IN THE STATE COURT OF BROOKS COUNTY

STATE OF GEORGIA

STATE *
*
v. * File No.
*
RICHARD JERRY McLEOD *
Defendant

__________________________________________________________________

DEFENDANTS MOTION TO RECUSE AND DISQUALIFY

DISTRICT ATTORNEY

Comes now, the Defendant, Richard Jerry McLeod, who hereby files this,

his Motion to Recuse and Disqualify the District Attorney Brad Shealy, AND

any and all members of his staff from any further participation in this case or any

involvement whatsoever in any collateral matters associated with this case as

provided by O.C.G.A. 16-18-65 for the following reasons:

1.
The District attorney and his staff have an obvious conflict of interest

Due to the fact that Defendant has filed a U.S.C. 42 1983 action against

Sheriff Dewey, his deputies, a City of Quitman police officer, all of the

Brooks County Commissioners. Brooks County Zoning Administrator.

And other parties. District Attorney Brad Shealy is being added to the

Amended complaint in the pending 1983 action adding additional

parties. No cause existed for naming District Attorney Shelly in the

 Original 1983 action as no charges has been filed in any court against

this defendant, Richard Jerry McLeod at the time the currently

Pending 1883 action was filed in the Valdosta Division, Middle

District of Georgia Federal U.S. Court. Thus, this undeniable

conflict. The Supreme Court has held that opposing counsel may

may raise this question when conflict is such as to clearly call

into question administration of justice. This prosecutor, a target

of a civil complaint previously filed in another court should not

be allowed to serve as a prosecutor against the defendant in the

instant case.

2.

, District Attorney, Brad Shealy and his staff have engaged in

prosecutorial misconduct in violation of the following Georgia Rules

of
professional Conduct, Rule 3.8, Special Responsibilities of a

Prosecutor. The prosecutor of a criminal case shall:

(a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is

not supported by probable cause;

(d) make timely disclosures to the defense of all evidence or

Information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate
the guilt of the accused or that mitigates the offense.

(e) exercise reasonable care to prevent persons who are under the
direct supervision of the prosecutor from making an extra
 judicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from
making under subsection (g) of this rule.
(g) except for statements that are necessary to inform the public
of the nature and extent of the prosecutors action and serve
a legitimate law enforcement purpose, refrain from making
extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood
of heightening public condemnation of the accused.

[1] A prosecutor has the responsibility of a minister of justice and not simply that
of an advocate. This responsibility carries with it certain obligations to see that the
defendant is accorded procedural justice and that guilt is decided upon the basis of
sufficient evidence. .........

[5] Paragraph (g) supplements rule 3.6 : Trial Publicity, which prohibits
extrajudicial statements that may have a substantial likelihood of prejudicing
an adjudicatory proceeding. In the context of a criminal prosecution, a prosecutors
extrajudicial statement can cause the additional problem of increasing public
condemnation of the accused. Although the announcement of an indictment, for
example, will necessarily have severe consequences for the accused, a prosecutor
can and should avoid comments which have no legitimate law enforcement purpose
and have a substantial likelihood of increasing public opprobrium of the accused,

(A)
District Attorned Brad Shelly and Members of his staff violated

section (a) of the above rule by refusing to refrain from prosecuting the instant case

which they knew was not supported by probable cause. Any reasonable person,

upon examination of the warrant, the photographs taken by the Geogia Department

of Agriculture investigator, the official reports of the said inspector generated prior

to the execution of the defective warrant, and the seized evidence demonstrate a

complete absence of any semblance of probable cause to prosecute this defendant.

Page 3 of 7
 (B)

District Attorney Brad Shealy and his staff violated section (g) of the

aforementioned Rule to prejudice the adjudication of a Civil proceeding in Thomas

County Georgia (Jerry McLeod v. Edward Williams et. al. Before that proceeding

even began Defendants attorney approached the bench and began an ex-parte

communication with the judge stating that he had talked with the District attorneys

office and had been advised that although McLeod had not been charged with any

crime, his case would be brought before the Brooks County Grand Jury in October

2016 for an indictment. This extrajudicial statement made with malice aforethought

by the district attorney and members of his staff was patently false and they knew it

was false. This false and prohibited extra judicial statement by the District Attorney

unfairly prejudiced the Judge and denied McLeod of his constitutional right to a fair

trial of his civil case which was filed against individuals possessing custody of the

seized dogs which are legal property of Richard Jerry McLeod. Intent of this

complaint was to prevent spoilation, secreting, conversion and disposal of this

clearly apparent exculpatory evidence. It is well established by statute and binding

precedent that property alleged to be contraband, evidence, or victim of a crime must

be preserved until a final adjudication is made of the case. Defendant has never been

allowed to inspect this evidence despite his requests.

Page 4 of 7
 (D)
District Attorney Brad Shealy and his staff violated section (d) of rule 3.8 by

failing to supply a timely inventory of the items seized and have as yet failed to

supply a complete inventory of the items seized and disposition of same as provided

by O.C.G.A. 17-5-29. to the contrary they proceeded with their spoilation,

conversion and disposal of the seized evidence.

3.

It would be disingenuous for anyone to conclude that the district attorney

or his staff can be expected to ignore the wishes of the Brooks County

Commissioners, Brooks County Sheriff and other governmental officers. He has

almost daily interactions and a familial relationship with these3 individuals.

T the time of this occurrence he was also involved in his election campaign and

needed the political support of these core county politicians, His budget is critically

effected by decisions of the county commissioners and he is expected to display his

loyalty to them and to cover for them in their erroneous and unlawful application of

their fatally flawed and unconstitutional claim of an inapplicable zoning ordinance.

The district attorney and his staff, upon discovery that the ordinance was fatally

flawed and had no application to the defendant declined to charge defendant for the

Page 5 of 7
alleged ordinance violation Instead; he proceeded to manufacture a charge of animal

cruelty in an attempt to legitimize the unlawful search and seizure actions

by the sheriff and the Brooks County Commissioners.

These charges of animal cruelty made by The district attorney are nothing

more than a poorly disguised attempt to gain a tactical advantage in the Federal 1983

action. Such action is prohibited by law and the Judicial Canons. The District attorney

and his staff failed to file any of the misdemeanor charges within the ninety day

period in which misdemeanor charges are required to be filed, However; after the

defendant filed his federal 1983 action the DA then filed the instant charges (more

than eight months after the arrest) clearly for no other reason than to attempt to

legitimize the unlawful actions of the defendants in the previously filed 1983 action.

The Court should not allow this prosecutor who is so entwined with the

defendants in the federal 1983 case to use the instant case to gain a tactical advantage

in yet another case.

For the foregoing reasons Defendant requests that this Court issue an Order

that District Attorney Brad Shealy and his entire staff is recused and disqualified

from any further participation or involvement in any actions in this case.

Respectfully Submitted.

Page 6 of 7
___________________
Richard Jerry McLeod Pro Se
1675 Liberty Church Road
Boston, Georgia 31626

Certification
I hereby certify that I have this day January 3, 2017 provide counsel for the
State with a copy of the foregoing.

_____________________________
Richard Jerry McLeod

Page 7 of 7