Stanley Cole Murder Trial Begins February 8 in Jackson

The trial of Stanley Cole, who is accused of murdering his girlfriend, Jackson State University student Latasha Norman, is set to begin February 8 in the Circuit Court of Hinds County, Mississippi.

The evidence against Stanley Cole at this point includes: (a) he confessed to murdering Natasha Norman; (b) he confessed to placing her in the trunk of his car; and (c) he went out on a date with another woman while Latasha Norman’s corpse was in his trunk.  Further, there is DNA evidence that places Latasha Norman’s blood in Stanley Cole’s trunk.

This is a mountain of evidence.  To make matters worse for Cole, he couldn’t afford an attorney, so he got stuck with a low-level assistant public defender to defend him against these charges. 

Things ain’t looking good for Stanley right about now.

Curt Crowley, a Jackson and Gulfport Mississippi Criminal Defense Attorney


16 responses to “Stanley Cole Murder Trial Begins February 8 in Jackson

  1. I thought Matt Eichelburger was the “Johnny Cochran” of Jackson, Miss.

  2. Wow, you really know how to win friends and influence people…You call Matt Steffey a “fool,” and say Matt Eichelburger is a “low level public defender.” How long have you been practicing criminal defense in Mississippi? Defendants should be proud to have Eichelburger and Steffey on their side. You should be happy Eichelburger is a “low level public defender,” as he would probably take ALL of your business were he to go private. BTW, saying Eichelburger is a “low level” PD is like saying Bill Clinton is a rookie politician. And, Steffey probably has more knowledge about constitutional rights and criminal law than most of the “heavy weight” criminal defense lawyers who have been practicing for 20+ years. Next time do some fact checking before you recklessly disparage the character/reputation of other lawyers. Here’s an idea. Go back and read the Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically the Preamble where it says: “A lawyer should demonstrate respect for the legal system and for those who serve
    it, including judges, other lawyers and public officials.”

    • You’re the one who called Matt Eichelberger by name, not me. I happen to know Matt and have nothing against him. As for competition, I welcome it. Lord knows there’s a definite need for more competent criminal defense lawyers in Mississippi.

      As for Steffey, can you give me the style of the case where he has tried one, single, solitary jury trial of any type or nature? Just one. My point with regard to Steffey is that he is woefully unqualified to give any opinion whatsoever on trying cases. Furthermore, he’s not even a Mississippi lawyer. And his comments regarding Bobby Delaughter were absolutely asinine. In fact, they were beyond asinine. It was perhaps the most ridiculous, naive, and utterly stupid thing I’ve ever heard. It appears that “fool” is an appropriate descriptive term based upon these comments. If you care to look around the local blogosphere, you will find that I am not the only one who shares this opinion. I will be happy to provide links, if you desire.

      These are facts. You may not like them, but they are still facts. Finally, if you have a problem with my commentary, please don’t feel compelled to read it.

    • Oh and John, my commentary is entirely consistent with the rules of professional conduct. It’s also consistent with the following oft-forgotten little missive: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.” Since you don’t appear to be familiar with this principle, get your buddy Steffey to explain what it means.

    • Here’s some links for you, John, regarding Matt Steffey:





      And if Jackson Jambalaya ain’t your style, you can read Philip Thomas’ take on Steffey here at MS Litigation Review.

  3. Matt Steffey is a complete ass clown!! He has never tried a criminal case in his life and should be censured from making any comments about trials, including trial sragety, for which he has no idea about. Its like explaining sex to a virgin.

  4. The point is that as lawyers, maybe we should hold ourselves to a higher standard. God knows, the public already has enough colorful adjectives to describe lawyers and the law profession. Why, as lawyers, do we have to join in? I am certainly not saying you have to agree or appreciate Steffey’s opinions. But, is it really necessary to resort to name calling? Oh, and also, as to your references to what various other blogs have to say about Steffey, or anyone else for that matter; have you forgotten the oft-forgotten little missive: “Just because someone else jumps off a bridge, doesn’t mean you have to!” And, last time I checked, Congress has nothing to do with drafting, implementing or enforcing the Rules of Professional Conduct in Mississippi. And, Mr. McBride, name calling may be great for tabloid style news or radio talk shows, but it has no legitimate place, nor purpose, in educated, intelligent, fact-based, news, analysis and/or discussion.

  5. Well John, I guess you did get Steffey to explain the First Amendment to you, as you obviously have no idea how to apply it to actual factual scenarios.

