By Bill Britt
Alabama Political Reporter
MONTGOMERY—On Wednesday, Speaker Mike Hubbard’s criminal defense attorney, J.Mark White, filed a motion in Lee County saying he did not like the State’s answer for a more defined statement of facts.
One criminal defense attorney who spoke on background said White’s motion was, “A waste of words and pointless.”
In December 2014, White asked the court to compel the prosecution to provide a More Definite Statement of the 23 felony charges against Hubbard. As ordered by Circuit Court Judge Jacob Walker III, the State complied on February 27, 2015, the deadline for their response.
That day, the response became public record, and White says, in his new motion, that he does’t like the media attention the filings have gathered.
Under the Rule 13.2. (a) of the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure, “The indictment or information shall be a plain, concise statement of the charge in ordinary language sufficiently definite to inform a defendant of common understanding of the offense charged and with that degree of certainty which will enable the court, upon conviction, to pronounce the proper judgment.”
Under rule 12.2 (e) MOTION FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT. A motion for more definite statement may be made at any time prior to entry of the defendant’s plea, which motion shall be granted for good cause shown. A statement filed in compliance with a motion for more definite statement may be thereafter amended at any time subject to such conditions as justice requires.”
This is what the State says it supplied with 2.5 million pages of documentation and the accompanying 45 page answer and 85 exhibits (2.5 million pages would fill approximately 500 banker’s boxes). However, White argues that the State’s response was, “neither plain, concise, nor sufficiently definite as required by law.”
Another defense attorney wrote in a message, “White is a PR guy. PR guys don’t like it when they lose control of the message. White has lost control.”
In the latest filing, White doubles down on his previous filing, once again requesting a more defined statement of facts, saying “The documents produced by the State cannot be used to supplement the indictment.”
White charges that the 45 page answer and 85 exhibits are, “totally insufficient to satisfy any legitimate response to a motion for a more definite statement because examples and possibilities of what Hubbard “might” be charged with are totally insufficient to legally inform the accused of anything.”
White further argues that, “The State’s Response contains serious breaches of privacy.”
Here White quotes Federal Court procedure and then concedes it is not applicable in Alabama:
“While Alabama does not yet have a comparable privacy rule, Deputy A.G. Hart at one time served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in both the Middle and Northern Districts of Alabama. It defies reason.”
Perhaps the heart of White’s motion is how disturbed he is that the media would dare write unfavorably about Hubbard. White seems to think that this might taint a jury pool, a concern he never express when Hubbard was holding pep rallies and by full page ads disgusted as news stories in the OA News. White states to the court, “The State, with assistance from the media, has already tried and convicted Hubbard – before any document has been admitted into evidence in a court of law.”
White ends his motion saying, “Hubbard requests that this Court enter an order directing the State to comply with his request for a more definite statement and specify exactly what he is charged with in this matter.”
White is all-in, and requests a little more.