Opinion ID: 1771774
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 33

Heading: Participating Attorneys

Text: ś 64. During voir dire, defense counsel voiced the following objection. ADELMAN: I have an objection to the presence of four district attorneys parading in front of the jury constantly conferring with one another. The law is clear. There are two lawyers per case and whether or not they are questioning or not, they are running about; they are conferring with one another, and I object to that. I think the State should be restricted to having two attorneys just like the defense.... Following some discussion between the prosecutor and the defense counsel, the trial judge indicated the two that will be actively participating, interrogating witnesses and making opening statement and summation will be Honorable Rex K. Jones, the Honorable Robert Helfrich. The trial judge further indicated that the district attorney, Carter, and assistant district attorney, Pittman, have the right to be present in the courtroom as long as they are not actively participating, but cautioned Pittman and Carter not to be participating. ś 65. Thereafter, in chambers, defense counsel moved for a mistrial based on the fact that four (4) district attorneys were conferring with one another in front of the jury during voir dire. The trial judge denied the motion, cautioned the District Attorneys once again and indicated as you well know under the rules only two will participate and so far only Jones and Helfrich have been participating. The trial judge further stated he didn't think there was anything that would preclude Carter and Pittman from being there for the purpose of consultation. ś 66. On appeal, defense counsel indicates [t]he State is well aware of the fact that only two (2) attorneys are allowed to represent a party in the Twelfth Circuit Court District. However, as the State points out, defense counsel fails to cite any rule or authority for this limitation. The State also maintains this issue is moot since only two (2) attorneys participated in this case. Additionally, in his reply brief, Puckett fails to respond to the State's argument. ś 67. This Court agrees with the State's position and rule that there is no merit to this issue. Even though the trial judge acknowledged a rule governing this subject, there is nothing in the record indicating the source of this rule. It is the appellant's duty to provide this Court with a record in support of the issues raised on appeal. Robinson v. State, 662 So.2d 1100, 1104 (Miss.1995) ( citing M.R.A.P. 11(c)). Furthermore, the trial court's ruling made it clear that participating referred to interrogating witnesses and making opening and closing statements. The rule prohibiting participation of more than two attorneys, did not prohibit the additional attorneys being present in the courtroom for consultation purposes. The additional attorneys present in the courtroom did not ask any questions of the jury panel, did not interrogate any witnesses, and did not make any opening or closing statements. Therefore, the defendant's assertion that more than two (2) attorneys participated in the trial is without merit. Accordingly, the trial court's decision should be affirmed.