Reported PUBLIC Opinion: Believe it or not, some Judges ignore the law, violate litigant’s rights and threaten lawyers who stand up for what is right…it’s sad, but it happens.

This past week some level of justice was meted out by the Mississippi Supreme Court. Not 100% justice, but when you operate in a world of judges with near absolute power and the checks and balances are truly stacked against any change or accountability we celebrate even the small victories!

In a recent Mississippi Supreme Court Opinion, (3) three justices found as follows;

“¶56. Here, the chancellor (Tametrice Hodges-Linzey) denied Angela basic constitutional due process protection. James, (her ex-husband) however, was given sufficient time and an opportunity to present his case for Angela’s contempt. Yet, after James’s counsel rested James’s case-in-chief, Angela was allowed to call only one witness, the minor child. Angela was to be the next witness. Instead, however, the chancellor abruptly announced that the matter was being recessed due to the late hour. The chancellor then ruled that Angela “never once put forth a defense or overcame the contempt brought – the petition for contempt brought against you.” Justice Griffis, MS Supreme Court (Dissent)

The Judge, Tametrice Hodges Linzey, denied a litigant the right to call additional witnesses and testify on her own behalf!

Subsequently Angela’s counsel tried to correct this error and asked to make a motion. The chancellor responded: “You may not. We’re done. Save it for MEC. We are done and please, I will hate to have to send you [to jail] with your client. Feel free to file it on MEC.” Justice Griffis, MS Supreme Court (Id.)

When challenged, legally, properly and with respect due the position of the Court, the Judge threatened her attorney with JAIL!!

“¶57. .. Angela should have been given an ample opportunity to call witnesses and admit evidence in her defense.” Justice Griffis, MS Supreme Court (Id.)

“¶58. Angela was clearly not allowed an opportunity to present her defense. This is a basic and fundamental error that this Court cannot allow to stand. Professor Bell made it clear that Mississippi law requires that Angela be given an opportunity to respond to James’s contempt allegations.

¶59. Accordingly, I opine that the chancellor committed manifest error in her order to incarcerate Angela for thirty-two days, lose temporary custody of her son, and sanction her attorney. I therefore dissent from the majority’s decision not to review this matter. Instead,
I would reverse this case and remand for further proceedings.

¶60. Also, I am concerned by the chancellor’s action. First, the chancellor caused Angela to be incarcerated longer than allowed by statute. Second, she had no opportunity to appeal her order of incarceration before she was incarcerated. Third, the chancellor failed to provide Angela with basic due process—i.e., an opportunity to be heard—especially before she was incarcerated.

¶61. Chancellors have a duty, responsibility, and obligation to ensure litigants receive their rights to be heard, present evidence in their own defense, and the right to appeal. Angela was denied these rights…

¶62. I concur as to the majority’s decision to vacate the chancellor’s order that sanctioned Angela’s counsel and to decline to order permanent recusal or to refer this matter to the Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance.”
COLEMAN, P.J., AND ISHEE, J., JOIN THIS OPINION IN PART.

Justice Griffis, MS Supreme Court (Dissent)

The Majority of the Court likewise concluded;

CONCLUSION
“¶53. The visitation and custody issues were…resolved in Angela’s favor before this Court received both appeals… The trial court erred by finding (the attorney) in contempt without recusing from the constructive criminal contempt proceeding and giving him proper notice. … As a result, this Court vacates the contempt judgment against (the attorney), remands the case for contempt proceedings before a different chancellor, and affirms the trial court’s judgment on all other issues. The chancery clerk also is ordered to return $1,500.00 to (the attorney).” Mississippi Supreme Court, (Majority Opinion) 4/02/2026 NO. 2024-CA-00690-SCT

Matthew Thompson is a civil litigation attorney and will fight for his client’s rights even in the face of improper threats…though prefers to not to and prefers Judges that treat litigants, witnesses and attorneys with respect…

It’s time for a change in Hinds County Chancery Court.