Pretrial hearing held in Morris’ theft case
A pretrial hearing was held Friday morning in a case against Roderick Morris, who is facing felony charges over accusations of theft from the Pine Bluff Urban Renewal Agency.
A five-day trial for Morris is scheduled for March 11.
Maurice Taggart had been a co-defendant in the case, but he was killed by gunfire in August, and the charges against him were posthumously dropped.
Special Judge Robert Edwards, a retired circuit judge, was assigned to the 11th West Judicial Circuit on July 10, 2023, to oversee the case because all of the local circuit judges recused from the case. Morris was present during the pretrial hearing with his attorney, Jimmy Morris Jr. of Little Rock.
Representing the prosecuting attorney’s office was Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Shawna Alexander. Friday’s hearing was the second one that has been held on the case.
Taggart and Morris appeared in person alongside their attorneys on Aug. 4 for a hearing where the scheduling order for their upcoming trials was discussed. According to court documents, Prosecuting Attorney Kyle Hunter and Alexander were present also. Taggart appeared in person with his attorney, Ronald L. Davis.
“When we were here in August we set aside two weeks as potential trials,” said Edwards. The dates being looked at were in March and May. “There was another defendant and companion in this case who has since died and that case is no longer before the court.”
Taggart, former director of the Pine Bluff Urban Renewal Agency, was charged June 1 with 46 counts of forgery, 38 counts of theft of property and one count of abuse of office in a scheme that allegedly bilked $667,384 out of the agency, according to the charges filed by the Jefferson County prosecuting attorney’s office. A second person, Morris of Houston, a Pine Bluff High School Class of 1998 classmate of Taggart’s, was charged with identical counts except for the abuse of office charge.
As the pretrial began, there
were two pending motions that Edwards addressed. On June 28, a motion to suppress physical evidence and a motion to suppress statements were filed on behalf of Morris. The motion to suppress physical evidence said that on June 4 law enforcement officers illegally detained the defendant and conducted a search and seizure of the defendant and his property violating his constitutional right.
“[t]he right of the people of this State to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated and no warrant shall issue, but upon probable cause…” U. S. Const. amend. IV; Ark. Const. art. II, § 15. 3,” stated the motion. “Such search was made without freely given voluntary consent and with the absence of any such extrinsic circumstances as to give probable cause or justify a search and seizure,” read the motion. “During the course of the warrantless search, certain items were illegally seized in violation of the Defendant’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.”
The motion to suppress also stated that law enforcement officers “conducted a detention or arrest of the defendant and that an interrogation followed the arrest or detention, which was illegal as the police did not have probable cause to arrest or detain the defendant, and therefore, any statements which are the fruits of such an illegal arrest, are inadmissible against the defendant.”
“There were two pending motions filed by Mr. Morris, one was a motion to suppress any statement made by the defendant during a custodial integration and the other was to suppress any physical evidence seized from the defendant during the time of his initial arrest,” said Edwards. “The state has responded with written responses stating that there are no custodial statements from the defendant that will be introduced at trial and there is no physical evidence that was seized from the defendant at the time of his arrest.”
Edwards asked if there were any other outstanding motions that needed to be discussed, to which Alexander said no.
“I don’t want to say I don’t anticipate any motions… but there may be a couple,” said attorney Morris.
On June 20, Hunter filed a motion to be informed of and permitted to inspect and copy or photograph any reports or statements of experts made in connection with the case including results of physical or mental examinations and scientific tests, experiments or comparisons.
He also wanted to be informed of any defense that the defense counsel intends to use at trial and the names and addresses of persons whom the defense counsel intends to call as witnesses.
The defense demands, however, were more extensive, including the request for names, residence addresses, telephone numbers and employment of all persons that the prosecuting attorney intends to call as witnesses at the trial, all written or recorded statements and the substance of all oral statements made by the witnesses, the defendant or any co-defendants and photocopy of the police investigative file in this case and any and all records and information showing prior misconduct or bad acts committed by any state witness.
Edwards reminded legal counsel that in the scheduling order, the list of witnesses is to be exchanged 10 days before trial as well as any motions. Morris, who entered a plea of not guilty in June, sat quietly as Edwards advised attorney Harris if Morris chooses to take a plea it must be done before the trial date.
“I hope that counsel will comply with that time frame,” said Edwards.