Videos

Page Pate is a recognized as a criminal defense and constitutional attorney, and he often serves as a legal analyst to various media outlets. When seeking a legal opinion or analysis of important issues and cases, the media will contact Page to discuss.

In this case, 11 Alive News interviewed Page regarding Covid vaccine mandates that are forthcoming for employers with 100 employees or more. President Biden has used OSHA and the Labor Department to mandate that these employers require their employees be vaccinated or take weekly Covid tests. Page explains that “there’s already a basis for the order” because “OSHA does have the ability to require businesses, especially large companies to put in place safety regulations, things that will protect the health and security of the people who work there.” However, Page does expect there to be legal challenges of the mandate and says “The employer may decide to file an action against OSHA, ask a judge to say that this particular requirement you’re imposing on us to make us then require our employees to get vaccines or get tested, you can’t do that.”

Page is asked if the individual employees can sue over the mandate and he explains that people can’t sue over it, particularly in Georgia, because it is an at-will employment state. Likewise, Page says that Georgia’s Governor, Brian Kemp, also can’t sue over the mandate because “He doesn’t have standing to file a lawsuit in court like the business would because OSHA’s not requiring the governor of Georgia’s staff to go get vaccinated. The requirement is placed on private businesses.” However, Page acknowledges that “anyone can file a lawsuit. It’s just whether or not they’ll succeed,” and says “Everybody’s gonna be suing everybody else. And at the end of the day, some judge will have to sort through that.”

TRANSCRIPT:

President Biden: …patient but our patience is wearing thin and the refusal has cost all of us.

Man: President Biden this evening trying to get Americans to get vaccinated. The president unveiling his six-point plan to stop the spread of COVID. At the top of the list, vaccine requirements impacting as many as 100 million Americans in an effort to boost vaccinations. The new rule mandates all employers with more than 100 workers get vaccinated or test weekly for the virus. So how will the president’s plan work legally? Here’s Hope Ford who went to an expert.

Hope: The way the Biden administration is trying to enforce the rule is through the Labor Department and OSHA. 11Alive legal expert Page Pate says there’s already a basis for the order.

Page: OSHA does have the ability to require businesses, especially large companies to put in place safety regulations, things that will protect the health and security of the people who work there.

Hope: Georgia-based businesses like Home Depot praised the requirement in a joint statement with other large companies. But Pate anticipates legal challenges.

Page: The employer may decide to file an action against OSHA, ask a judge to say that this particular requirement you’re imposing on us to make us then require our employees to get vaccines or get tested, you can’t do that.

Hope: What about employees? Could they sue their employer for firing them for refusing the vaccine or weekly testing?

Page: You can’t sue over that, especially not in Georgia. We’re an at-will employment state.

Hope: And what about governors? Governor Kemp tweeting he’ll take every legal option against the order. Pate thinks that’ll be difficult.

Page: He doesn’t have standing to file a lawsuit in court like the business would because OSHA’s not requiring the governor of Georgia’s staff to go get vaccinated. The requirement is placed on private businesses.

Hope: And Pate says the governor could ask the attorney general to file some declaratory judgment action in federal court but he doesn’t think there’s a legal basis for the governor to do so. Still, Pate says anyone can file a lawsuit. It’s just whether or not they’ll succeed.

Page: Everybody’s gonna be suing everybody else. And at the end of the day, some judge will have to sort through that.

Man: Attorney Pate added that he thinks big companies may see pushing back on the requirement and filing a lawsuit as a public relations nightmare. He thinks that medium-sized companies would be the ones more willing to change the order because this is all brand new. It’s possible a judge will see the order as a step too far.

Attorney Page Pate is recognized as a criminal defense and constitutional attorney, as well as a legal analyst. Various media outlets will often contact Page for his comments on important and high-profile cases appearing in the news.

In this case, WJXT (News 4 Jax) contacted Page to discuss the decision of a Glynn County, Georgia grand jury to indict the former District Attorney, Jackie Johnson, on violation of oath and obstruction of a law enforcement officer charges in connection with the case involving the murder of Ahmaud Arbery in Brunswick, Georgia in 2020.

