Print this story |
E-mail story |
This story has 11 comments Add your own |
iPod friendly | Bookmark this
What is this?
Election contest finds new evidence
Published Tuesday, June 16, 2009
The Pike County Commission District 6 election contest will go back to the courtroom after a motion was filed Monday to reopen evidence in the trial.
Even though both sides had been awaiting a judge’s final ruling in the case, plaintiff Oren Fannin filed a motion to call one final witness to the stand – Karen Berry’s daughter-in-law. Fannin is contesting District 6 Commissioner Karen Berry’s win in the Nov. 4, 2008, general election.
Ashley Berry originally was subpoenaed by Fannin’s attorney Joel Lee Williams, but did not appear in court. Her husband and Karen Berry’s son Brent Berry, who testified in trial, said she did not attend the trial because she had a work conflict.
But, according to documents filed Monday Ashley Berry told Williams that is not the case.
“(The) plaintiff’s counsel has recently communicated with (Ashley Berry), wherein she represented that she did not receive her subpoena, although, Brent Berry, another witness at these proceedings, in fact testified that she had received her subpoena but could not appear due to a work conflict,” the motion filed in the Pike County Circuit Court reads. “The said Ashley Berry has stated that she had no work conflict, did not receive the subpoena and would have been present at trial had she known.”
The file further states Ashley Berry told Williams that she did not mark any absentee ballot and did not vote in the election period. However, an absentee ballot was shown in court with her signature and the vote was shown as being cast for Karen Berry.
In addition, Karen Berry’s notary, Kathy Lunsford Griffin, testified to having witnessed Ashley Berry sign her absentee ballot affidavit and to notarizing her signature on the ballot.
“It further impeaches the credibility of Kathy Lunsford Griffin…who notarized many of the affidavits of absentee voters,” the motion read.
Retired Judge Joel Holley, of Lannet, has set a hearing for 1:30 p.m. June 24 to allow for final evidence and argument.
Holley said he is unsure whether he will make a ruling at this hearing but did advise in a court order for all witnesses and counsel to be present.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE THIS STORY?





Comments
Posted by yatta (anonymous) on June 16, 2009 at 11:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow! Talk about hating the inlaws!
Posted by uglydog65 (anonymous) on June 17, 2009 at 5:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
What a mess. I thought that when a subpoena was issued by a Judge, the sheriff dept. delivered it. If the witness ignored it, the sheriff dept. would give them a ride to court. At the discretion of the Judge they could be held in contempt of court and given time to think (in the local poke) about not showing up. Was a subpoena issued? Have I been watching too much TV?
Posted by kathielee (anonymous) on June 17, 2009 at 7:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
We could all save the county some money if we would kick em both to the curb and start over!!!!
Posted by bdhs4 (anonymous) on June 17, 2009 at 7:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
uglydog65 that is how it is suppose to work but does not. At least not in Pike County. People come to Court when they get ready and nothing is done! Therefore court has to be set back up and that cost taxpayers money!
Posted by Ramsey (anonymous) on June 17, 2009 at 8:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Keep in mind that this witness doesn't live in Pike County.
Posted by kathielee (anonymous) on June 17, 2009 at 12:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If the witness doesn't live in Pike County what gives her the right to vote in Pike County?
Posted by Ramsey (anonymous) on June 17, 2009 at 12:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am not suggesting she can, although what I have read says her pernanent address is her mother-in-law's address in Pike County. I thinks she "lives" in Shelby County.
Posted by elvis2 (anonymous) on June 17, 2009 at 1:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
As has been said several times before , it would have been cheaper on the tax payers to have held a new election and had this settled . In the future perhaps picture ID and verification of addresses could prevent this from happening again .
Posted by WDM (anonymous) on June 17, 2009 at 3:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't have a dog in this fight but why would anyone want either one of these two in office now.
Posted by OldSchoolPike3Worker (anonymous) on June 17, 2009 at 8:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Does anyone know what job this witness has that is too important to miss? Because you know, the last time I checked, McDonald's has two drive thru windows and doesn't have to close when an employee is absent.
Posted by kathielee (anonymous) on June 17, 2009 at 9:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think the witness is a stay at home mom!
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)