After a long process of jury selection, spanning most of the morning of April 11, a crowd of 113 individuals were whittled down to a mere 12 jurors which stood judgement over the case of The State of Mississippi V. Sylvia Clark. The jury consisted of three men and ten women, one woman standing as alternate juror. Alderwoman Sylvia Clark’s trial was on the charge of felony simple assault on a law enforcement officer, which happened at a July 20, 2023, regularly scheduled Board of Alderman meeting in Winona. Clark was accused of inappropriately grabbing the officer in his groin area while being placed under arrest for disorderly conduct and failure to comply. In the trial, witnesses Mayor Aaron Dees, Alderwoman Linda Purnell, Board Attorney Adam Kirk, and victim Officer Bobby “BJ” Edwards took the stand in testimony. The trial spanned more than a day, beginning at approximately 1:30 p.m. on Thursday, April 11 until 5:30 p.m. the same day, broken by a recess. The jury was called back to court at 8:30 a.m. on Friday, April 12 and the court was back in session at approximately 9 a.m. The trial concluded at 11:30 a.m. when the jury returned a unanimous guilty verdict after roughly a mere 30 minutes of deliberation. Honorable Judge Alan “Devo” Lancaster presided over the trial. The court proceedings were as follows.
Opening Statements
On April 11, the Prosecution, Assistant District Attorneys Morgan Jackson, and Michael Howey, gave their opening statement to start off the trial. The Prosecution argued that throughout the meeting in question, the July 20, 2023, Board of Alderman meeting, Clark was disruptive to members of the Board, bystanders, and other officials conducting business. Clark was asked to leave multiple times by Mayor Dees prior to Officer Edwards being called in. Officer Edwards politely asked Clark to remove herself from the board room before the situation escalated to him giving her a lawful order to stop resisting and comply with his order. Clark was placed under arrest after all the previous warnings given as she continued to resist the officer. Following this, Officer Edwards requested help removing Clark from the meeting room to which then Assistant Police Chief Calvin Young, came to assist in her removal. It was at this time, after being charged with the initial disorderly conduct, failure to comply charge that Clark reached back and grabbed Officer Edwards inappropriately. The Prosecution stated that the evidence they would enter into record in the trial would show this sequence of events and therefore prove Clark’s guilt in the matter.
Following the Prosecution’s opening statement, the Defense, Attorney Reid Stanford, gave his opening statement. The Defense emphasized the importance of the entire video in which the altercation that took place was caught. Attorney Stanford argued that Clark had been intimidated by the other members of the Board and that Mayor Aaron Dees had no authority to have her forcibly removed from the meeting. He argued Clark had every right to resist Officer Edwards and Mayor Dees demands to leave, as the Officer had not given a lawful order. In addition, he argued that the guidelines by which Mayor Dees had Clark removed were unclear and not agreed upon by the Board, therefore invalid. Attorney Stanford stated that Sylvia Clark was passionate about serving on the Board of Alderman as an Alderwoman and was passionate about the issues being discussed in the meeting. He argued she did not intentionally try to harm Officer Edwards, and that her actions were the result of her having suffered from a recent stroke which affected her ability to control her movements.
Witnesses Questioning – Mayor Aaron Dees
Moving from the opening statements, the process of calling witnesses to give their testimony began with the Prosecution calling Mayor Aaron Dees to the stand. After being placed under oath, Dees was questioned first by the Assistant District Attorneys. Dees was asked to report on his role presiding over the Board meetings as mayor. Dees reported that Mississippi Code 21-3-15 gives him the authority to preside over the meetings and create rules of conduct for said meetings.
Mississippi Code 21-3-15 explicitly states, “The mayor shall preside at all meetings of the Board of Aldermen, and in case there shall be an equal division, shall give the deciding vote. The executive power of the municipality shall be exercised by the mayor, and the mayor shall have the superintending control of all the officers and affairs of the municipality, and shall take care that the laws and ordinances are executed.”