Page is asked whether he is surprised about the indictment of Ms. Johnson, a former District Attorney. He responds that he is “actually very surprised” and says that he understands “there was a lot of pressure to do something in this case because most people here believe that Jackie Johnson made the wrong decision in both telling these officers not to arrest the McMichaels that day, and also trying to steer the case to a district attorney that she thought would never prosecute them. But as far as criminal charges, that does come as a surprise. It’s kind of a stretch to indict a district attorney for making a decision about a case. She’s charged with a felony and a misdemeanor, but I actually think the misdemeanor is the strongest charge here.” Page also doesn’t think that Ms. Johnson will get any jail time if convicted on the charges and says “the misdemeanor charge does carry up to 12 months in jail, but for someone with her background, no criminal history, the nature of these charges, I think the goal here for the prosecution is to hold her responsible, but I don’t think that necessarily means any jail time.”

Regarding the potential evidence in the case against Ms. Johnson, Page explains that he thinks that there will be evidence that Ms. Johnson “steered the case to this other district attorney, and that’s what our attorney general says is a violation of her own oath of office,” and further explains how that is “really vague” and that “there’s no law that says she cannot contact another district attorney about the case. What they’re trying to say is, she wasn’t treating the Arbery family fairly, and as a result of that, she violated her oath. The other charge deals with the officers who were on the scene that day. They do not respond to her. They do not report to her. But, nonetheless, she contacted those officers and said, “Do not arrest the McMichaels,”. That is the basis for the obstruction charge which I think is a better case for the attorney general.”

Lastly, Page is asked for his opinion on whether or not Ms. Johnson’s indictment will have an effect on the Ahmaud Arbery murder case. Page says he doesn’t think it should have “any effect at all,” because “As most people know, Jackie Johnson lost the election. There’s a new district attorney, and the district attorney prosecuting the McMichaels is not even from Glynn County. So, whatever happens to Jackie Johnson, whether she’s convicted, faces jail time, none of that should have any impact on the pending case against the McMichaels.”

TRANSCRIPT:

Jenn: Six minutes after 8:00 this morning, attorneys Ben Crump and Lee Merritt will join Ahmaud Arbery’s parents to discuss the grand jury’s decision released yesterday to indict former Georgia prosecutor, Jackie Johnson. Prosecutors say that she violated her oath of office when she failed to inform her boss that she had previously discussed the 25-year-old’s shooting death with the district attorney who ended up taking it over after she recused herself since she works in Brunswick…was working there at the time.

She’s also accused of obstruction of a law enforcement officer. One of the men accused in the shooting used to work for her. Greg McMichael is who I’m talking about. His son also, Travis, are seen on video confronting Arbery as he ran through the Satilla Shores neighborhood in Glynn County last year. A third man, William “Roddie” Bryan, seen on the right is also facing charges since investigators say he participated in the chase. Joining me now to discuss the indictment is defense attorney Page Pate who lives in Brunswick. Good morning. Thanks for being with us.

Page: Good morning, Jenn.

Jenn: So, Pate, this is incredibly unusual to indict a district attorney. I mean, are you surprised?

Page: I’m actually very surprised. I understand there was a lot of pressure to do something in this case because most people here believe that Jackie Johnson made the wrong decision in both telling these officers not to arrest the McMichaels that day, and also trying to steer the case to a district attorney that she thought would never prosecute them.

But as far as criminal charges, that does come as a surprise. It’s kind of a stretch to indict a district attorney for making a decision about a case. She’s charged with a felony and a misdemeanor, but I actually think the misdemeanor is the strongest charge here.

Jenn: And then let’s talk about the other charge then. So, is it easy to find evidence in this, since a lot of it can be he said-she said?

Page: Right. I think there’ll be evidence that she clearly steered the case to this other district attorney, and that’s what our attorney general says is a violation of her own oath of office. But that’s really vague. There’s no law that says she cannot contact another district attorney about the case. What they’re trying to say is, she wasn’t treating the Arbery family fairly, and as a result of that, she violated her oath.

The other charge deals with the officers who were on the scene that day. They do not respond to her. They do not report to her. But, nonetheless, she contacted those officers and said, “Do not arrest the McMichaels.” That is the basis for the obstruction charge which I think is a better case for the attorney general.

