Our new district attorney, Julia Slater, has a tough job in tough times. And the last thing a leader charged with multiple and conflicting priorities needs during tough times is a chorus of armchair quarterbacks second-guessing her every move.
That’s why this newspaper has been quiet in expressing editorial or column opinions about a series of disturbing events since her Nov. 4 election. But enough is enough.
Slater’s decision not to seek the death penalty against Charles Johnston — the man accused of shooting and killing three people in cold blood and taking a point-blank pot-shot at a police officer — is just the latest misstep by this newly elected public official, in whom we have all put our trust.
First, we reported on Dec. 10 that Slater had been called to testify before a grand jury in Macon in connection with a federal investigation of improper accounting for client fees. Her lawyer made clear at the time that she was not the subject of the probe. Subsequent reporting by this newspaper revealed that Mark Shelnutt, with whom Slater had practiced law for many years, had for almost two years been the subject of a federal investigation involving the alleged improper handling of money.
Slater’s connection to Shelnutt is disturbing enough. But what puts this over the top is that she allowed Shelnutt to sit in on one or more of her interviews with assistant district attorneys while Shelnutt was under investigation.
I interviewed Slater on Friday and we discussed the dates in detail. The issue is whether she knew Shelnutt was under investigation when she invited him to sit in on the interviews. These were, after all, lawyers he’d soon be opposing in court.
The dates of the interviews, which include a Dec. 1 session, are awfully close to Slater’s Dec. 9 testimony in Macon. She does not recall whether she already knew about the federal inquiry: “It’s hard to answer in retrospect,” she said. “I don’t remember him sitting in on any interviews after I received my subpoena.”
Second, we reported on March 20 that Slater and her office are so conflicted due to the nature of her prior criminal defense practice (and that of her chief assistant, Alonza Whitaker) that she has requested a special prosecutor in 94 cases, including three of the most important cases pending in this community: those against Zachary Allen, Frank Lumpkin III and Michael Registe.
I asked her the following question: Why would you run for district attorney knowing full well you would be unable to prosecute that community’s most controversial legal matters?
She said she did not believe Allen, who is accused of rape in a November 2007 incident, was one of the top three cases in the community, but that in any event, she recused herself because Allen’s father, Gary Allen, is a Columbus councilor responsible for approving her budget. She said former District Attorney Gray Conger, whom she defeated in November, should have recused himself before losing the race to her.
E-Mail
Print
@Nyx.CommentBody@