Dees then testified he had provided all Alderpersons and department heads with a set of etiquette guidelines for meetings, devised by him, in either physical form or electronic form such as email. Dees stated that the gist of his letter was: if a person could not conduct themselves in a profession manner, they would be asked to leave. He stated that he had drafted and sent these letters due to past issues with misconduct and out of control behavior in meetings. One letter was dated from 2021 and one from 2022, both concerning decorum. Both letters mentioned were admitted into evidence in the trial.
Next, the Prosecution questioned Mayor Dees about his experience at the June 20, 2023, Board meeting. Dees stated that due to the matter of business on the agenda that night, a hot button topic for some present, including Clark, he had requested there be more security at the meeting than would be normal. The topic of discussion was concerning money allocation, accounting, and professionality of the Recreation and Parks Department. Dees claimed he had requested extra security for the meeting in case the meeting were to get out of hand.
In addition, the Prosecution questioned Dees about Clark’s conduct at the meeting, and how he responded. Mayor Dees stated he had personally given Alderwoman Clark at least four verbal warnings prior to requesting an Officer have her removed. Dees also assured that had Alderwoman Clark abated her actions and calmed down, he would not have asked her to leave the meeting or requested she be forcibly removed. With this, the Prosecution rested their line of questioning and Mayor Dees was turned over to the Defense for cross examination.
Attorney Stanford began his line of questioning with Dees letters of conducts and the guidelines laid out within. He questioned if Dees had consulted the Board Attorney, Adam Kirk, or the City Council members in the drafting of the letters, to which Dees responded he had not been assisted in their writing. The Defense questioned Dees about the statutes of creating rules and regulations for meetings, in which Dees referred to Mississippi Code 21-3-15 again. In addition, Dees stated he had consulted the Attorney General’s office about the subject, to which he was not advised against. Dees stated that he had questioned Board Attorney Kirk about the possibility of drafting said letters, stating he had received consultation on what guidelines to follow and what could and could not be said in such letters. The Defense then questioned Mayor Dees on why the Mayor of Winona was not explicitly mentioned in the letter as an official that could be removed from the meeting, should he become unruly himself. Dees reported that he had removed himself from prior meetings upon request of the Board and legal advice from Board Attorney Kirk. He stated he had removed himself as the matter at hand, at that specific meeting, was concerning someone of familial relation to himself. However, the Defense pointed out that at the meeting in question, which involved the incident with Clark, Mayor Dees had chosen to remain in the meeting. Again, the Defense emphasized that the guidelines set by Dees had not been voted on by the council, stating that they had, rather, been dictated to the council by Mayor Dees.
The Defense continued their concerns, stating that Alderwoman Linda Purnell was vocal on the subject being discussed that night as well. Attorney Stanford stated that Alderwoman Clark’s main concern at the meeting is that she felt that the Parks and Recreation employees were not being forthcoming with their accounting of funds. He stated that Alderwoman Purnell and Alderwoman Clark wanted financial accountability for the money being spent, as it came from Winona taxpayers. He stated that Clark and Purnell were both passionate about the accounting of city funds. Attorney Stanford questioned Dees if, in response to Alderwoman Clark’s concerns, he had told her “that just doesn’t make any sense” and called her a liar.
At this point, the Defense requested that a video be shown to the jury, which at the time had not been provided to the Prosecution, prompting a near immediate objection from the Assistant District Attorneys. Attorney Stanford argued that the video provided by the Prosecution was incomplete and did not show the context leading up to the altercation with Alderwoman Clark. He claimed that the video provided by the Defense shows more context, such as Mayor Dees provoking Alderwoman Clark and threatening her removal. The video was entered into evidence but would not be showed until much later in the case, as the Defense was required to remove any comments made on the video so that they did not appear before the Jury. The Defense rested their line of questioning but reserved the right to recall Mayor Dees to the stand at a later time.
