Connect with us

Commentary

Legally Speaking: Joey Jackson Counts Among Countries top Legal Minds

NNPA NEWSWIRE — A nationally-recognized criminal defense attorney, Jackson has gained notoriety as perhaps the most respected legal analyst on television where he provides insight on legal matters for HLN and CNN.

Published

on

By Stacy M. Brown, NNPA Newswire Correspondent
@StacyBrownMedia

Upon receiving the Harvard Law School Center on the Legal Profession’s Award for Global Leadership two years ago during a celebration of the history of Black Lawyers, acclaimed attorney Vernon E. Jordan Jr. spoke fervently about how he once sat in a courtroom and watched in awe of other legal giants.

Robert Carter, Julius Coleman and Thurgood Marshall were among the names Jordan rattled off. Some would argue that the list could have also included Joey Jackson, of Watford Jackson, PLLC in New York.

A nationally-recognized criminal defense attorney, Jackson has gained notoriety as perhaps the most respected legal analyst on television where he provides insight on legal matters for HLN and CNN.

It’s a career that almost didn’t happen because Jackson told NNPA Newswire that he had little desire to become an attorney and even less interest in television. “My mom insisted I go to college and really guided me in that direction … thank goodness,” he said. “Once there, I learned a whole lot about myself and my tolerance for work and how to be disciplined enough to complete a task.”

He graduated Hofstra Law School in 1995 and worked for the New York State Assembly Speaker as a legislative analyst, the New York State Education Department and Congressman Charles B. Rangel’s office in Washington.

Later, he taught business and Civil Rights Law at Monroe College.

At Watford Jackson, where his focus is two federal districts and the Supreme Court, Jackson works on cases that include the criminal defense, regulatory enforcement, government investigations, labor union arbitration and complex litigation practice areas.

“What inspires me is the ability to make a difference in people’s lives,” Jackson said. “Winning a case often gives someone a new life because it protects their freedom and gives them a more favorable view of the justice system.”

He gave a profound nod to the late Johnnie Cochran, the famed lawyer who successfully defended O.J. Simpson during “The Trial of the Century.”

“[Cochran] died about 13 years ago, yet his name comes up in legal circles regularly as a person who stood for justice, would go to the end of the earth for his clients, and never took no for an answer,” Jackson said of Cochran.

“In his eyes, no case was impossible to win – and that’s how he lived and the example he set. ‘Look for the opportunities and the possibilities,’” he said, adding, “Let’s face it, O.J. was guilty.”

As well-liked and respected as he is on television, Jackson said becoming a legal analyst happened by accident. “I received a phone call from the Fox News Channel out of the blue about 10 years ago. They were looking for someone to comment on a criminal case,” Jackson recalled.

“I had no clue what they were talking about or asking of me since I was not connected to the case. I nearly talked my way out of a television career by asking them why someone unconnected to the case would speak about it.”

Jackson continued:

“The caller explained that they customarily have legal panels and debates about cases and that they researched my background and thought I would be a good candidate.”

Jackson provided commentary for Fox News for nearly 5 years, without compensation but other networks realized his talent and wealth of knowledge. Jackson was offered a contract with Court TV’s “In Session,” which eventually led to a deal with HLN and later CNN where he’s often called upon for celebrity cases.

“If reality TV teaches us anything, it is that people love soap operas. People enjoy learning that celebrities are as imperfect as the rest of us are,” Jackson said.

“They enjoy even more knowing that the long arm of justice can wrap its arms around even those we believe to be so larger as to be larger than life itself.

“We think of celebrities as being rich people with perfect lives, who are untouchable. Following their cases shows us that this is far from true.”

Jackson continued:

“And let’s not forget that sometimes the magnitude of the crime itself makes the person a celebrity – Jodi Arias, Casie Anthony, George Zimmerman.

“We can relate to the stories and drama that unfolds as we all weigh in as jurors, putting in our 3 cents and expressing our point of view.”

Once a prosecutor, Jackson said as a defense attorney he prepares his clients by “being the agent of reality.”

“I am a cheerleader, a booster, a supporter, and a soldier – but I am also a realist, and always try to be straightforward with a client regarding their chances or prevailing,” he said.

In describing some of his tougher cases, Jackson recalled that, as a prosecutor, he was once put in charge of prosecuting a football player who had just signed a multi-million dollar deal and was in New York celebrating at the China Club.

“He ended up beating up the victim pretty bad because the victim was trying to talk to his girlfriend. I could not downgrade the charges because the victim was hospitalized and beaten pretty badly,” Jackson said.

“His defense attorney was an experienced veteran from a major firm, who belittled me, shamed me, and tried to get into my head at every turn. I wasn’t being unreasonable, just thought he had to be held accountable. We went to trial and he was convicted,” Jackson said.

As a defense attorney, Jackson described one oddly adjudicated case where his client was being prosecuted in two jurisdictions for various crimes, including attempted murder.

“The prosecutor reached a global plea deal, meaning they got approval from the other county to resolve his case with a plea in the jurisdiction we were in. It was a sweet deal.  Five years to cover three violent felony cases (the others were armed robbery with violent assault).

