Case Number: 76CI1:24­cv­00087

Court: Washington County Circuit Court

Client: Mississippi Today

Background: In 2005, 15-year-old King Young Brown Jr. was convicted in connection with the 2002 killing of a 6-year-old girl in Greenville, Mississippi, after two mistrials resulted in hung juries. Brown, who has maintained his innocence, is currently serving two consecutive sentences in prison: 30 years for rape and 20 years for manslaughter. 

According to Brown’s attorneys, prosecutors relied on microscopic comparisons of hairs found at Brown’s home to those of the victim’s to secure his conviction. But there are questions about the accuracy of microscopic hair analysis; its use has contributed to wrongful convictions, former FBI Director James Comey said in 2016.

In 2024, Brown’s attorneys asked a court to order the testing of DNA evidence in Brown’s case. But after the court granted that request, local officials said they couldn’t locate the evidence, despite the fact that the Washington County Circuit Clerk confirmed possession of the evidence in 2023. 

Brown’s attorneys argued that if the evidence is lost, he should be exonerated. Washington County Circuit Court Judge Richard A. Smith ordered Brown and the clerk’s office to submit filings that could explain what happened to the evidence, which includes more than 100 trial exhibits. But the judge ordered these filings sealed, meaning the public is deprived of access to information about how the government handled critical evidence in Brown’s case and how the parties are now explaining to the court what happened.

On behalf of Mississippi Today, Andrew Coffman, the Reporters Committee’s Mississippi-based attorney, filed these motions to intervene and to modify the court’s sealing order, arguing that the public has a right of access to the judicial records under Mississippi law, the First Amendment, and common law. 

Quote: “The public has a right to know how its elected officials and government employees maintain public safety and how its courts administer justice,” the motion to modify the sealing order argues. “Here, there are serious questions regarding the propriety of the Washington County Clerk’s Office’s actions, Brown’s conviction, and a final sense of closure — to the extent there can be any — for a deceased child’s family. In a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, the people must be able to answer these questions.”

Filings:

2026-06-08: Motion to intervene

2026-06-08: Motion to modify the court’s April 9, 2026 order