Witnesses Questioning – Officer Edwards
As their next witness, the Prosecution called Officer Bobby “BJ” Edwards to the stand to give his testimony as the victim of the assault. After taking oath, Officer Edwards was questioned if providing security at Board meetings was a regular duty of his, to which he replied it was not. Edwards stated he had stopped by the building out of curiosity, as he had seen a large crowd gathered and he was being cautious of possible issues arising from the amount of people. He testified he had been outside of the meeting for roughly five to ten minutes before hearing Mayor Dees calling for Alderwoman Clark to regain order. At the time, he had arrived in uniform and was present in his official capacity as a city police officer. He stated from outside the Board room he could hear Mayor Dees giving verbal instructions for Alderwoman Clark to stop being disruptive, and at this time he was approached and informed that Dees was requesting assistance from law enforcement.
Officer Edwards testified that upon his entrance in the room, he attempted to deescalate the situation and rested his hand on Alderwoman Clark’s shoulder in what was intended to be a calming gesture. He stated that he requested Alderwoman Clark remove herself from the meetings many times prior to giving a lawful order for her to come with him. According to him, Clark refused many times. He stated after the lawful order was given, he advised Alderwoman Clark she was under arrest for disorderly conduct, failure to comply with his order. At this time, Officer Edwards attempted to remove Alderwoman Clark from her seat with minimal force being applied as he did not want to hurt her. He then stated that Clark, refusing to stand, gripped her chair. He recalled requesting assistance from Assistant Police Chief Calvin Young and as Young approached, Clark stood from her chair. He testified Alderwoman Clark continued physically resisting, demanding the officers ‘get their hands off of her’. It was at this point, as Alderwoman Clark resisted, she slipped Officer Edwards grip and grabbed his privates. Officer Edwards testified he felt a sharp pain that took his breath away and caused his stomach to sink. He applied force to Alderwoman Clark in order to force her away from his body. He stated that she then swung towards Assistant Police Chief Young with her handcuffed hand at which point both officers applied the necessary force to successfully handcuff both of Clark’s hands. During the interaction, Edwards stated, Clark made derogatory comments against both the officers and the mayor. He stated that she continued with inflammatory comments all the way to the station. Upon questioning, Edwards stated that he does not take orders from the mayor and was not specifically requested to be there by him.
At this point in questioning, the Prosecution admitted several videos into evidence which recorded the incident. Edwards identified the videos, stating they were of the meeting and specific incident in question. The videos were shown to the jury. The videos were captured from multiple angles.
After the jury had reviewed the videos admitted into evidence, Attorney Stanford with the Defense began his cross examination. Attorney Stanford requested that Officer Edwards clarify the circumstances of his timely appearance. Edwards stated that he did not regularly attend the Board of Alderman meetings in any capacity, and he was not specifically contacted to be there that day. He testified he had only stopped by due to the large crowd gathered outside. In addition, the Defense asked what Officer Edwards heard in context of the meeting. He stated he heard Mayor Dees give Alderwoman Clark multiple warnings to calm down and come to order or be removed. He also stated he did not hear the mayor call Alderwoman Clark a liar. The Defense then presented Officer Edwards with the affidavits filed on the incident. The first affidavit for disorderly conduct and resisting arrest was filed on the date of the incident, June 20, 2023. The affidavit for simple assault on a police officer was filed the following day on June 21, 2023. Edwards stated, upon questions about the reasoning for the time gap for the Simple Assault affidavit, it was likely due to pain distracting him that there was a difference in the dates filed and that the other charge likely slipped his mind at the time. The Defense questioned Edwards if he sought medical treatment for the pain, to which he replied he did not. He also stated he was able to carry on his duties as an officer otherwise.