“My client could not make up his mind as to whether he wanted to go to trial or take the deal. I implored him to take the deal, but he said he wasn’t sure.  I am very sensitive to a client who doesn’t want a deal because I never want to give the impression that I am forcing him to do so.

“I asked the judge for more time and the judge gave my client until after the lunch recess to take the deal or go to trial. I spent the entire lunch speaking with my client and his family.

“He finally said it made sense and he would take the deal.

“When we came back after lunch, the prosecutor doubled the offer and said he wanted ten years unless my client told on his associates.

“A two-hour lunch would cost my client 5 more years. He took the deal. The judge scolded the prosecutor for being so dishonorable but it was to no avail. My client got the 10 years anyway (he was facing 25)… I felt miserable.”

With heightened awareness of sexual harassment and assaults, Jackson applauded the #MeToo movement, but also offered caution. “The #MeToo movement and #TimesUp are important in allowing women to express themselves without shame or fear of reprisals,” he said. “It’s high-time that women are able to tell their stories – without being denigrated, disbelieved, ridiculed and belittled, so kudos to the movement.”

“That said, it’s perfectly appropriate to challenge evidence, scrutinize every situation thoroughly, and evaluate every case on a case-by-case basis,” Jackson said. “That’s what our judicial system is all about, and will continue to be about.”

Jackson called it a privilege to work in law and to educate television viewers.

“My regret is that I cannot help everyone who reaches out, but we do the best to provide as much assistance as we can,” he said.

To that end, Jackson named three of what he called the most important things he’d want everyone to know about him.

“That I try to face life with optimism and energy by seeing the good over the bad; that I try to treat all people with dignity and respect no matter their station; and that I try to wake up every day, and leave no stone unturned in trying to make an impact in whatever I do,” Jackson said.

Continue Reading
2 Comments

2 Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Activism

Oakland Post: Week of May 21 – 27, 2025

The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of May 21 – 27, 2025

Published

on

To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.

Continue Reading

Activism

OPINION: Your Voice and Vote Impact the Quality of Your Health Care

One of the most dangerous developments we’re seeing now? Deep federal cuts are being proposed to Medicaid, the life-saving health insurance program that covers nearly 80 million lower-income individuals nationwide. That is approximately 15 million Californians and about 1 million of the state’s nearly 3 million Black Californians who are at risk of losing their healthcare. 

Published

on

Rhonda M. Smith.
Rhonda M. Smith.

By Rhonda M. Smith, Special to California Black Media Partners

Shortly after last year’s election, I hopped into a Lyft and struck up a conversation with the driver. As we talked, the topic inevitably turned to politics. He confidently told me that he didn’t vote — not because he supported Donald Trump, but because he didn’t like Kamala Harris’ résumé. When I asked what exactly he didn’t like, he couldn’t specifically articulate his dislike or point to anything specific. In his words, he “just didn’t like her résumé.”

That moment really hit hard for me. As a Black woman, I’ve lived through enough election cycles to recognize how often uncertainty, misinformation, or political apathy keep people from voting, especially Black voters whose voices are historically left out of the conversation and whose health, economic security, and opportunities are directly impacted by the individual elected to office, and the legislative branches and political parties that push forth their agenda.

That conversation with the Lyft driver reflects a troubling surge in fear-driven politics across our country. We’ve seen White House executive orders gut federal programs meant to help our most vulnerable populations and policies that systematically exclude or harm Black and underserved communities.

One of the most dangerous developments we’re seeing now? Deep federal cuts are being proposed to Medicaid, the life-saving health insurance program that covers nearly 80 million lower-income individuals nationwide. That is approximately 15 million Californians and about 1 million of the state’s nearly 3 million Black Californians who are at risk of losing their healthcare.

Medicaid, called Medi-Cal in California, doesn’t just cover care. It protects individuals and families from medical debt, keeps rural hospitals open, creates jobs, and helps our communities thrive. Simply put; Medicaid is a lifeline for 1 in 5 Black Americans. For many, it’s the only thing standing between them and a medical emergency they can’t afford, especially with the skyrocketing costs of health care. The proposed cuts mean up to 7.2 million Black Americans could lose their healthcare coverage, making it harder for them to receive timely, life-saving care. Cuts to Medicaid would also result in fewer prenatal visits, delayed cancer screenings, unfilled prescriptions, and closures of community clinics. When healthcare is inaccessible or unaffordable, it doesn’t just harm individuals, it weakens entire communities and widens inequities.

The reality is Black Americans already face disproportionately higher rates of poorer health outcomes. Our life expectancy is nearly five years shorter in comparison to White Americans. Black pregnant people are 3.6 times more likely to die during pregnancy or postpartum than their white counterparts.

These policies don’t happen in a vacuum. They are determined by who holds power and who shows up to vote. Showing up amplifies our voices. Taking action and exercising our right to vote is how we express our power.

I urge you to start today. Call your representatives, on both sides of the aisle, and demand they protect Medicaid (Medi-Cal), the Affordable Care Act (Covered CA), and access to food assistance programs, maternal health resources, mental health services, and protect our basic freedoms and human rights. Stay informed, talk to your neighbors and register to vote.

