Steve CarMichael Jones
How Judge Jones rules, drawn from 8 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
How Judge Jones decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On custodial statements, he distinguishes the point at which a traffic-stop detention becomes custody for Miranda purposes; in Johnson he suppressed statements made after the second handcuffing while admitting earlier voluntary statements.
“All statements of Defendant made after the second handcuffing (post-search) are suppressed. The statements occurring prior to such time are not suppressed as the evidence shows that said statements were voluntarily made.”
Distinguishes moral/factual disapproval from legal liability: will rule for a party whose conduct he criticizes when the plaintiff has not carried the statutory burden of proof. In True the Vote he kept his concerns on the record but found a lack of evidence that any voter was actually intimidated.
“the Court maintains its prior concerns about the manner Defendants utilized O.C.G.A. § 21-2-230 to challenge individual voters. The Court, however, ultimately concludes that, as a legal matter, Plaintiffs have not carried their burden”
When Georgia law permits modification of an overbroad restrictive covenant, he may narrow the duration rather than reject the covenant outright; in a franchise dispute he reduced a three-year restriction to two years before granting preliminary relief.
“blue-penciling is available to restrict the period to 2 years to render it presumptively reasonable.”
Procedural preferences
On de novo review he may modify or reject part of a magistrate judge's recommendation rather than adopting it wholesale, while independently entering the final motion disposition.
“the R&R, having been REJECTED IN PART (as to the Franks hearing recommendation), is ADOPTED as to the remaining recommendations. Defendant Townsend’s Motion to Suppress (Doc. No. [16]) is DENIED.”
Polices his own subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte even when neither party raises it — ordered the parties to file a joint statement of the defendant's state of incorporation to confirm complete diversity before proceeding.
“in the interest of caution and for purposes of the Court's sua sponte jurisdictional considerations, within TEN DAYS of the entry of this Order, the Parties file a joint factual statement of their contentions about the state in which North Highland Company is incorporated”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Court concludes that no action taken by the Defendants in this case constitute voter intimidation under Section 11(b). ... Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiffs.”
“The Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Class Action Complaint filed by Defendant North Highland Company (Doc. No. [33]) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The Motion is GRANTED as to the breach of contract claim (Count III of the Amended Complaint) and DENIED on all other grounds and claims.”
“For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED.”
“Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion To Quash Or Dismiss Indictment (Doc. No. [15]) is DENIED.”
“Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Indictment (Doc. No. [36]) is DENIED”
“Defendant’s Motion to Suppress Evidence (Doc. No. [34]) is DENIED.”
“Defendant’s Motion for Return of Property (Doc. No. [52]) is DENIED.”
“Defendant’s Request for Hearing in relation to his Motion (Doc. No. [52]) is DENIED.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the R&R, having been REJECTED IN PART (as to the Franks hearing recommendation), is ADOPTED as to the remaining recommendations. Defendant Townsend’s Motion to Suppress (Doc. No. [16]) is DENIED.”
“Accordingly, the Motion to Vacate (Doc. No. [310]) is DISMISSED without prejudice as premature.”
“The Motion to Suppress Evidence (Doc. No. [120]) is DENIED.”
“The Motion to Suppress Statements (Doc. No. [121]) is DENIED IN PART AND GRANTED IN PART. All statements of Defendant made after the second handcuffing (post-search) are suppressed. The statements occurring prior to such time are not suppressed as the evidence shows that said statements were voluntarily made.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median case duration in the sampled dockets: 1254 days (N = 2).
Median motion-to-ruling time: 187 days (N = 1).
The mix comes from sampled case records. Administrative case-closure data was unavailable for the reviewed voting-rights matters. Jones's Atlanta and Gainesville docket includes substantial voting-rights and redistricting litigation.
Draft for Judge Jones with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Jones, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Jones's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace