Arresting officer commits perjury

May 29, 2014

Thursday, May 29, 2014

Good morning:

Today we are going to review the plain-view rule and demonstrate that,

(1) The arresting officer in Crane-Station’s case committed perjury at her suppression hearing and again at trial;

(2) Her lawyer, Chris McNeill knew it and refused to expose his perjury at the trial.

The Plain View Rule

Pursuant to the plain-view rule, a police officer may seize any item without consent or a search warrant, if she:

(1) has a right to be where she is;

(2) sees it in plain view; and

(3) recognizes it to be evidence of a crime.

For example, if a police officer were to pull someone over and notice an ounce of cocaine in plain view on the console of the vehicle, she could seize it and arrest the driver for suspected possession of a controlled substance, provided, she had a right to be where she was.

In other words, if she had a reasonable suspicion to believe that the person she stopped was committing, had committed, or was about to commit a crime, the stop was lawful and she had a right to be where she was when she saw the suspected controlled substance in plain view. But if she did not have a reasonable suspicion, the stop would be unlawful and both her seizure of the suspected controlled substance and arrest of the driver would be unlawful.

The plain view rule is an exception to the search warrant requirement and every police officer knows it. During my 30-year-career as a criminal defense lawyer, I cannot even estimate the number of times that a client told me that an incriminating item seized by police was concealed and definitely not in plain view even though the arresting officer claimed that it was.

Police know that they are going to win swearing contests when it’s their word against the defendant’s and they are right.

The plain view rule is such a well known exception to the search warrant requirement that I cannot imagine any officer would testify under oath that he seized an item that was not in plain view and months later testify under oath in another hearing that the item was in plain view.

Yet, that is exactly what happened in Crane-Station’s case.

No competent criminal defense attorney would fail to confront a police officer who did that, yet that is exactly what her attorney, Chris McNeill, did.

His failure to do that was a violation of his duty to vigorously defend his client and he should be suspended or disbarred for doing that.

Deputy McGuire’s testimony at the preliminary hearing

At the preliminary hearing one week after the arrest, Deputy Eddie McGuire testified:

A. So you couldn’t just–the seat comes in and out, obviously, easily because it’s detached for the purposes of searching. And I just moved the seat back, and it was sitting right there.

Q. You couldn’t see it if you were standing outside the car looking in?

A. Right. I don’t believe you could.

Deputy McGuire’s testimony at the suppression hearing

Q: And what—At that point, what did you see?

A: I just seen the watch and then the small baggy sitting–it was in plain view right there in the crack where the seat belt comes up.

Q: So you could see both?

A: I could see both, yes sir.

Crane-Station here, with supporting documents. Official court reporter transcripts.

Click on the document for an enlarged view.

Preliminary hearing title page:
IMG_0001

Preliminary hearing, page 11:
IMG_0002

Suppression hearing title page:
IMG_0003

Suppression Hearing page 24:
IMG_0004
-now, the substance has moved, and it is in plain view.

Suppression hearing page 25:
IMG_0005

If you think this is bad, tune in again tomorrow. It gets worse. Much worse.

Please donate, if you have not already done so.


Post trial immunity hearings are a terrible idea

March 11, 2013

Monday, March 11, 2013

Good morning:

I write today to clear up some remaining uncertainty regarding the timing for a motion for immunity and the immunity hearing.

The motion for immunity is similar to a motion to suppress evidence because, if the motion is granted, the case is over.

Hearings on potentially outcome-determinative motions, such as a motion to suppress evidence, are always held before trial because, if the moving party wins (i.e., the defendant), the case is dismissed and there is no trial. If the defendant loses, the case proceeds to trial, unless he pleads guilty.

For example, let us suppose that a police officer arrested a defendant without probable cause and discovered a rock of crack cocaine in a pocket in the defendant’s jacket during the search incident to the arrest. The defendant is charged with possession of cocaine and pleads not guilty at the arraignment.

The defendant moves to suppress the rock before trial on the ground that the arrest and subsequent search were unlawful because the officer arrested him without probable cause. But for the unlawful arrest, the rock would not have been discovered. Thus, the rock is a “fruit of the poisonous tree” and must be suppressed pursuant to the exclusionary rule. That is, evidence seized unlawfully from a defendant by police cannot be used against the defendant at trial.