About the Author

Rhonda M. Smith is the Executive Director of the California Black Health Network, a statewide nonprofit dedicated to advancing health equity for all Black Californians.

Continue Reading

Activism

OPINION: Supreme Court Case Highlights Clash Between Parental Rights and Progressive Indoctrination

At the center of this controversy are some parents from Montgomery County in Maryland, who assert a fundamental principle: the right to shield their children from exposure to sexual content that is inappropriate for their age, while also steering their moral and ethical upbringing in alignment with their faith. The local school board decided to introduce a curriculum that includes LGBTQ+ themes — often embracing controversial discussions of human sexuality and gender identity.

Published

on

Craig J. DeLuz. Courtesy of Craig J. DeLuz.
Craig J. DeLuz. Courtesy of Craig J. DeLuz.

By Craig J. DeLuz, Special to California Black Media Partners

In America’s schools, the tension between parental rights and learning curricula has created a contentious battlefield.

In this debate, it is essential to recognize that parents are, first and foremost, their children’s primary educators. When they send their children to school — public or private — they do not surrender their rights or responsibilities. Yet, the education establishment has been increasingly encroaching on this vital paradigm.

A case recently argued before the Supreme Court regarding Maryland parents’ rights to opt out of lessons that infringe upon their religious beliefs epitomizes this growing conflict. This case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, is not simply about retreating from progressive educational mandates. It is fundamentally a defense of First Amendment rights, a defense of parents’ rights to be parents.

At the center of this controversy are some parents from Montgomery County in Maryland, who assert a fundamental principle: the right to shield their children from exposure to sexual content that is inappropriate for their age, while also steering their moral and ethical upbringing in alignment with their faith. The local school board decided to introduce a curriculum that includes LGBTQ+ themes, often embracing controversial discussions of human sexuality and gender identity. The parents argue that the subject matter is age-inappropriate, and the school board does not give parents the option to withdraw their children when those lessons are taught.

This case raises profound questions about the role of public education in a democratic society. In their fervent quest for inclusivity, some educators seem to have overlooked an essential truth: that the promotion of inclusivity should never infringe upon parental rights and the deeply held convictions that guide families of different faith backgrounds.

This matter goes well beyond mere exposure. It veers into indoctrination when children are repeatedly confronted with concepts that clash with their family values. 

“I don’t think anybody can read that and say: well, this is just telling children that there are occasions when men marry other men,” noted Justice Samuel Alito. “It has a clear moral message, and it may be a good message. It’s just a message that a lot of religious people disagree with.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised a crucial point, noting that it is one thing to merely expose students to diverse ideas; it is quite another to present certain viewpoints as indisputable truths. By framing an ideology with the certainty of “this is the right view of the world,” educators risk indoctrination rather than enlightenment. This distinction is not merely academic; it speaks to the very essence of cultivating a truly informed citizenry.

Even Justice Elena Kagan expressed concern regarding the exposure of young children to certain materials in Montgomery County.

“I, too, was struck by these young kids’ picture books and, on matters concerning sexuality, I suspect there are a lot of non-religious parents who weren’t all that thrilled about this,” she said.

Justice John Roberts aptly questioned the practicality of expecting young children to compartmentalize their beliefs in the classroom.

“It is unreasonable to expect five-year-olds, still forming their worldviews, to reconcile lessons that conflict fundamentally with the teachings they receive at home,” he said.

As was noted in my previous commentary, “The Hidden Truth In The Battle Over Books In American Schools”, what lies at the heart of these debates is a moral disconnect between the values held by the majority of Americans and those promoted by the educational establishment. While the majority rightly argue that material containing controversial content of a sexual nature should have no place in our children’s classrooms, the education establishment continues to tout the necessity of exposing children to such content under the guise of inclusivity. This disregards the legitimate values held by the wider community.

Highlighted in this case that is before the Supreme Court is a crucial truth: parents must resolutely maintain their right to direct their children’s education, according to their values. This struggle is not simply a skirmish; it reflects a broader movement aimed at reshaping education by privileging a state-sanctioned narrative while marginalizing dissenting voices.

It is imperative that we assert, without hesitation, that parents are — and must remain — the primary educators of their children.

When parents enroll a child in a school, it should in no way be interpreted as a relinquishment of parental authority or the moral guidance essential to their upbringing. We must stand firm in defending parental rights against the encroaching ideologies of the education establishment.

About the Author

Craig J. DeLuz has almost 30 years of experience in public policy and advocacy. He has served as a member of The Robla School District Board of Trustees for over 20 years. He also currently hosts a daily news and commentary show called “The RUNDOWN.” You can follow him on X at @CraigDeLuz.

Continue Reading

Subscribe to receive news and updates from the Oakland Post

* indicates required

CHECK OUT THE LATEST ISSUE OF THE OAKLAND POST

ADVERTISEMENT

WORK FROM HOME

Home-based business with potential monthly income of $10K+ per month. A proven training system and website provided to maximize business effectiveness. Perfect job to earn side and primary income. Contact Lynne for more details: Lynne4npusa@gmail.com 800-334-0540

Facebook

Trending

Copyright ©2021 Post News Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.