Jenn: Any reason that this indictment and the outcome of it could have any impact on the Arbery case itself, the murder case?

Page: That’s a great question. It should not have any effect at all. As most people know, Jackie Johnson lost the election. There’s a new district attorney, and the district attorney prosecuting the McMichaels is not even from Glynn County. So, whatever happens to Jackie Johnson, whether she’s convicted, faces jail time, none of that should have any impact on the pending case against the McMichaels.

Jenn: Given your opinion about the strength of the case, you know, more strength when it comes to the misdemeanor charge, do you think that she could end up doing any prison time?

Page: I don’t think so, Jenn. I mean, the misdemeanor charge does carry up to 12 months in jail, but for someone with her background, no criminal history, the nature of these charges, I think the goal here for the prosecution is to hold her responsible, but I don’t think that necessarily means any jail time.

Jenn: We certainly will see. Page Pate, always appreciate your analysis. Thanks for your time this morning.

Page: Thank you.

Jenn: Okay.

Attorney Page Pate has been representing clients in federal court in cases involving interpretation of constitutional law. Occasionally, Page will be asked to serve as local counsel in important cases where the parties involved are not located or admitted in the District Court in the Northern District of Georgia.

In this case, the Department of Justice contacted Pate, Johnson and Church to request assistance in filing a federal lawsuit against the State of Georgia and the Republican National Committee regarding the new voting law. The DOJ claims that certain aspects of the new law are discriminatory because they constrict certain voting methods commonly used by Black voters in the State of Georgia.

11 Alive contacted Page to discuss the new law and the specifics of the brief he filed supporting the Department of Justice on behalf of 21 states and the District of Columbia. Page explains that “The issue is becoming is discriminatory intent enough? Can you strike down the law even though if you read it, it doesn’t say that it’s intending to discriminate against anyone? The argument is I don’t care what the law itself says. It’s the consequences of putting this law on the books, the results that will inevitably happen as a result of this law. They know better than to write in the law itself we’re going to discriminate against a group of people. But I think the effect and the motivation here is crystal clear.”

The State of Georgia is asking for the case to be dismissed, saying there is nothing discriminatory in the text of the law. Page tells 11 Alive that “he expects a ruling on that motion very soon.”

TRANSCRIPT:

Reporter: A group of states and the District of Columbia are imploring a federal judge in Atlanta to hear evidence in the federal lawsuit against Georgia’s new voting law. The Department of Justice is suing Georgia and the Republican National Committee over the voting law passed after the 2020 election. They claim certain provisions are discriminatory by constricting voting methods favored by Black Georgians. The state of Georgia is asking for the case to be dismissed, saying there is nothing discriminatory in the text of the law. Local attorney Page Pate filed a brief supporting the federal government on behalf of those 21 states and D.C. He says they want to make sure the case is not dismissed before they have the chance to provide evidence of covert discriminatory intent in the law.

Page: The issue is becoming is discriminatory intent enough? Can you strike down the law even though if you read it, it doesn’t say that it’s intending to discriminate against anyone? The argument is I don’t care what the law itself says. It’s the consequences of putting this law on the books, the results that will inevitably happen as a result of this law. They know better than to write in the law itself we’re going to discriminate against a group of people. But I think the effect and the motivation here is crystal clear.

Reporter: We want to point out Page is also a legal expert for 11Alive. He says he expects a ruling on that motion very soon.

With over 25 years of experience in representing clients in serious cases involving criminal defense and constitutional rights, Page Pate is often contacted by the media to discuss important legal cases appearing in the news.

In this case, Page was contacted by 11 Alive News to discuss the verdict in the case against Derek Chauvin, the police officer recently convicted of the 2020 murder of George Floyd in Minnesota.

