Case: 25CI1:22-cr-00601 Document #: 18 Filed: 09/15/2022 Page 1 of 7

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HINDS COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI

FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

VS CAUSE NO.: 22-0-601

TONI JOHNSON

STATE’S OBJECTION AND RESPONSE TO DEFENSE MOTION FOR AN

EVIDENTIARY HEARING TO PRESENT EVIDENCE OF
SELECTIVE PROSECUTION

COMES NOW, the State of Mississippi, by and through the Hinds County District
Attorney, and files this its Objection and Response to Defense Motion for Evidentiary
Hearing to Present Evidence of Selective Prosecution, and in support there-of would
assert the following, to-wit:

1. The defendant, Hinds County Election Commissioner Toni Johnson, contrary to the
assertions made in her motion, has been charged under the instant indictment with
two counts of conspiracy to bribe a public official in violation of § 97-1-1 of the
Mississippi Code Annotated; two counts of conspiracy to defraud the government in
violation of § 97-7-11 of the Mississippi Code Annotated; four counts of conspiracy to
make fraudulent statements in violation of §97-1-1 of the Mississippi Code
Annotated; one count of conspiracy to embezzle in violation of §97-1-1 of the
Mississippi Code Annotated; ten counts of making fraudulent claims and writings in
violation of §97-7-10 of the Mississippi Code Annotated; five counts of bribery in
violation of §97-11-53 of the Mississippi Code Annotated; and two counts of
embezzlement in violation of §97-11-31 of the Mississippi Code Annotated.

2. The charges in the indictment stem, in-part, from the, sordid, corrupt and
duplicitous actions of Election Commissioner Johnson, an elected public official,
hand-picking Cedric Cornelius, a man with whom she maintained an ongoing sexual
affair, and Sudie Teague-Jones, a friend of co-defendant Cornelius, as Hinds County
vendors to provide services to Hinds County, which they had no qualifications to
perform; and, in-part, from Election Commissioner Johnson’s own selfish
conversion of Hinds County property, meant to protect the citizens of Hinds County
from a global pandemic, to her own use. Per the indictment, Commissioner Johnson,
knowing that Teague-Jones and Cornelius were not qualified, falsely represented to
Hinds County officials that they were not only qualified to perform said services, but
had also completed said services, resulting in over $300,000.00 worth of funds,

1
 Case: 25CI1:22-cr-00601 Document #: 18 Filed: 09/15/2022 Page 2 of 7

meant to protect the citizens of Hinds County during the Covid-19 pandemic, being
directed toward Cornelius and Teague-Jones.

3. While the defense would like the court and the potential jury venire to believe that
the State has no evidence against Commissioner Johnson and is only seeking this
prosecution at the behest and browbeating of State Auditor Shad White, having been
poisoned by, what the defense believes are, Auditor White’s racist and political
motivations, that allegation is based in nothing but fiction. As pursuant to
Mississippi jurisprudence, the Hinds County District Attorney’s Office is the only
entity directing this prosecution. As such, while the State would normally refrain,
from providing extensive facts in pre-trial motions before the trial court, the
defense’s allegations have left the State with no other option.

4. The facts are that on September 14, 2020, Hinds County Election Commissioner
Toni Johnson applied for a grant via the Center for Civic and Tech Life (CTCL). The
grant monies were supposed to be used to aid the citizens of Hinds County in having
a safe and secure election, due to the high infection and transmission rates of the
novel Coronavirus endangering citizens voting in-person. However, unbeknownst to
Hinds County officials and the citizens she was elected to represent, Election
Commissioner Johnson was fighting a wage garnishment from Trustmark bank,
going through Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceedings, and, as such, had other plans for
the funds.

5. On November 30th 2020, Hinds County was awarded $1.8 million dollars by CTCL.
The stated purpose of the grant was “planning and operationalizing safe and secure
election administration in Hinds County in 2020.” The money was transferred into
Hinds County accounts, became Hinds County funds, and vendors were to be
selected by the Hinds County Election Commission to provide the services necessary
to secure the election. Unfortunately for the citizens of Hinds County, Commissioner
Johnson was the director of the Hinds County Election Commission, and had
eliminated the normal process by which vendors were selected, wherein 3 out 5 of
the election commissioners had to agree on vendors before they were selected and
vendors had to provide either work history or a license to prove they were capable of
completing the services at hand. Instead she implemented her own personal brand
of cronyism, picking whomever she liked without explanation or input from anyone.

