|
|
|
| Mon, Nov. 30 - - Mobile - RSS | |
|
|
Specific details filed in Hill case
Commonwealth's attorney details obstruction of justice charge against Spotsylvania Superintendent Jerry Hill
Date published: 7/27/2006 By MELISSA NIX By MELISSA NIX A filing in Spotsylvania County Circuit Court alleges Spotsylvania School Superintendent Jerry Hill obstructed justice by directing School Board members to forward questions from a detective investigating possible election law violations to the board's counsel. It also alleges he deleted portions of a memo before providing it to the detective. During a June 26 hearing in the case, Spotsylvania County Circuit Court Judge George Mason ordered King George County Commonwealth's Attorney Matt Britton to detail his evidence in support of the obstruction charge. Britton is handling the case because Spotsylvania Commonwealth's Attorney Bill Neely recused himself. Neely's wife works in Spotsylvania schools. According to the "bill of particulars" Britton filed, Hill sent a memo to School Board members on Sept. 30 after a county detective began to investigate the legality of a flier circulated by the School Board earlier that month. Board members paid for and distributed the fliers after the Board of Supervisors voted to put a $41 million school-bond referendum on the November ballot. School Board members had sought $184 million worth of bonds. Supervisors demanded an investigation into whether the fliers violated a state election law. When asked about his filing, Britton declined to comment on any part of it. "Those are qualitative questions and this case is pending in court," he said, adding that answering questions before the trial potentially poisons the jury pool. "I cannot give you a quote on the substance of the allegations. We want an unbiased jury pool so that the defendant can get a fair trial." Britton alleges that in his memo, Hill, "citing purported advice of counsel," recommended School Board members not answer any questions from the detective and to direct any questions posed by the detective to the district's legal counsel. Britton's filing states that when the detective submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for the memo, the part about not answering questions was deleted:
Date published: 7/27/2006
|
 |
|||
|
|||