Defense Attorney Stanford asked if Officer Edwards advised Alderwoman Clark of the charge being brought against her, to which he replied he believed he had informed Clark that she was under arrest for disorderly conduct, failure to comply. Upon being asked once again, Edwards stated he does not take orders from the mayor. He stated that as the mayor presides over Board of Alderman meetings, he can request someone’s removal from the meetings. Attorney Stanford asked if the mayor can be arrested at these meetings if he is found to be disruptive, to which Edwards replied to his knowledge there was no one in the city of Winona who could not be arrested. Officer Edwards stated that the basis for his arrest was due to Alderwoman Clark’s failure to comply with a lawful order given by an officer. Shortly after this, the Defense rested their questioning with Edwards.
Witnesses Questioning – Alderwoman Linda Purnell
As the first witness for the Defense, Attorney Stanford called Alderwoman Linda Purnell to the stand. Purnell stated she served as Alderwoman of Ward five of Winona for three years this upcoming July. She recounted her perspective of the incident. She stated that as the meeting started, she noticed that it seemed to have been coached. The agenda of the day covered normal topics. She stated that during the meeting there was a man seated against the wall behind Alderwoman Clark who was talking to her and did not stop after many times of her asking him to, to which she replied that she would have him removed from the meeting. It was at this time that the mayor stated he would have Alderwoman Clark removed for being disruptive.
Alderwoman Purnell spoke about the hot topic of the night, which caused the uproar. She stated that the issue with the Recreation Department started way before the issue at hand, as someone had accused in a previous meeting that someone in the Rec. Department was stealing, having used the phrase “five finger discount”. Purnell stated that nothing was solved in the previous meeting, nor the one at hand about the Rec. Department. She stated that in a conversation with Clark prior to the incident, Alderwoman Clark said she had gone to the park and watched the workers go in, clock in, and leave, not to come back until they clocked out. It was at this time that much of Purnell’s testimony was disregarded on the account of the Prosecution objecting on the basis of hearsay.
Purnell then returned to her recounting of the incident, stating that she saw the outburst and turn of events. She stated that Clark had threatened to have someone removed to which the mayor then threatened to have her removed. She admitted to having heard derogatory statements exchanged between Mayor Dees and Alderwoman Clark. She also testified that she believed the mayor’s threat to remove Clark from the meeting could be seen as intimidating behavior. She noted that the Board did not vote on the proposed regulations or etiquette guidelines for the meetings since she has been in office. She testified that meetings are not usually conducted in an orderly manner.
Following this, Alderwoman Purnell was asked about her relationship with Alderwoman Clark. Purnell stated she has known Clark for years, even before Clark had her recent stroke. She testified she had noticed differences in Clark post stroke, such as loss of control of movement in her right hand and spontaneous loss of function in her legs. She stated that as one of Clark’s medications causes her to sleep excessively, she often reminds Clark of meetings. She stated that on one occasion she has seen Alderwoman Clark lose feeling in her legs and fall. Purnell also testified that on several occasions she was required to sign for Clark, as Clark could not control her hand movements or grip writing utensils.
The line of questioning then shifted back to prior meetings, the meeting at hand, and the conduct letters previously mentioned by Mayor Dees. Alderwoman Purnell stated that Alderwoman Clark had not been removed from prior meetings, and this was the first instance she knew of someone being removed from a meeting for disruptive behavior. She said she had heard Mayor Dees call Alderwoman Clark a liar, say her argument doesn’t make sense, and threaten to have her removed from the meeting. Purnell testified there was no rule prohibiting Clark’s behavior in the meeting that her or Clark were aware of. Purnell also testified that she, nor Clark to her knowledge, had not received the conduct guidelines letters written by Mayor Dees and dated for August 17, 2021, and January 26, 2022. She testified that her first time seeing the letters was when they were presented to her on the stand in the courtroom.
After this, the Defense rested, and Purnell was turned over to the Prosecution for cross examination. Upon questioning, Purnell stated she did see Clark being requested to leave by Officer Edwards. She said she witnessed that Clark kept twisting and resisting the officer. She testified she did not see Clark grab Officer Edwards at all. She also agreed that she had intervened momentarily in the incident, as she checked on Clark and informed the officers of Clark’s recent stroke, requesting the officers not handle her roughly. Purnell testified Assistant Police Chief Calvin Young was the one doing most of the work in the arrest. She stated she did not hear Clark make any inflammatory comments to the officer during the incident. Purnell said that she believed Clark’s behavior at the meeting was within her rights. At this point during questioning about whether Purnell had seen Clark grab Office Edwards inappropriately, she made a comment about his pants being too tight that she had noticed. She also made a comment about her mother telling her to grab a man where it hurts and bring him to the ground if she needed to defend herself, stating that this is what Clark had done, defending herself.
Following this, the witness was redirected back to the Defense and questioned further. Upon being asked if she noticed Officer Edwards in pain that day during or following the incident, Purnell stated that she did not notice him in pain. She said she did not see any visible signs of considerable pain from the officer. Finally, the Defense rested their questioning and Purnell was dismissed from the stand.
Witnesses Questioning – Attorney Adam Kirk
For their Next witness, the Defense called Board Attorney Adam Kirk to the stand. Kirk was questioned on his relationship with Clark. He stated he had known Clark for over 20 years and considers himself a friend to her. He said he knows that Clark has recently had health issues, referencing her stroke. He also said he had noticed post-stroke behavior changes, specifically that she had more difficulty “finding the right words” and communicating her thoughts, but he did not notice any other significant changes. Upon questioning on the subject, he testified he did not recall assisting in the drafting of any rules or guidelines to etiquette for the meetings, this was in reference to the letters written by Mayor Dees. He stated he did not assist the mayor in drafting the letters or consult with him on them, and the only topic he explicitly remembered discussing with the mayor was about limiting the time of people speaking to keep the meetings as brief as possible. The Defense asked if he was at the meeting when the incident happened, to which Kirk replied he could not speak with certainty, but he believed he was. He recalled hearing the arguing back and forth between Dees and Clark but did not see the altercation. He did not notice Alderwoman Clark grab Officer Edwards, nor did he notice a pained response from Edwards.
Video Presentation
It was at this time in the trial that the Defense presented a longer video, roughly 30 minutes in length, to the jury. The video gave more context of the meeting and events leading up to the incident. Following the conclusion of the video, the trial was recessed until 9 a.m. on Friday, April 12. On the morning of April 12, a crowd of roughly 30 people gathered to view the conclusion of the long-awaited trial.
Day Two - Witnesses Questioning – Officer Edwards
For the first act of the day, the Defense called Officer Edwards back to the stand. He was informed by Judge Lancaster that he was still under oath before questioning proceeded. The Defense presented body camera footage from Officer Edwards’ body camera to the jury. The video took place outside of the meeting hall, as Officer Edwards assisted Clark into the front passenger seat of his police vehicle.
As Edwards was walking Clark to the vehicle, he and Officer Young assisted Clark in a step down, to which Edwards can be clearly heard stating “I’m not worried about you runnin’, I’m worried about you fallin’.”
This was in response to Clark demanding he let go of her as she would not run. The video proceeded, showing the trip to the police station, in which Clark can clearly be heard making racist remarks towards Officer Edwards, and accusing him of racial profiling. The Defense fast-forwarded the video to the point of their arrival at the police station. Clark appears to continue resisting Edwards as he attempts to remove the handcuffs, however she can be heard in the video stating that she cannot control the movement of her arm. Edwards can be heard informing Clark that he would allow her to bond out from the Police Office, offering to call a bondsman for her. At some point in the video, Officer Edwards appears to remove his body camera, leaving it recording, and positions it to film Clark. He can then be heard conversing with another officer before leaving the room momentarily, leaving Clark in the custody of the other officer. Towards the end of the video, the Defense pointed out a moment where it appeared that Officer Edwards took a Snapchat picture of Clark while in his custody in the police station.
