What’s the latest news
Macon County: It may seem like a contradiction when the Alabama Supreme Court rules for one electronic bingo gambling facility and against another, but Birmingham attorney Eric Johnston said the high court’s opinions depend on the evidence in each lawsuit.
Macon County District Attorney Paul Jones said he is “not convinced” the regulations established by the Supreme Court in a recent ruling against electronic bingo gambling at the White Hall Entertainment Center in Lowndes County also apply to VictoryLand — especially since the justices ruled for VictoryLand in another case.
In the latter case, Sherry Knowles thought she won $41.8 million in a May 2006 VictoryLand jackpot but the facility refused to pay, saying it was “not a valid win.”
A trial court awarded Knowles $10 million for damages, but the Supreme Court recently overturned that ruling. In their decision, the justices referred to Knowles’ description of the “slot machines” and Macon County’s bingo amendment that explains how the game is to be played and regulated.
Jones questioned how the justices could refer to the county’s bingo amendment in one case if they thought it was illegal in another being considered around the same time.
“[The White Hall] ruling was issued Nov. 13,” Jones said. “Nov. 20, they issued [the Knowles ruling]. … They quote both the constitutional amendment and the sheriff’s rules on how bingo should be played in Macon County but did not mention Macon County in the White Hall case. That leads me to believe that they purposely did not include Macon County in that (White Hall) case.”
But the justices addressed this issue on page 15 of their ruling: “We express no opinion as to whether Amendment No. 744 (concerning bingo games in Macon County) actually does authorize the type of activity here involved. That issue is not presented in this case.”
Johnston, president and general counsel for the Southeast Law Institute in Birmingham, which deals with moral issues affecting public policy in the state, explained the issue further.
“Appellate courts only review the evidence and issues that are in a particular case,” he said. “Even if there is a very important legal issue that should have been brought up in a trial court … the rule is, on appeal, the Supreme Court cannot consider that issue. They only decide what is brought up in the trial court.”
Johnston added, “What they are saying is, if you go into a casino, you play by their rules and they make up the rules.”
Walker County: Circuit Court Judge Robert Vance recently upheld his order limiting bingo to paper games in Walker County. Defendants in the case had asked Vance to alter his original Oct. 26 ruling citing the Supreme Court’s new bingo definition “could conceivably permit some electronic version of the game.”
Vance clarified the Circuit Court’s ruling — “in case there was doubt” — and said Walker County’s bingo amendment (549) was not “a living, organic legal creation that could change to keep up with the times.” Instead, Vance referred to the law and “factual circumstances existing in 1992, when Amendment 549 was ratified” to prove that “using advanced technology to play bingo was comparatively unknown” at that time and “thus could not have been intended when Amendment 549 was passed.”
While Vance admitted traditional bingo according to the Supreme Court’s rules “could conceivably be met by electronic devices,” he said the High Court did not “explicitly address whether bingo had to be played on paper cards.”
Vance added that “further proceedings in that case may involve additional evidence and raise additional issues that were not presented for consideration.”
Share with others: