Probate Judge Danny Singleton Orchestrated Trial By Ambush to Hold Mrs. Pierce in Criminal Contempt without Due Process

The vague rule to show cause, inadequate response time, lack of legal representation, denied continuance, deliberate scheduling to detain Mrs. Pierce, and conducting a trial by ambush collectively demonstrate a severe miscarriage of justice by Judge Danny Singleton.

The judicial conduct of Judge Danny Singleton in the case involving Mrs. Pierce has raised significant concerns regarding procedural fairness and the violation of fundamental rights. A series of actions taken by Judge Singleton suggest an orchestrated attempt to undermine Mrs. Pierce’s legal rights and due process. This article outlines the key instances that demonstrate this troubling pattern of behavior.

Vague Rule to Show Cause

On May 28, 2024, Judge Singleton issued a rule to show cause against Mrs. Pierce. The notice was notably vague, failing to specify which court order had been violated and the nature of the alleged violation. Additionally, the police officer serving this notice, acting under Judge Singleton's orders, disregarded a clearly posted "NO TRESPASS" sign at Mrs. Pierce's property and trespassed to deliver the notice.

Inadequate Response Time

The notice was served on May 28, 2024, with a hearing scheduled for just eight days later, on June 5, 2024. This short timeframe did not provide Mrs. Pierce with sufficient time to prepare an adequate response, violating her legal rights to due process and proper notice.

Lack of Legal Representation

Judge Singleton scheduled the June 5, 2024, hearing knowing that Mrs. Pierce lacked legal representation. The hearing was set with the potential outcome of incarceration for Mrs. Pierce, within an untenable 8-day period. The judge inaccurately suggested urgency in the proceedings, though none of the matters required such immediate attention to justify the violation of Mrs. Pierce's due process rights.

Denied Continuance

On June 3, 2024, Mrs. Pierce filed a motion for a continuance, citing several important reasons, including the unjust detention of her fiancé and the lack of childcare for her one-year-old child. Despite these valid concerns, the court immediately denied the motion, leaving Mrs. Pierce with insufficient time to secure legal counsel for the imminent trial.

Deliberate Scheduling to Detain Mrs. Pierce

Judge Singleton intentionally scheduled the June 5, 2024, hearing with the apparent aim of incarcerating Mrs. Pierce before a crucial Circuit Court hearing set for June 13, 2024. This scheduling obstructed Mrs. Pierce's ability to prepare for and attend the Circuit Court session. Mrs. Pierce emphasized that the hearing violated her due process rights and requested more time to prepare her defense, which included deposing Judge Singleton and his staff. Forced by the expedited timeline, Mrs. Pierce had to hire an attorney on the day of the hearing, under coercion, to protect her legal rights.

Improper Trial by Ambush

The June 5, 2024, hearing was marked by a trial conducted in a manner akin to an ambush, orchestrated by Gregory Pierce’s attorney, Richard Hunt McDuff. Despite being served a summons on May 28, 2024, which entitled her to a 30-day period to respond under Rule 4, Mrs. Pierce faced a full trial with witnesses subpoenaed without prior disclosure. These witnesses presented testimony that had not been introduced into the court record or shared with Mrs. Pierce or other parties involved. The judge swiftly denied Mrs. Pierce's request for a continuance, allowing the trial to proceed in a manner that blatantly disregarded due process safeguards.

Conclusion

The actions of Judge Danny Singleton in orchestrating a trial by ambush and violating Mrs. Pierce's rights highlight a significant departure from the principles of fairness and due process. The vague rule to show cause, inadequate response time, lack of legal representation, denied continuance, deliberate scheduling to detain Mrs. Pierce, and conducting a trial by ambush collectively demonstrate a severe miscarriage of justice. These actions underscore the necessity for a thorough review and potential change of venue to ensure that Mrs. Pierce receives a fair and impartial hearing.

Related Stories