
III, do hereby certify that I have this day electronically filed the above and foregoing Response
to Motion for Additional Discovery by District Attorney with the Clerk of Court, using the MEC
electronic filing, and provided a copy of same to:

Greta Harris, Esquire

Assistant Hinds County District Attorney
Post Office Box 22747
Jackson, Mississippi 39225-2747
Evelyn Hunter, Circuit Court Administrator to
Judge Winston L. Kidd
Post Office Box 327
Jackson, Mississippi 39205
This the 24th day of October, 2016.
/s/ Mrrida Buddy Coxwell
MRRIDA BUDDY COXWELL
MRRIDA BUDDY COXWELL (MB# 7782)
COXWELL & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
Post Office Box 1337
Jackson, Mississippi 39215-1337
Telephone: (601) 948-1600
Facsimile: (601) 948-1600
Email: merridac@coxwelllaw.com

Case: 25CI1:16-cr-00110-WLK

Document #: 13

Filed: 10/24/2016

Page 1 of 6

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HINDS COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI

FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

V.

CAUSE NO. 25CI1:16-cr-00110-WLK

BENJAMIN W. ALLEN, III

DEFENDANT

RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY BY

DISTRICT ATTORNEY
COMES NOW Ben Allen, by and through his attorney and makes this Response to the
Request for Additional Discovery, and for cause would show the following:
1.

Mr. Allen, by and through his attorney provided discovery to the Hinds County

District Attorney on or around June 23, 2016. On that date a Motion to Dismiss was filed
together with numerous exhibits. The Motion to Dismiss and the Exhibits contained the names of
witnesses and exhibits that constituted reciprocal discovery. It has been in the possession of the
District Attorney since June 2016. Included in those Exhibits were the audited tax returns of the
Downtown Jackson Partnership. (Exhibit H to the Motion to Dismiss). The Tax returns were
performed by BKD, Inc., the twelfth (12th) largest accounting firm in the United States with over
250 partners and 2500 employees. The Downtown Jackson Partners is a private, nonprofit
corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Mississippi. It was originally
incorporated in 1993 under the name Capital Center, Inc. It is in good standing in Mississippi.
The name was later changed to Downtown Jackson Partners, and it qualified as a 503(c)(4)
nonprofit under the I.R.S. Code. Downtown Jackson Partners operates and manages the Business
Improvement District Plan, which is a group of private land owners in Jackson who established

Case: 25CI1:16-cr-00110-WLK

Document #: 13

Filed: 10/24/2016

Page 2 of 6

and voted to set up the B.I.D. under Mississippi Law. All of the supporting documents for the
B.I.D. and incorporation were filed with the Motion to Dismiss. See Exhibits A-G. Downtown
Jackson Partners is a private corporation and the BID is a private entity established by law.
2.

In his motion, the District Attorney seeks additional so-called reciprocal

discovery from Mr. Allen pursuant to 9.04, URCCC. However, the District Attorney seeks
discovery from Mr. Allen and his attorneys as if this were a civil matter. 9.04 does indeed require
Mr. Allen to provide reciprocal discovery but with two very important limitations. First, the
disclosures are subject to constitutional limitations. Secondly, the defendant is only required to
produce discovery which he may offer in evidence. 9.04 (C) 1-3. The documents requested
from Mr. Allen do not constitute reciprocal discovery for the simple reason that Mr. Allen
does not plan to offer any of these items in evidence at trial.
3.

The District Attorney is seeking the personal tax returns of Mr. Allen. The

personal tax returns of Mr. Allen are not relevant to any inquiry before the Court and are not the
subject of discoverable material sought under 9.04 since they will not be offered in evidence by
the defense. Mr. Allen does not seek to introduce his person income tax returns into evidence.
4.

In paragraph six (6) the District Attorney asking for a broad range of documents

that do not constitute reciprocal discovery under Rule 9.04 and that are not relevant. To the
extent any such documents exist, some would be protected by the work product privilege and the
attorney-client privilege. Nevertheless, Rule 9.04 does not require the production of this
evidence for the District Attorney since the items will not be offered in evidence by the defense.
If the District Attorney believes this evidence exits, he is free to make the calls and inquiries to
law enforcement agencies. Nothing in the law or rules requires the accused to do the work for the
prosecutor.

Case: 25CI1:16-cr-00110-WLK

5.

Document #: 13

Filed: 10/24/2016

Page 3 of 6

In paragraph 7, the District Attorney asks for the production of new rules, by-laws

which are implemented and approved by Downtown Jackson Partners. There is no requirement
under Rule 9.04 for the accused to provide documents belonging to Downtown Jackson Partners
to the District Attorney. Furthermore, there is no definition of what is meant by new. Does it
mean since 1996, or after 2000, or after former employee Linda Brune was found to have
wrongfully taken money for Downtown Jackson Partners. No guidance is provided in this regard.
Mr. Allen does not seek to introduce any documents beyond those produced in the Exhibits.
6.