6. As a result, from October of 2020 through June of 2021, Commissioner Johnson

picked her paramour and co-defendant, Cedric Cornelius, through his company
Agopee Group II, and co-defendant, Sudie Teague-Jones, through her company New
Beginnings LLC, to provide services to and for the Hinds County Election
Commission; and recommended both companies as qualified for contracts with the
Hinds County Board of Supervisors, fully knowing that the Board of Supervisors
merely represented a rubber stamp , relying upon her vetting process.

7. During this time, co-defendant Cornelius presented invoices to Commissioner

Johnson claiming to have provided cleaning services, which were not performed;
voting machine audits, which he had no qualifications, access, or capability to
2
 Case: 25CI1:22-cr-00601 Document #: 18 Filed: 09/15/2022 Page 3 of 7

perform, and, as such, did not perform; media services, which were not performed;
and distributed election materials, which he, simply, did not do. These invoices
amounted to $188,771.00 in Hinds County funds, and approximately $14,341.00 of
those funds represented tax payer dollars from the Hinds County General Fund.
Commissioner Johnson signed off on all, but one, of these invoices. In return,
Commissioner Johnson received approximately $6,000.00 from Cedric Cornelius
and his company Agopee Group II, and the continued affections of Cedric Cornelius,
who, per text messages provided in discovery, did not find Commissioner Johnson
to be attractive. It should be noted that, also, during this time, Election
Commissioner Johnson was representing herself as an employee of Agopee Group
II, and collecting payments for her work with the company.

8. Also, during this time, co-defendant Sudie Teague-Jones presented invoices to

Commissioner Johnson claiming to have provided catering and cleaning services,
which were not provided. These invoices amounted to $122,216.00 in funds, and
approximately $4,216.00 of those funds represented tax payer dollars from the
Hinds County General Fund. Commissioner Johnson signed off on all of these
invoices, and, in return, received approximately $300.00 from Teague-Jones.

9. Beyond the schemes for services she was running with Cornelius and Teague-Jones,
Election Commissioner Johnson also used the Hinds County accounts as her own
personal piggy bank, ordering 85” televisions and personal protective equipment
(PPE), under the guise that they were for Hinds County. When the items were
delivered Election Commissioner Johnson had a television and the PPE delivered to
her personal home, and a television delivered to the home of co-defendant
Cornelius. Commissioner Johnson opens her motion by arguing that her white
comparators allegedly acted more egregiously than she did. However, Commissioner
Johnson’s actions are of an equally disgusting nature, as she abused her power for
personal gain during a during a global pandemic wherein over 12,000
Mississippians lost their lives to Covid-19, by misappropriating money and items
meant to protect those citizens as they exercised their fundamental right to vote.

10. Contrary to what the defense would have the court believe, the actions of
Commissioner Johnson came to light when her fellow Election Commissioner
Kidada Brown, a black woman, contacted the Office of the State Auditor, alleging
that Commissioner Johnson had used her position of power to award Cedric
Cornelius with contracts, for work never performed, and equipment and PPE
ordered by Commissioner Johnson and was never received. From there, the case was
assigned to Special Agent Justin Harris of the State Auditor’s Office for
investigation. His investigation revealed the previously outlined schemes and
machinations of Commissioner Johnson.

11. The case was presented to the Hinds County Grand Jury, and they issued twenty-six
true bills, resulting in the instant indictment. In response, on September 12, 2022,
the defense filed its Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing to Present Evidence of
Selective Prosecution, alleging that the instant prosecution is improper as
Commissioner Johnson is being deliberately singled out for prosecution due to her
3
 Case: 25CI1:22-cr-00601 Document #: 18 Filed: 09/15/2022 Page 4 of 7

race and political affiliation, in violation of her Equal Protection Rights under the
Constitution of the United States and the State of Mississippi.

12. The State wholeheartedly objects to any assertion that Defendant Johnson has been
singled-out for prosecution due to being an African-American and a Democrat, in
violation of her Equal Protection rights.