Page is asked for his opinion regarding social media and the video recordings of the events surrounding Mr. Floyd’s murder and how it may have impacted Mr. Chauvin’s trial and possible future trials, in general. Page responds that he doesn’t “think there is a question that, without the video in this case, there probably would have been a different result. And that’s concerning perhaps. It’s disturbing perhaps. But police officer involved shootings like the one that happened here, when they are prosecuted, normally do not result in a guilty verdict. And that’s because the evidence boils down to what the officer says happened versus what maybe one or two witnesses say on the other side. When you have video, when you have multiple videos as we did in this case, it becomes a lot more difficult for the officer to claim that he was acting reasonably, when that clearly is not what appears on the video. So I think people having cellphones, people using those cellphones, could in some cases lead to more accountability and more justice.”

Regarding the effect the verdict in Mr. Chauvin’s case may have on future cases and the precedent it may set for those cases, Page says that he agrees that this verdict may have an impact on similar cases going forward, and explains that “if you look at this case, it may allow a prosecutor to look at a case involving a police officer and say, “Hey, in the past I may have not prosecuted that case, but now I know, if I have the right facts and the right evidence a jury will convict an officer for excessive force.” So perhaps a prosecutor now who may have been sitting on the fence about one of these cases will feel a little bit better about moving forward.”

Lastly, Page is asked about the possible sentence Mr. Chauvin may receive in this case. He notes that “Minnesota is a lot like federal court,” because they have sentencing guidelines for judges to follow. Page says “For a case like this, for someone like this officer, who has no prior criminal history, he’s looking at about 12 and a half, 13 years under the guidelines. The judge could give him more time or less time for you know extenuating circumstances, mitigating factors. But the guidelines are going to call for about 12 and a half years, could be up to 40.” Page also notes that “when you have sentencing guidelines, most jurisdictions then, like the federal jurisdiction, do not allow for parole. So you get some credit for good time, but more or less the sentence you receive is the sentence that you serve.”

TRANSCRIPT:

Jeff: Here to help us understand all of it from a legal perspective now is our analyst, Page Pate. Page, always good to see you. Good to have you with us tonight.

Page: Thank you, Jeff.

Jeff: How about social media here and the video recordings? How did it impact the trial? And, give me your perspective of how it will impact other trials heading forward.

Page: Jeff, I don’t think there is a question that, without the video in this case, there probably would have been a different result. And that’s concerning perhaps. It’s disturbing perhaps. But police officer involved shootings like the one that happened here, when they are prosecuted, normally do not result in a guilty verdict. And that’s because the evidence boils down to what the officer says happened versus what maybe one or two witnesses say on the other side. When you have video, when you have multiple videos as we did in this case, it becomes a lot more difficult for the officer to claim that he was acting reasonably, when that clearly is not what appears on the video. So I think people having cellphones, people using those cellphones, could in some cases lead to more accountability and more justice.

Jeff: My second question, many activists tonight, many leaders online calling all of this a step towards social justice. Now finally, how does the verdict set the tone for other cases? And there are many cases around America like this, with great similarities of which this may set precedent. Do you agree or disagree with that?

Page: I agree, I think, Jeff. I mean, if you look at this case, it may allow a prosecutor to look at a case involving a police officer and say, “Hey, in the past I may have not prosecuted that case, but now I know, if I have the right facts and the right evidence a jury will convict an officer for excessive force.” So perhaps a prosecutor now who may have been sitting on the fence about one of these cases will feel a little bit better about moving forward.

Jeff: [inaudible 00:01:57] who are not in the law profession, not lawyers, sentencing is always mysterious. You know? There seems to be an ambiguity about the crime versus the sentence, and it’s left to the discretion of the judge. How do you see this playing out?

Page: Well, Minnesota is a lot like federal court. In Georgia, we do not have sentencing guidelines, but they do in Minnesota. For a case like this, for someone like this officer, who has no prior criminal history, he’s looking at about 12 and a half, 13 years under the guidelines. The judge could give him more time or less time for you know extenuating circumstances, mitigating factors. But the guidelines are going to call for about 12 and a half years, could be up to 40.

Jeff: So if you get 12 and a half years, how much do you serve?

Page: Well, when you have sentencing guidelines, most jurisdictions then, like the federal jurisdiction, do not allow for parole. So you get some credit for good time, but more or less the sentence you receive is the sentence that you serve.

Jeff: Page Pate, thanks. Always appreciate your insight, your observations and thoughts tonight. Thank you.

Page: Thank you, Jeff.