In paragraph 8 the District Attorney asks for any campaign contributions made to

any sitting Judge in Hinds County, Mississippi. First, campaign contributions are recorded at the
Secretary of States Office and the District Attorney is capable of finding this information on his
own. Second, the Downtown Jackson Partners are not charged with any crime in this matter.
Downtown Jackson Partners is the victim of a crime due to a former employee theft. The
nonprofit corporation does not make contributions to Judges and the Executive Committee, the
Board of Directors, or the Advisory Board is under no obligation to provide this information. All
of the prior Board Members, Advisory Members, and Executive Members are listed in the
discovery provided to the District Attorney. Since Mr. Allen will not introduce such evidence at
trial 9.04 does not require him to produce it to the District Attorney. This information is readily
available to anyone at the Secretary of States Office and the District Attorney can obtain it if he
so desires.
7.

In paragraph 9 the District Attorney asks for payments to any and all media

outlets, including blogs and/or websites, from any and all members of Downtown Jackson
Partners. The Downtown Jackson Partners is not subject to Rule 9.04 and does not have to

Case: 25CI1:16-cr-00110-WLK

Document #: 13

Filed: 10/24/2016

Page 4 of 6

provide information to the District Attorney. Furthermore, this information is not relevant to the
issues before the Court.
8.

In paragraph 10 the District Attorney asks for payments by Downtown Jackson

Partners to Brad Franklin aka Kamikazi. Whatever this matter concerns it is not relevant to the
issues before the Court. Downtown Jackson Partners is not subject to Rule 9.04, since it is not a
party to this matter. DJP is a victim of theft yet the district attorney is treating the nonprofit like a
criminal defendant. Rule 9.04 requires reciprocal discovery, it does not require and accused to
help the district attorney or any law enforcement agency develop their theory. The tax returns for
audit tax returns for DJP are included in the Exhibit and the information sought might be in those
documents.
9.

In paragraph 11 the District Attorney asks for a smorgasbord of information from

Coxwell & Associates, PLLC, Downtown Jackson Partners, and anyone else that might be
connected with the arrest of District Attorney Robert Shuler Smith. It is difficult to answer this
request because of its bizarre nature. First, it is not relevant to any inquiry before the Court. The
request by the District Attorney would seem to suggest that all the entities are involved in a
conspiracy against him, which is nonsensical.

Second, Downtown Jackson Partners is not

subject to the discovery rule in this case. None of the entities set forth in the District Attorneys
request are subject to the reciprocal discovery rule.
Lastly, and as a way of setting the record straight, no person at Coxwell & Associates, PLLC,
had anything to do with Mr. Robert Shuler Smiths arrest or indictment. Mr. Smiths scurrilous
allegation should be stricken from the record. Mr. Smith has absolutely no basis for making this
allegation. Mr. Allens attorneys request that the District Attorneys remarks about Coxwell &

Case: 25CI1:16-cr-00110-WLK

Document #: 13

Filed: 10/24/2016

Page 5 of 6

Associates, its attorneys and employees be stricken from the record and request any and all other
relief as deemed appropriate from the Court.
BENJAMIN W. ALLEN, III

BY:

/s/ Mrrida Buddy Coxwell

MRRIDA BUDDY COXWELL

Case: 25CI1:16-cr-00110-WLK

Document #: 13

Filed: 10/24/2016

Page 6 of 6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Mrrida Buddy Coxwell, attorney of record for the Defendant, Benjamin W. Allen,
III, do hereby certify that I have this day electronically filed the above and foregoing Response
to Motion for Additional Discovery by District Attorney with the Clerk of Court, using the MEC
electronic filing, and provided a copy of same to:

Greta Harris, Esquire

Assistant Hinds County District Attorney
Post Office Box 22747
Jackson, Mississippi 39225-2747
Evelyn Hunter, Circuit Court Administrator to
Judge Winston L. Kidd
Post Office Box 327
Jackson, Mississippi 39205
This the 24th day of October, 2016.
/s/ Mrrida Buddy Coxwell
MRRIDA BUDDY COXWELL
MRRIDA BUDDY COXWELL (MB# 7782)
COXWELL & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
Post Office Box 1337
Jackson, Mississippi 39215-1337
Telephone: (601) 948-1600
Facsimile: (601) 948-1600
Email: merridac@coxwelllaw.com

Case: 25CI1:16-cr-00110-WLK

Document #: 10

Filed: 06/23/2016

Page 1 of 12

Case: 25CI1:16-cr-00110-WLK

Document #: 10

Filed: 06/23/2016

Page 2 of 12

Case: 25CI1:16-cr-00110-WLK

Document #: 10

Filed: 06/23/2016

Page 3 of 12

Case: 25CI1:16-cr-00110-WLK

Document #: 10

Filed: 06/23/2016

Page 4 of 12

Case: 25CI1:16-cr-00110-WLK

Document #: 10

Filed: 06/23/2016

Page 5 of 12

Case: 25CI1:16-cr-00110-WLK

Document #: 10

Filed: 06/23/2016

Page 6 of 12

Case: 25CI1:16-cr-00110-WLK

Document #: 10

Filed: 06/23/2016

Page 7 of 12

Case: 25CI1:16-cr-00110-WLK

Document #: 10

Filed: 06/23/2016

Page 8 of 12

Case: 25CI1:16-cr-00110-WLK

Document #: 10

Filed: 06/23/2016

Page 9 of 12

Case: 25CI1:16-cr-00110-WLK

Document #: 10

Filed: 06/23/2016

Page 10 of 12

Case: 25CI1:16-cr-00110-WLK

Document #: 10

Filed: 06/23/2016

Page 11 of 12

Case: 25CI1:16-cr-00110-WLK

Document #: 10

Filed: 06/23/2016

Page 12 of 12