Judge denies venue change motion in former Laurel PD officer's trial set to take place in Jasper County

Christopher Wade Robertson (middle) looks on Friday morning in the Smith County Courthouse in Raleigh as his defense attorney, Tracy Klein, motions for a change of venue in front of Mississippi Thirteenth Circuit Court Judge Stanley Sorey.

Mississippi Thirteenth Circuit Court Judge Stanley Sorey denied an amended motion Friday morning for change of venue in an upcoming aggravated assault trial involving a former Laurel Police Department officer from Jasper County, who has also been indicted separately on a manslaughter case in Jasper County.

Preluding the aggravated assault trial that has been set for February 9, 2021, Christopher Wade Robertson appeared with his attorney, Tracy Klein out of Hattiesburg, at the Smith County Courthouse in Raleigh for the change of venue request in front of Judge Sorey.

Robertson, in this particular case, was indicted by a Jasper County First Judicial District Grand Jury in the 2018 alleged, brutal beating of James Barnett who fled from the former LPD officer and another former LPD officer, Anthony Bryce Gilbert, during a police pursuit from the Laurel area into Jasper County where the alleged aggravated assault took place. Gilbert was also indicted for aggravated assault by a First Judicial District Grand Jury in the alleged Barnett assault, and is expected to go to trial individually in early February 2021.

Robertson, near the same time as the aggravated assault indictment, was also indicted for manslaughter by a Jasper County Second Judicial District Grand Jury in the November 20, 2019, shooting death of 30-year-old Dominique Ann Henry of Jasper County. Henry was killed after allegedly banging on Robertson’s residence door just off Highway 528 early in the morning and stealing Robertson’s wife’s car. Robertson admitted to the shooting at the time, claiming self-defense. The investigation into Henry’s death subsequently revealed information revolving around the alleged Barnett aggravated assault and led to the eventual indictments against both Robertson and Gilbert, according to District Attorney Matt Sullivan.

Sullivan has described the aggravated assault indictments against Robertson and Gilbert as “manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.” He also has said the shooting death of Henry was an excessive and violent response by Robertson even though Henry had, in fact, created a disturbance at his home. The indictment in that case charges, according to Sullivan, that Robertson did not act in self-defense, and that he shot two or more times into the side of the vehicle driven by Henry.

The defense presented Friday morning motions for change of venue on the February trial Robertson faces in the First Judicial District (Paulding) for aggravated assault, as well as the future manslaughter trial in the Second Judicial District (Bay Springs) that has been set for August 2021, claiming the two cases are “interconnected” by family relations and that the two court districts in the county from which jurors are selected are closely intermingled. Klein also mentioned local coverage from six different media outlets, including Jasper County News, about the two cases he says led to prejudicial social media interactions in the public that would lead to an unfair trial for Robertson.

“We maintain that Wade Robertson cannot get a fair trial in the First Judicial District based on those factors, in addition to what took place in the relationship between the Second Judicial District,” he explained.

Judge Sorey elected to take up the change of venue motions separately, where he later denied the motion for change of venue in the Barnett aggravated assault case trial that will take place in Paulding. He mentioned Friday morning neither of the trial cases Robertson faces, in which the defense brought up points in its motions arguments for the change of venue hearing, is of capital nature, and although there have been social media posts, none were of “crowd-threatening nature.”

“Rumor and innuendo is not the standard that the Court has to look at,” Judge Sorey explained to the defense Friday morning. “As you know the Supreme Court has identified several factors in Davis vs. State that the Court has to look at. Is this a capital case? This case nor the one in the Second Judicial District are capital cases. Crowd-threatening violence - I looked at these (social media) posts, and there may be some remarks from people on Facebook that go to that, but that is not crowds. The one that you put in (the motion) called for a peaceful protest march, and this is related to the Second District case back in July 2020. Most of these (social media) posts were all about the same time - the Court is going to note - the indictments were handed down and the Court held the arraignment hearings. Inordinate amount of media coverage - the Court notes, and I do read the Jasper County News, and in looking at that this case has not received any more coverage in the Jasper County newspaper, in which the Court takes judicial notice as a local newspaper disseminated in Jasper County, than in any other case that would normally come before the Court. With Jasper County News, it is quite common that they come to every criminal motion day that we have in Bay Springs. They are there, and I allow them to take pictures of the defendant and the defense counsel, and/or the State. I have not seen any extra coverage on this case for the First Judicial District.”

Judge Sorey also went on to explain he had not been presented any serious crimes against “influential families” that possibly could lead to a change of venue.

The manslaughter trial change of venue amended motion will be taken up again following the aggravated assault trial, according to Judge Sorey.

“I am going to overrule your motion on the First Judicial District. I am going to hold in obeyance since we have not covered that, the Second Judicial District, because I think it would be appropriate for the Court to wait and see what, if any, coverage is produced from this first trial,” he explained to Robertson’s defense. “Then, I will look at your motion after that trial if it’s tried in February, if the trial date holds. Of course, we are all subject to the COVID guidelines to be handed down by the Supreme Court as to whether we can have trials, but I’m hopeful by then the spike will have evaded and we can continue with our normal trial schedule.”