Co-defendant acquitted in home invasion case
By By Suzanne Monk / managing editor
April 11, 2003
A jury acquitted 22-year-old Lee Amerson Thursday in a home invasion at Lauderdale County businessman Ralph Morgan's house after a co-defendant who pleaded guilty earlier this year refused to testify.
Morgan and his wife, Elizabeth, were attacked in their bedroom in the early morning hours of Jan. 10, 2002. Two masked men bound them, and stole money and jewelry.
Amerson and Tracy Darnell Moore, 29, were indicted for kidnapping and armed robbery in connection with the assault in November 2002.
Moore pleaded guilty to armed robbery on Feb. 12. As part of the plea agreement Moore entered into with the district attorney's office, the kidnapping indictment against him was dropped and he agreed to testify against Amerson.
Usually, when a defendant agrees to testify at a co-defendant's trial in exchange for lesser jail time, the sentencing hearing is not held until he actually does so.
In Moore's case, however, District Attorney Bilbo Mitchell said he was not sure how long it would be before Amerson could be brought to trial. So the sentencing hearing was held in February and Circuit Judge Robert Bailey gave Moore 15 years.
Moore won't testify
The plan backfired when Moore refused to testify. Ralph Morgan attended the trial, and said Moore told the judge he didn't remember anything.
Moore was cited with contempt of court.
The jury did not have the benefit of hearing Moore's testimony, and his statement to investigators from the Lauderdale County Sheriff's Department could not be read into the record for legal reasons.
The Morgans could not identify their attackers because both wore masks over their heads with only their eyes showing.
The jury deliberated for five hours before bringing in a verdict of "not guilty" on both the kidnapping and armed robbery counts.
Next for Amerson
Even though he was acquitted, Amerson remains in custody at the Lauderdale County jail. After the jury's verdict, Amerson was served with an arrest warrant for violating his probation in an earlier conviction.
District Attorney Mitchell said Amerson pleaded guilty in November 2001 to motor vehicle theft and received a "non-adjudicated" sentence of two years.
What this means is that he was not incarcerated, but rather sentenced to two years of probation. If a non-adjudicated defendant completes his probation successfully, without violating any of its conditions, his record can be expunged.
It is unclear what Amerson did to violate his probation, but an arrest warrant had been issued at some point. It was held back pending the resolution of the armed robbery and kidnapping indictments.
A probation revocation hearing will be scheduled on the motor vehicle theft conviction. The judge will have some discretion about how much time Amerson receives but could give him as much as the statutory maximum of five years for first offenders.
Next for Moore
The district attorney's office plans to pursue charges against Moore in one of three possible ways:
1) Mitchell said he planned to file a motion asking Judge Bailey to set Moore's guilty plea aside and reinstate his indictments for armed robbery and kidnapping in effect "un-doing" the plea agreement.
2) Failing that, Mitchell said he will ask the judge to reinstate the kidnapping indictment dismissed as part of the plea agreement Moore did not honor.
3) Failing that, Mitchell said he will ask a future grand jury to indict Moore on the kidnapping charge.
WHY KIDNAPPING?
The word "kidnapping" is usually associated with the idea of
grabbing someone and taking them somewhere against their will. In a legal sense, however, kidnapping can also mean confining someone against their will without taking them anywhere at all.