    Here’s a crash course: the First Amendment uses the term “congress,” as in the U.S. Congress. The Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause makes the provisions of the First Amendment applicable to the states. Accordingly, the rules of professional conduct are subject to the provisions of the First Amendment.

    I most likely just saved you a butt-chewing from a federal judge one day. You’re welcome.

  6. Yes Professor Crowley, I am quite well aware of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, I believe you are overreaching when you make the unqualified statement that the First Amendment applies to the MRPC. I know you are well aware of the long line of cases discussing the issue of whether or not the First Amendment applies, without restraint, to the Rules of Professional Conduct. And you know, as do I, that there are situations, where the RPC may in-fact abridge a lawyer’s freedom of speech. This discussion is typically had in the context of what lawyers may, or may not say in advertising.

    Again, Crowley, the point of my diatribe, and the point of the MRPC, is exactly what is in the name….Rules of “PROFESSIONAL” Conduct. They are there to inspire and motivate lawyers to hold themselves to a set of higher standards….”professional” standards of conduct.

    I will concede that no one is going to come and lock you up or take away your Bar license for calling Steffey a “moran,” or anyone else for that matter. I guess to put it in more simplistic terms….I have the right to put on a dress in my front yard and dance like a monkey with a banana in my ear…however, just because I have the right to do that, does not mean I should exercise it.

    Further, I challenge you to put your “First Amendment” rights to the test by using whatever colorful adjective comes to mind next time you are in a courtroom and “counsel opposite” ruffles your feathers, as I have. Something tells me it would be you, not I, that gets a “butt-chewing” (and probably a little more) from a federal judge, or any other judge for that matter!

    If you choose to take me up on my challenge, please let me know the results. I can always use some humor.

    • You are welcome to post all the positive things about Eichelberger you desire. As I initially stated, I have nothing against the guy, and am not going to respond in opposition to any of your posts on that topic.

      As to the First Amendment, your example regarding in-court conduct to support your restrictive view of the First Amendment is a red herring. Such conduct disrupts the business of the Court and is not what we are talking about here. The advertising example is also a red herring, as commercial speech is not the issue either (although the US Supreme Court has been pretty darn generous to lawyers even as to commercial speech).

      The speech you took issue with here is “pure” speech. Restrictions on this type of speech are subject to the strictest scrunity, and rarely survive constitutional challenge.

  7. Sorry, one more comment. I actually went over and read some of the “Kingfish” material. You forgot to reference the following article posted by Kingfish.

    I believe in the original article I replied to, you said Stanley Cole “got stuck with a low-level assistant public defender to defend him against these charges. ” Which lead you to say: “Things ain’t looking good for Stanley right about now.”

    Had you taken a moment to check, you would have seen that Eichelberger was the “low level” public defender appointed to represent Cole, and according to the “Kingfish”…….

    Saturday, September 19, 2009
    Eichelberger wins JJ poll

    Matt Eichelberger was voted best criminal defense attorney in Jackson in a recent JJ poll. Second place went to Rob McDuff and Sam Wilkins placed third. It should be noted hours before voting ended Mr. Mcduff enjoyed a 30 vote lead when in the space of one hour over fifty votes were entered for the erstwhile Hinds County public defender.

    Bill Kirksey 34 (6%)
    Rob McDuff 88 (15%)
    John Colette 18 (3%)
    Joe Holloman 11 (1%)
    Ed Ranier 6 (1%)
    Dennis Sweet 10 (1%)
    Bill Featherston 3 (0%)
    Frank Trapp 18 (3%)
    Chokwe Lamumba 17 (3%)
    Tom Fortner 5 (0%)
    Sam Wilkins 60 (10%)
    THE Matt Eichelberger 117 (21%)
    Vic Carmody 6 (1%)
    Merrida Coxwell 19 (3%)
    Tom Royals 17 (3%)
    Kevin Camp 1 (0%)
    Cynthia Stewart 13 (2%)
    Sam Brand 25 (4%)
    Aafrim Sellers 4 (0%)
    David Kaufman 20 (3%)
    Cynthia Speetjeens 10 (1%)
    Tommy Mayfield 5 (0%)
    Jim Kelly 9 (1%)
    Randy Harris 36 (6%)

    Posted by Kingfish at 11:35 AM 5 comments


    • Do you mind if I edit your post to link the Jackson Jambalaya article you cited, so folks can go there and read it?

      I know that’s not a substantive edit, but I try not to edit any comments in any manner without the author’s consent.

  8. Interesting debate

  9. No issue with adding link to Kingfish on prior post.

  10. i like this story, very interesting

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s