13. “In the ordinary case, so long as the prosecutor has probable cause to believe that
the accused committed an offense defined by statute, the decision whether or not to
prosecute, and what charge to file or bring before the grand jury, generally rests
entirely in his discretion.” United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 116 S. Ct. 1480
(1996) (citing Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 364 (1978)). As a result,
“courts presume that [prosecutors] have properly discharged their official duties.”
Id. at 464 (citing United States v. Chemical Foundation, Inc., 272 U.S. 1, 14-
15(1926)). In order to overcome the presumption that a prosecutor has not violated
equal protection, a criminal defendant must present clear and convincing evidence
to the contrary. Id. The burden of proof is as such, in part, because factors
considered by prosecutors when making prosecutorial decisions “are not readily
susceptible to the kind of analysis the courts are competent to undertake,” Id. at 607
(citing Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598); and, in part, because the unnecessary
over examination of prosecutorial decision has a negative impact on the
administration of justice1. Id.

14. It is true that a prosecutor’s discretion is subject to restrictions2, and “a defendant

may demonstrate that the administration of a criminal law is directed so exclusively
against a particular class of persons…with a mind so unequal and oppressive that the
system of prosecution amounts to a practical denial of equal protection of the law.”
Id. at 455 (citing Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 373 (1886)). The test for the
defendant is a showing that the prosecutorial policy had a discriminatory effect and
was motivated by a discriminatory purpose. 517 U.S. 456, 465. Further, to establish
discriminatory effect the defense must show that similarly situated individuals of a
different race were not prosecuted. Id.

15. In her motion, Commissioner Johnson asserts that the instant prosecution has a
discriminatory effect because certain individuals, presumed by her to be criminally
liable in the widely publicized Department of Human Services fraud scheme, have
yet to be indicted. The defendant asserts that former Governor Phil Bryant,
Governor Tate Reeves, and football player Brett, Favre, are similarly situated to her,
and, if they are not being prosecuted, a racial and political bias must be in effect.

1 “Examining the bass of a prosecution delays criminal proceedings, threatens to chill law enforcement by
subjecting prosecutor’s motives an decision making to outside inquire, and may undermine prosecutorial
effectiveness by revealing the Government’s enforcement policy.” Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598
(1985).
2 “One of the constraints imposed by the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the

Fifth Amendment, is that the decision to prosecute may not be based on “an unjustifiable standard such
as race, religion, or other arbitrary classification.” Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448, 456 (1962).
4
 Case: 25CI1:22-cr-00601 Document #: 18 Filed: 09/15/2022 Page 5 of 7

16. The defendant, however, neglects to mention the similarly situated individuals that
are being prosecuted by the State. The State has indicted former director of the
Department of Human Services (DHS), John Davis in Hinds County Cause Number
22-0-238; Nancy New, executive director of Mississippi Community Education
Center (MCEC) and DHS contractor in Hinds County Cause Number 22-0-002;
Zach New, assistant executive director of MCEC in Hinds County Cause Number 22-
0-003; Brett Dibiase, former DHS and MCEC employee in Hinds County Cause
Number 20-0-050; and Anne McGrew, former MCEC accountant in Hinds County
Cause Number 20-0-051. Four of these individuals have already entered pleas of
guilty, and are facing decades in prison.

17. Pursuant to pertinent evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt, all of these
individuals were power players in the years long, multi-count fraud scheme that took
place within the Mississippi Department of Human Services; and all of these
individuals are white. Further, without their knowing and voluntary participation in
the scheme, it could not have taken place, as they controlled the purse strings. As
such, these five defendants are similarly situated to Election Commissioner
Johnson. Like the defendants in the DHS case, Defendant Johnson participated in a
wide spread fraud scheme with the intent to defraud the citizens of Hinds County,
acting as the person who vetted vendors, signing invoices indicating completed work
to approve payments, and converting county property to her own use. Absolutely
none of the charges in the instant indictment or the co-defendants’ indictments
could have taken place without the cooperation and consent of Election
Commissioner Johnson.

18. The defense would like the Court to believe that just because the State has not
publicly announced the prosecution and investigation into every person they
contend is criminally liable in the DHS fraud case, a discriminatory effect is in
existence. However, the defense has made no showing that former Governor Bryant,
Governor Reeves, and Favre have committed prosecutable crimes, that the State had
evidence of and, yet, chose not to pursue indictments for. To show a discriminatory
effect, the defendant would have done better to put forth evidence that these white
individuals, were or are being prosecuted by the federal government or some other
jurisdiction for similar crimes, and the State has knowledge of said prosecutions, but
is purposely choosing not to pursue prosecution. 517 U.S. 456, 470. That these
individuals are not yet being prosecuted and publically investigated by some other
agency for their alleged crimes, shows the State’s motives in not yet announcing the
prosecution of these individuals are not based upon knowledge of their crimes,
excused by their whiteness and political affiliation. Additionally, the very fact that
the State is already doggedly pursuing other similarly situated white, conservative
individuals involved in the vast DHS fraud scheme, indicates that the State has no
problem prosecuting white offenders for the same crimes for which the defendant is
charged.