The Defense asked Edwards about the nature regarding the picture. He stated he did not intentionally or maliciously take a picture of Clark for any ulterior purposes. He said it was an unconscious behavior, and that he had taken a Snapchat picture to maintain a streak, explained as an objective where someone takes pictures daily to obtain a score in the app. The Defense questioned if there were policies set on social media usage within work hours for the police department, to which Edwards stated there were. Edwards admitted that his usage was inappropriate, but testified he did not intentionally take a picture of Clark. Following this, the Defense once again questioned Edwards about the nature of his appearance at the meeting, to which he replied again that he had only come because he had noticed the large crowd gathered. He was questioned why his body camera was off during the arrest, and only turned on after Alderwoman Clark’s removal from the meeting. Edwards stated he had not intended to arrest Clark and had only indented to remove her from the meeting. He had not turned his camera on because his full attention was on the issue at hand, which was quickly escalating, though he had intended to deescalate the issue. Upon being questioned if Clark had been read her Miranda Rights prior to being arrested, or after her arrest, Edwards replied he had not, they had slipped his mind after the incident and being assaulted.
At this time, Defense Attorney Stanford questioned if anyone in the meeting room had a clear view of Officer Edwards groin area. Edwards replied he did not know. Following this, the Defense asked Edwards to review the video of the incident and show at what point exactly Clark had assaulted him and where exactly he showed a pain response to the incident. Edwards identified in the video where he had been assaulted in addition to specific behavioral changes to denote the exact moment. He identified a change in his facial expression, a change in the intonation of his voice, and a point at which he physically pulled himself away from Clark.
Upon reviewing the video, the Defense argued that Edwards had pulled Clark into him, insinuating he was at fault. Defense Attorney Stanford asked if any videos presented had clearly shown the action of Clark assaulting Edwards. Edwards then cited his pain indicators again. When asked about lasting pain, Edwards stated that at the moment he had excused himself in the body camera footage he had gone to the restroom because he had become sick from pain and felt like he would vomit.
Closing Arguments
Following a brief intermission, the Prosecution and Defense presented their closing arguments. The Prosecution clearly defined disorderly conduct for the jury, referring to marked behaviors in the videos presented in which Alderwoman Clark’s actions completed the requirements for said charge. They cited her frequent interruptions while others spoke, her arguing with someone behind her, her arguing with Alderman Harris, and her combative behavior towards the mayor and the people from the Recreation Department as the behaviors which fulfilled the conditions for this charge. The Prosecution defined simple assault on a law enforcement officer and explained that her actions of grabbing Officer Edwards fulfilled the condition for this charge. The Prosecution also recalled Alderwoman Purnell’s remarks about “grabbing a man where it hurts”, stating that this is what Clark had done with the intention of harming Officer Edwards. Finally, the Prosecution stated that Alderwoman Clark’s hand seemed to only have issues when “something happened that she didn’t like,” citing her ability to rummage through her purse in the police department after being arrested.
The Defense gave their closing statement next. Attorney Stanford stated that Clark had served on the Board for approximately three years, describing her as intelligent and highly opinionated in her views. Attorney Stanford stated that there were no valid guidelines or rules for behavior at the meetings, stating that she had every right to behave as she had.
He commented, “I don’t think anyone here would say the city of Winona conducts orderly meetings.”
He said that Clark was serving in her lawful capacity as Alderwoman. He also stated that while some make light of Clark’s post-stroke effects, she was significantly impacted. He claimed her movements could not be controlled throughout the event, before and after her arrest. He argued that the meeting itself was disorderly, and that Alderwoman Clark had done nothing that should have constituted her removal. He stated that she did not willfully attempt to harm Officer Edwards, and could not have, as she was facing away from the officer during the time of the arrest. He stated there was no clear video evidence of the assault as the video did not explicitly show Clark’s hand coming into contact with Officer Edwards. He pointed out the difference in the testimonies of Mayor Dees, stating he had requested Officer Edwards’ presence at the meeting, and Officer Edwards stating he had only stopped by. Finally, the Defense argued that in a room fully of witnesses, only one person had seen Officer Edwards be assaulted. He argued that political differences existed in the case and that issues from council meetings should be handled in council meetings, not courtrooms.
