AUGUSTA, Ga. - Richmond County Solicitor Harold Jones says Woody Merry didn't violate terms of agreement when he made a presentation to Augusta-Richmond County commissioners.

Statement from Richmond County Solicitor Harold Jones about Woody Merry's presentation at the the Commissioner Meeting:

On or about May 29, 2008, Bradford “Woody” Merry (henceforth Mr. Merry) was accused of Simple Battery against William Fennoy (henceforth Mr. Fennoy). On or about November 17, 2008, Mr. Merry’s case was placed on the Dead Docket, with the order to remain for a period of one year. The Dead Docket order specified that Mr. Merry should not act in a disorderly manner while at any public meeting in Augusta-Richmond County. At the conclusion of the year, Mr. Merry’s case would be eligible for dismissal.

On or about November 5, 2009, Mr. Merry attended an Augusta- Richmond County Commission Budget meeting. Mr. Merry was given 4 minutes to speak. Mr. Merry may have exceeded his time limit to speak and also raised his voice during the meeting. The State is aware that Mr. Merry is very passionate about Augusta-Richmond County. The question for the State is whether his passion for Augusta transcended passion and entered into the realm of disorderly conduct. For the reasons that follow, the State concludes that Mr. Merry did not violate the terms of his Dead Docket order.

In deciding if Mr. Merry’s case should be revived, the State looked at three factors. First, the State wanted to inquire of the victim (Mr. Fennoy) whether he wanted the original case to be revived. Second, the State wanted to gather information concerning the meeting of November 5, 2009. The State attempted to interview various County Commissioners and obtained an audiotape of the incident. Third, the State still had to examine the original charges of May 29, 2008. The State had to determine that the original charges could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

MR. FENNOY

The State spoke with Mr. Fennoy. Mr. Fennoy indicated that he desired to move on and did not wish the case to be revived. He stated that it was time for the community to move forward.

THE FACTS

The State was able to obtain an audiotape of the November 5th meeting.
Mr. Merry had 4 minutes to speak. While speaking, he was informed that his time was up. Mr. Merry continued to make his points. This lasts about 35 - 45 seconds. He then agrees to leave. As he is leaving he makes one more loud boisterous statement.

The State has spoken with various commissioners. There were various opinions concerning Mr. Merry’s behavior. One commissioner stated that Mr. Merry “got in the Mayor’s face,” and his actions were not called for.

A second commissioner stated “his attitude was not pleasant, but his behavior was not significantly different from others who have a bad attitude in various meetings.”

A third commissioner acknowledged that Mr. Merry was speaking loudly after the meeting adjourned, but states that he left the room at that moment.
A fourth commissioner stated that Mr. Merry was “rude but not to the extent he (Mr. Merry) usually does.”

A fifth commissioner stated that Mr. Merry was “a little loud but not to the point of disrupting the hearing.” This same commissioner stated “I have seen more drama at other budget hearings.”

A sixth commissioner stated that “at one point Mr. Merry followed some commissioners into the committee room and inquired what are we going to do with OMI.”

Two commissioners stated they were not present during the disruption and could not comment on the facts.

The State has been unable to contact a final commissioner. The State believes it can make a decision based on the audiotape and the interviews.

The Mayor acknowledges that he did tell Mr. Merry that he was making a scene and that he (the Mayor) needed to start the next meeting.

THE PRINCIPAL CASE

The State took an additional look at the case of May 28, 2009. Once again, the State found some problems in proving that matter beyond a reasonable doubt.

CONCLUSION

The State does not believe that under all the surrounding facts and circumstances Mr. Merry’s case should be revived. Mr. Fennoy does not wish to pursue the principal charges. Although a victim’s wishes are not always dispositive, under the circumstances of this matter Mr. Fennoy’s desires will carry tremendous weight.

Mr. Merry’s actions were questionable. Yet, because his comments did occur at a formal political setting, where he was given the opportunity to speak, the State will give Mr. Merry the benefit of doubt and assume he was not purposefully trying to disrupt the meeting. Mr. Merry used poor judgment in continuing to act out, but the State is not ready to punish his actions in a criminal manner.

The principal case still has some issues. The State will point out that Mr. Merry’s actions probably make the principal case easier to prove. Yet, the State will only look at the facts as they existed at the time. Based upon the foregoing, the State still concludes that a Dead Docket is the proper resolution for the case of May 28, 2009.

In conclusion, Mr. Merry’s case will not be revived. In eight days Mr. Merry’s case will be dismissed and will be eligible for expungement.

NBC Augusta 26 News brings you straight to the point news, weather, and sports from Augusta and the CSRA. Meet our NBC Augusta 26 News staff!