Matt Steffey Pops Off About Karen Irby, And Gets It Wrong, As Usual

Nonlawyer Matt Steffey continues to break his own record for utterly stupid statements.  In yet another Jimmie Gates article, the learned professor weighs in heavy on Karen Irby’s claim that she was being assaulted by Stuart Irby as she was driving.  She contends that this attack is what led her to enter the oncoming lane of traffic and strike another vehicle.

Professor Neverhandledacriminalcaseinhislife dismissed the claims:

Absent of corroboration, I have to take all these things with a grain of salt.

This single sentence demonstrates once again that Matt Steffey is exactly where he needs to be–in a classroom setting far away from a courtroom where he might hurt somebody.  The fact of the matter is that there was corroboration of her story.  Her story is corroborated by (1) the manner in which the accident happened; (2) a rate of speed which is inconsistent with alcohol impairment; (3) simple biomechanics and principles of human reaction; and (4) Stuart’s well-documented history violence against Karen and at least one of the children–a fact that has been verified by law enforcement.

These facts have been well-publicized in media outlets, and it seems likely that Steffey would have known about these facts before he opened his blowhole.  The problem with Steffey is that he doesn’t understand the importance of these facts.  In other words, he does not understand that these facts could very well have convinced a jury to acquit Ms. Irby.  The reason he does not understand why these facts are important is because (1) Steffey is not a lawyer; (2) he has never handled a criminal case in his life; and (3) and never tried a jury trial of any type or nature.

I understand that reasonable legal minds could differ over whether Ms. Irby’s claims are true.  For example, the Hinds County District Attorney’s office does not believe Ms. Irby’s version of events, and points to other evidence of her guilt.  That’s a legitimate argument.  It’s also an argument that the prosecutors are qualified to make.  Unlike Steffey, these prosecutors (1) have a license to practice law; (2) actually practice criminal law; (3) have trial trial experience; and (4) reviewed the evidence of the case in great detail.

On the other hand, Steffey’s pronouncement of a total lack of corroboration is just ignorant.  If anything should be taken with a grain of salt, it is Matt Steffey’s opinion on anything even remotely related to law.  If anyone out there knows Steffey personally, or happens to care about him, please tell him to shut up for his own good.  The more he talks, the more he looks like a clueless bafoon to the rest of the legal community.

Advertisements

3 responses to “Matt Steffey Pops Off About Karen Irby, And Gets It Wrong, As Usual

  1. I have long wondered why any legitimate news organization would seek a Steffey quote. After the 1st or 2nd, back during the Scruggs days, it was obvious that this particular “constitutional law” professor was more or less a joke. Just so happens that I took ConLaw from a “real” professor at the other law school in MS and can almost see him cringe every time his so-called colleague opens his silly mouth.

    • SC, I think they call him because (1) they are always on a deadline and they can depend on him to be available for a quote on short notice (because he doesn’t have a real job); and (2) the reporters don’t know how full of crap he really is.

      Btw, I think NMC’s most recent description of Steffey as the Clarion-Ledger’s “sock puppet” is about the most accurate description of Steffey I’ve ever heard.

  2. Well if either of y’all are so much more qualified, why not do something about it instead of just whining.

    Here are some of his qualifications

    Education:

    * Columbia University School of Law, New York, NY, LL.M., 1990
    * Florida State University College of Law, Tallahassee, FL, J.D., 1987
    * University of South Florida, Tampa Bay, FL, 1984

    Professional Experience:

    * Carlton, Fields
    Tampa, Florida, 1987-1989
    * Constitutional Law, Evidence, Criminal Law, Admiralty, Supreme Court Roleplaying, Civil Rights, Constitutional Law Seminar, Externship Program, Appellate Advocacy, and First Amendment.
    o Subcommittee on the Rules of Evidence
    o Subcommittee on the Rules of Appellate Procedure
    o Subcommittee on the Uniform Circuit and County Court Rules
    o Subcommittee on the Uniform Chancery Court Rules.
    * Reporter, Mississippi Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Rules (since 1991)
    * Reporter, Mississippi Supreme Court Uniform Criminal Rules Study Committee (since 2005)
    * Reporter, Mississippi Judicial Advisory Study Committee, Subcommittee on Criminal Code reform (Since 1994.
    * Reporter, Mississippi Bar Commission on the Courts in the 21st Century (December 1992 to July 1993)

    Publications:

    * Foreword, Criminal Law Symposium, 19 MISS. C. L. REV 1 (issue 2) (1999).
    * Constitutional Fidelity, 19 MISS. C. L. REV. 43 (1998).
    * Foreword: A Hard Case and an Intractable Problem, 18 MISS. C. L. REV. 1 (1997).
    * The Establishment Clause and the Lessons of Context, 26 RUTGERS L.J. 775 (1995).
    * Negligence, Contract, and Architects’ Liability for Economic Loss, 82 KY. L.J. 659 (1993).
    * Foreword: Religious Participation in Public Debate, 14 MISS. C. L. REV. 1 (1993).
    * Meeting Judicial Needs: An Intermediate Appellate Court for Mississippi, PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION SURVEY, V. 40, NO. 3 (Spring 1993) (with John D. Winkle III and Amy D. Whitten).
    * Redefining the Modern Constraints of the Establishment Clause: Separable Principles of Equality, Subsidy, Endorsement, and Church Autonomy, 75 MARQ. L. REV. 903 (1992).
    * A Report on CUNY’s Experiment in Humanistic Legal Education: Adrift toward Mainstream, 59 UMKC L. REV. 155 (1991) (with Paulette Wunsch).
    * Florida’s Economic Loss Rule: A Critical Look at the Cases, 64 FLA. B.J. 19 (May 1990).
    * Manufacturers’ or Marketers’ Liability for the Criminal Use of Saturday Night Specials: A New Common Law Approach–Kelley v. R.G. Industries, 497 A.2d 1143 (Md. 1985), 14 FLA. ST. U.L. REV. 151 (1986) (student note).
    * MISSISSIPPI RULES ANNOTATED (The Mississippi Bar, 2002, 2000, 1998 and 1996) (Historical Notes and Annotations for the Mississippi Rules of Appellate Procedure).
    * REPORT OF THE COMMISSION ON THE COURTS IN THE 21ST CENTURY (Editor) (The Mississippi Bar, July 1, 1993) (a summary of this report appeared in the June/July 1993 issue of The Mississippi Lawyer) (republished at 14 MISS. C. L. REV. 511 (1994)).

    Presentations:

    * Supreme Court Review / Preview; Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Appellate Court Judges and Attorneys, May 2003-May 2008.
    * “Has the Electoral College Outlived its Usefulness,” Southeastern Association of Law Schools Conference, July 2003.
    * Moderator, New Scholars Workshop, Southeastern Assocaition of Law Schools Conference, July 2006.

    Memberships & Admissions:

    * Florida Bar
    * American Bar Association

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s