As the final statement of the case, the Prosecution was allowed a rebuttal of the Defense’s closing statement. The Prosecution drew attention to the Defense attempting to redirect the jury’s attention from the case at hand by bringing up other issues which had nothing to do with the case. Assistant District Attorney Howey stated that Officer Edwards was courteous, polite, and professional throughout conducting his duties, citing he had even attempted to help Clark on multiple occasions. Attorney Howey also referred to Clark lashing out at multiple people, making inflammatory comments about racism and homosexuality.
Finally, Attorney Howey stated, “This case is really about cause and effect and consequences for your actions.”
Verdict
Following the closing arguments, the jury retired to the jury room for deliberation after the alternate juror was released from duty. The jury returned a verdict after approximately 30 minutes of deliberation. Sylvia Clark was found guilty of Simple Assault on a Law Enforcement Official. Sentencing for Clark’s case was delayed, as requested by the Defense. The court was set to reconvene at 9 a.m. on Tuesday, April 16, in the Vaiden courthouse for sentencing. Defendant Sylvia Clark remained on bond until sentencing took place.
Sentencing
At approximately 9 a.m. on Tuesday, April 16, the Vaiden circuit court came to order for the sentencing hearing of Sylvia Clark. Roughly 30 people, aside from court officials, were in attendance for Clark’s sentencing hearing. The state chose to pursue a maximum sentencing, which entailed five years imprisonment and/or a maximum fine of $1,000. In addition, Assistant District Attorney Morgan Jackson read Mississippi Code 25-5-1 before the judge and court. Mississippi Code 25-5-1 states, in short, should any public official of the state of Mississippi be found guilty of a felony, the court shall issue an order removing said person from their office.
The Defense requested minimum sentencing for Clark, issuing a few statements. Attorney Stanford notified Judge Lancaster that Sylvia Clark officially presented the City Clerk of Winona with her letter of resignation on Monday, April 15. Following this, Attorney Stanford read letters of support and requests for lesser sentencing from associates of Clark numbering roughly eight in all. Some of her associates included but were not limited to Alanzo White, the mayor of Duck Hill and Director of the NAACP in Winona, her cousin, Janette Ringo, and Alderwoman Linda Purnell. In addition to this, Janette Ringo and Linda Purnell spoke directly to Judge Lancaster on behalf of Clark as character witnesses while sworn under oath. After their testimonies, Clark addressed the Judge Lancaster in the form of a prewritten letter as well as a direct statement made by her in court.
At one point in her address, Clark stated, “Looking back on the meeting I sincerely wish I had acted in a different manner.”
Victim Officer Edwards chose not to speak at the hearing but was present throughout its duration. After all concerns were properly addressed by the court, Judge Lancaster excused himself from the court for a short deliberation, stating he would read over the letters given and consider all facts of the case during a brief recess before giving his final decision. Upon his return, Judge Lancaster informed those present of his decision.
Having considered the exhibits and facts of the case, Judge Lancaster stated that the “facts giving rise to all of that [the incident] are not really relevant to the charge.”
He went on to say that a civilized society cannot tolerate an attack on those charged with protecting and serving its people. Following his address to Clark, Judge Lancaster read her sentencing. Sylvia Clark was sentenced to five years with the Mississippi Department of Corrections, the initial three of which are to be served under house arrest followed by two years of post-release supervision. The court would meet with Clark later during the day concerning the conditions of her house arrest and the installation of the MDOC ankle monitor. In addition to this, Clark would be required to pay $50 a month until all court costs, fees, and assessments are paid in full as well as an $80 a month fee to MDOC for the duration of the use of the electronic monitoring device. After official sentencing, the judge also stated that Clark would be required to vacate her official office as Alderwoman immediately.