19. Further, in her motion Commissioner Johnson imputes no discriminatory motive

on the Hinds County District Attorney’s Office, and, instead, expounds on and on
about Auditor White and his political associates. The defendant seems to be
5
 Case: 25CI1:22-cr-00601 Document #: 18 Filed: 09/15/2022 Page 6 of 7

attempting to imply that any alleged actions of Auditor White and political
associates have influenced the actions of the prosecuting authority, the Hinds
County District Attorney’s Office. However, this assertion is not only absurd, but
also patently false. The Office of the State Auditor, while the investigating agency,
has no power or influence over what the Hinds County District Attorney’s Office
chooses to prosecute or not prosecute. Per the Mississippi Supreme Court, the Hinds
County District Attorney is the sole authority, having independent discretion over
whether or not to prosecute a criminal case, a power which has been statutorily
vested in local district attorneys. Williams v. State, 184 So. 3d 908, 914 (Miss. 2014).
As such, the Hinds County District Attorney’s Office, made the independent decision
to present the case, in a neutral fashion, to the Hinds County Grand Jury, wherein
26 true bills issued. Further, the Hinds County District Attorney Jody E. Owens, II,
shares the same racial background and political affiliation as Commissioner
Johnson, so it does not logically follow that he would hold the discriminatory motive
implied in the motion.

20. Finally, and, perhaps, most interestingly, Commissioner Johnson’s prayer for relief
in her motion is for a hearing, and not to dismiss. This is because Commissioner
Johnson’s motive in asserting selective prosecution is not genuine. Commissioner
Johnson merely seeks public spectacle. As outlined above, the facts which led to the
instant indictment are not favorable to Commissioner Johnson, and the evidence
against her is overwhelming. Her entire defense seems to be either that she stole
from the citizens of Hinds County, but not their public funds3 or, others are acting
fraudulently, so she can as well. As such, because she is incapable of being successful
on the merits of the case, she would prefer to seek jury nullification, through
unfounded accusations of racism and bias, hoping to play on the sympathies of and
poison the potential jury venire in Hinds County, a majority black county.

21. Mississippi Rules of Criminal Procedure 34.2 states, in relevant part, that “Upon
request of any party, or on its own initiative, the court may set any motion for
hearing. The court may limit or deny oral argument on any motion.” The
comment to the rule further explains, “No party has the absolute right to oral
argument on a motion.” MSRCrP 34.2.

22. Pursuant to this rule, the defendant is not entitled to a hearing on the filed motion,
and has cited no rule requiring the Court to provide such a hearing. The defendant
has already laid out her reasoning for the claim of selective prosecution in her
motion, and many other motions filed with the court. To grant a hearing where the
defendant may continue on with baseless and unfounded accusations, in a public
forum, would only lead to the poisoning of the potential jury venire, and increase the
likelihood of jury nullification.

3 It should be noted that existence of non-existence of public funds is only relevant to two counts in the
instant indictment.
6
 Case: 25CI1:22-cr-00601 Document #: 18 Filed: 09/15/2022 Page 7 of 7

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the State respectfully requests this

honorable Court deny the Defendant’s Motion for Evidentiary Hearing to Present
Evidence of Selective Prosecution.

Respectfully submitted this the 15th day of September, 2022.

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

BY: /s/ Gwen Agho

Gwen Agho
Assistant District Attorney
Hinds County, Mississippi

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Gwen Agho, Assistant District Attorney, Hinds County, Mississippi, hereby

certify that I have emailed the foregoing, State’s Objection and Response to Defense
Motion for Evidentiary Hearing to Present Evidence of Selective Prosecution to counsel
for the defendant at:

Honorable Lisa Ross

dennis.sweet@sweetandassociates.net

This the 15th day of September, 2022,

/s/ Gwen Agho

Gwen Agho
Assistant District Attorney
Hinds County, Mississippi