Dennis Wall

The West Monroe woman who evaded prosecution for allegedly sharing a homemade sex video of two other people violated the terms of her diversion agreement with the district attorney, says the female victim shown in the video.

The other person shown in the sex video was Dennis Wall, a West Monroe police officer.

Wall, who is on administrative leave from the West Monroe Police Department, was arrested last year for sending the sex video — depicting himself and the female victim — to Michelle Jones. Jones is a classroom teacher at West Monroe High School. After she obtained the video from Wall, Jones allegedly sent the sex video or images from the sex video to several people, including a high school student.

Fourth Judicial District Attorney Steve Tew’s office is currently prosecuting Wall for non-consensual disclosure of a private image and obstruction of justice. The disclosure charge is a felony.

The trial in State of Louisiana v. Dennis Edward Wall was scheduled to begin Monday, but a battery of nine motions by different parties in the case delayed the trial until November.

Tew did not charge Jones but offered her a diversion agreement guaranteeing her immunity from the same felony facing Wall. Jones paid a $650 fine in lieu of prosecution.

The victim previously signed an affidavit stating that Tew did not consult her or obtain her consent before offering a diversion agreement to Jones. The victim asked that the case against Wall be dismissed or diverted — the same outcome granted to Jones.

The sex video depicted sexual intercourse between Wall and the victim, who was his then-girlfriend, in late 2017. The woman in the sex video claimed she was “highly intoxicated” at the time. She filed a complaint with the Ouachita Parish Sheriff’s Office after she learned the video had been shared with several people.

According to a filing by Wall’s attorney, the victim claimed Jones breached her diversion agreement, which ordered Jones to avoid contact with the victim or her then-boyfriend, Daniel “Danny” Jones. (Danny Jones later married the victim, though the pair have since divorced.) 

Michelle Jones and Danny Jones were previously married, too.

Monroe attorney Devin Jones, who represents Wall, filed a motion Monday after the court hearing asking for discovery sanctions against Michelle Jones, who apparently agreed to act as the state’s witness against Wall in exchange for the diversion agreement. Specifically, Wall’s attorney sought to disqualify Michelle Jones as a witness because of information from the victim that Michelle Jones had violated the terms of her diversion agreement.

“Specifically, the victim stated part of the prosecution’s deal given to Michelle Jones in exchange for testifying, as she was told, was that Michelle Jones was to (have no) contact with the Victim or John Daniel ‘Danny’ Jones,” stated Wall’s Oct. 21 motion for discovery sanctions. “During the summer of 2018 after the deal occurred, the Victim was reviewing telephone records and realized Michelle Jones had sent numerous text messages to John Daniel Jones’ phone, albeit they were blocked because Danny had Michelle Jones’ number blocked. 

“At that point in the summer of 2018, the Victim reached out to Assistant District Attorney Sean Southern and informed him that Michelle Jones was violating the prosecution agreement. Mr. Southern asked if the Victim would please email him the telephone records and he would make sure it stops. The victim complied and emailed the records to Mr. Southern.”

In the motion, Wall’s attorney raised a second objection: Tew’s office concealed Michelle Jones’ alleged violation by failing to furnish several documents through the process of discovery, including the email and attachments sent to the district attorney’s office.

“To date none of this has been disclosed by the State nor has the email or attachments sent by the Victim to the State been provided to the Defendant,” stated Wall’s motion for discovery sanctions. “This evidence is impeachment evidence against the State’s cooperating witness Michelle Dobbins Jones. It is also further inducement granted to her in exchange for her testimony.”

Without having the emails and attachments exchanged between the victim and the district attorney’s office, Wall’s attorney argued he could not sufficiently defend his client, if he had to cross-examine Michelle Jones’ testimony at trial.

Victim objects

to trial

In a court hearing Monday, the victim’s attorney filed three motions seeking to protect the victim’s privacy in the event that the case went to trial. Carey Underwood, with the Monroe law firm Davenport, Files & Kelly, is representing the victim.

Fourth Judicial District Court Judge Larry Jefferson is presiding over State v. Wall.

Underwood told Jefferson he hoped the court would allow the parties to stipulate the contents of the sex video instead of showing it in open court.

“Why are you waiting until the morning of the trial to file these?” Jefferson said.

Underwood explained he was recently retained to represent the victim.

Devin Jones argued that addressing eight or nine pending motions was too onerous a task to resolve, if the trial were to proceed on the same day.

Jefferson took the pending motions and placed the court in recess. Later, the court reset the trial for late November.

The motions filed by the victim’s attorney asked that the sex video or images be excluded from the record, or sealed if entered into the court record.

“Movant has already been victimized once, and allowing her private images to be placed in the court record without being sealed would exponentially (broaden) the scope of the public embarrassment and accompanying emotional distress that she had already experienced,” stated the victim’s Oct. 21 memorandum in support of a motion to seal exhibits.

Wall questions DA’s 

handling of case

As of Monday, Wall had not yet been arraigned, though his trial was set to begin the same day.

Assistant District Attorney Sean Southern and Assistant District Attorney Geary Aycock, who is Tew’s chief felony prosecutor, are handling the prosecution.

Jefferson noted the oversight. 

“I could not find any documents showing he had been arraigned,” Jefferson said.

In response to the oversight, Southern turned to Aycock, apparently for direction. Aycock shrugged.

Devin Jones pointed out that a year had progressed and his client had still not been arraigned.

When the question resurfaced, Southern shrugged.

At that time, Devin Jones entered a plea of not guilty on behalf of his client.

Wall’s attorney raised other objections to how the district attorney’s office had handled the case. 

In documents filed after the hearing, Wall’s attorney claimed it was unclear whether a Miranda Rights waiver form had been completed for his client.

“The Investigative Report indicated the Defendant was mirandized prior to giving his statement,” stated Wall’s motion in limine to exclude right’s waiver. “The report is silent as to if any Rights Waiver was executed by the Defendant.”

In a motion to quash the district attorney’s subpoena for phone records, Wall’s attorney argued that the district attorney’s office knew about certain telephone calls but failed to provide those to the defendant. 

“The records sought by the State are those records which the State has waited till the eve of trial to seek production in attempt to ambush the Defendant with new evidence,” stated Wall’s motion to quash the subpoena for phone records. “The State by its own admission in early 2019 knew of the existence of these ‘phone records’ and the Defendant had requested these records from the State months ago when the State told this Counsel that they had sent (the sheriff’s investigator) to retrieve these records.”

The district attorney’s office subpoenaed “phone records” from the wrong records custodian: the manager of a local wireless telephone service provider’s store. A subpoena for “phone records” also is overly broad, Wall’s attorney argued.

(2) comments

Dennis1961

That’s a very good question... how could she still be employed ???

AnneLindsay

Exactly why would a student be sent a video from a teacher with sexual content? Has she been fired? Has she been charged with perverting the morals of a minor or ANYTHING of that nature?

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.