Left Without Counsel, Left Without Argument: How Mississippi’s Courts Compounded Injustice in a Case the State Refuses to Defend

The appellate system is supposed to be a safeguard — a last line of defense ensuring that errors are corrected, due process is honored, and indigent defendants are not steamrolled by technicalities. But in Reardon v. State, a Mississippi case now stretching into its fourth year, the safeguards themselves have become the instruments of injustice.

At every turn, Matthew O. Reardon — journalist, activist, and indigent appellant — has been left to face a system that refused him counsel, denied him argument, and ultimately left his appeal to languish while the State itself abandoned the case.

The First Denial of Counsel

In July 2024, Reardon filed a handwritten Motion for Appointment of Counsel in Lafayette County. He cited Rule 6(b) of the Mississippi Rules of Appellate Procedure and his indigency, requesting appellate representation through the State Public Defender’s Indigent Appeals Division.

On September 17, Circuit Judge J. Kelly Luther denied the motion. His reasoning: the Indigent Appeals Division only provides appellate representation for felony defendants, not misdemeanor cases like Reardon’s. By that reading, an indigent facing jail time on misdemeanor convictions could be forced to navigate appeals alone.

The Supreme Court Steps In — and Is Ignored

Reardon tried again, this time going higher. On October 17, 2024, he filed a new motion with the Mississippi Supreme Court, citing controlling precedent: Evitts v. Lucey (U.S. Supreme Court, 1985), which held that the right to counsel at trial extends through a first appeal of right. He pointed to his indigency and incarceration and asked for what the Constitution promised.

On December 23, 2024, Justice T. Kenneth Griffis agreed the issue required action. He issued an order remanding the motion to Lafayette Circuit Court with a clear instruction: rule within 30 days.

The order was never followed.

Instead, on January 17, 2025, Judge Luther’s staff attorney, Brook Reeves, sent the appellate clerk a letter attaching the old September denial — as though it satisfied the remand. The new motion was never ruled upon. The Supreme Court’s directive was sidestepped, leaving Reardon to brief his case without counsel.

The State Abandons Its Role

Even as Reardon struggled pro se, the State of Mississippi went silent. When Reardon filed his appellate brief on April 27, 2025 — raising constitutional violations, the denial of counsel, and due process errors — he also requested oral argument.

The Attorney General’s office never filed a brief. On June 10, 2025, the appellate clerk formally declared the State in default under Rule 31(d), noting its deadline had expired. By rule, the State could not be heard at oral argument without special permission.

It was a remarkable posture: the appellant had briefed, the State had not, and the record stood unrebutted.

A Motion for Relief — and More Delay

On June 30, 2025, Reardon moved for summary reversal, or at minimum expedited review. He argued that the State’s failure to brief was effectively a concession of error, and that each additional month of delay compounded harm: reputational, financial, and constitutional.

On July 21, 2025, Chief Judge Donna Barnes rejected the request. Citing precedent, she held that a failure to brief may be treated as a confession of error, but it does not automatically require reversal. She also refused to expedite, saying the case would be decided “in due course.”

That phrase stung. For Reardon, “due course” had already meant years of ignored orders, lost counsel, and procedural stall.

Denied Argument, Left in Silence

On September 2, 2025, the Court of Appeals marked the case “submitted without oral argument.” Despite Reardon’s explicit request, and despite the State’s default, the only party left in the case was denied the chance to speak.

Under Rule 34, oral argument is discretionary. But here, denying argument ensured silence from both sides. The appellee had abandoned its role; the appellant was silenced by judicial choice. A case raising multiple constitutional claims was submitted without a single live voice.

A Pattern of Compounded Injustice

The trajectory of Reardon v. State illustrates not one failure, but a pattern of compounded ones:

A trial court that denied counsel on dubious grounds. A Supreme Court order that was openly disregarded. A State that failed to defend its convictions. An Appellate Court that denied oral argument and refused to expedite, letting delay itself become punishment.

The constitutional stakes are not abstract. The U.S. Supreme Court has made clear: once the state provides an appeal as of right, due process and equal protection demand meaningful access — which for indigent defendants means appointed counsel. Mississippi’s own statutes echo that guarantee. Yet here, the protections collapsed at every level.

Justice in “Due Course”?

As of September 2025, the case sits fully submitted. By rule, the Court of Appeals has 270 days — until mid-2026 — to issue its decision. By then, nearly five years will have passed since the underlying misdemeanor convictions.

Reardon remains blunt: “This isn’t just about me. It’s about whether Mississippi courts will honor their own rules and the constitutional rights of indigent defendants.”

For now, the silence of the State is matched by the silence of the courts. Whether Mississippi’s judiciary will break that silence in favor of justice — or let delay itself stand as a verdict — remains to be seen.

See the Appeal Docket for Reardon here. If the link doesn’t work, go to courts.ms.gov and simply run a search for Matthew Reardon