Without the cocaine, the prosecution would be unable to prove that the defendant possessed cocaine. Therefore, it would have to dismiss the case and the court would have to grant the motion.

An immunity hearing is similar. If the defendant prevails, the court must grant immunity from criminal prosecution and civil suit. Therefore, the outcome is similar to the motion to suppress. The prosecution cannot proceed and the court must dismiss the case.

While it is theoretically possible to merge a hearing on a motion to suppress evidence into a trial, there is little sense to do so because the issues and attorney strategies are different.

For example, the direct and cross examination of the arresting officer for purposes of the suppression motion will be focused on whether the officer had probable cause to arrest, whereas, the legality of the arrest and subsequent search is not an issue for purposes of the trial. It’s just something that happened and no longer relevant to the ultimate issue the jury must decide. That is, whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty.

I have provided the simplest example of a motion to suppress evidence. They can be far more complicated and last more than one day, such as might be the case when multiple locations are searched, some with search warrants and some without. It makes no sense to waste the juror’s time and risk confusing them with irrelevant evidence and issues.

In the federal and state courts in which I practiced, the courts set deadlines within which to file motions to suppress. Failure to comply with a deadline typically meant the motion was waived, unless you had a good reason for not filing the motion, such as newly discovered evidence that you did not know prior to the deadline.

Federal and state judges hate to summon people for jury duty for cases that can be potentially resolved by outcome-determinative motions prior to trial. They hate even more having to waste jury time with evidence that is irrelevant to the issues the jury must decide.

Although constitutional rights are at stake during hearings on motions to suppress evidence, the courts can and do hold that those rights are waived by failing to assert them in timely fashion.

Just as notice and an opportunity to be heard are important to due process of law, so too is finality. Legal issues that can be decided should be decided. I cannot think of a good reason not to decide the issue of immunity before trial and to deem it waived, if it is not.

I have already written about the potential for constitutional error requiring reversal of a conviction and remand for a new trial here and here, if an immunity hearing is merged into a trial and will not revisit that issue today.

However, I will comment regarding the idea that an immunity hearing could be conducted after trial.

If a jury returns a guilty verdict, the case is over. Since the defendant’s guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury necessarily must have decided that the prosecution proved absence of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt. The verdict precludes a finding that the defendant proved self-defense by a preponderance of the evidence. Therefore, the immunity motion must be denied.

If the jury acquits the defendant, however, either judge or jury could theoretically decide that the defendant had met his burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he acted in self-defense.

The problem in this situation, however, is that the jury may have acquitted a defendant who did not testify or offer any evidence, which a defendant has a right to do.

Should he now be permitted to put on a case to prove that he acted in self-defense?

Does he have a right to have the jury decide that issue or must the judge decide the issue.

What happens if the defendant testifies and the judge or jury decides they do not believe the defendant and now want to find him guilty?

I do not see any easy answers to these questions.

There is no doubt that the legislature intended that the issue of immunity should be raised and decided before trial and I can think of no good reason to do otherwise.

If I were the judge, I would hold a hearing as soon as possible to consider whether the immunity hearing can be merged with the trial or considered after trial, and if after trial, whether the judge or the jury should decide whether to grant immunity.

These are extremely important issues that should be considered and resolved before trial to avoid a lot of grief later.

If no action is taken, we can only sit back and watch a slow-motion train wreck.

Finally, I want everyone to know that I firmly believe that the defense does not want to have an immunity hearing because they have no defense and the defendant would be crucified on cross examination exposing him to be the liar that he is. They obviously do not want to admit this, so they allowed the court to strike the hearing without formally and publicly waiving it. I doubt that we will hear more from the defense about this issue, since they want it to disappear.

If you like this post and the quality of this site, please consider making a secure donation via Paypal by clicking the yellow donation button in the upper right corner just below the search box.


Combining the immunity hearing with the trial in the Zimmerman case is a terrible idea (Part II)

March 8, 2013

Friday, March 8, 2013

Good Afternoon:

I have done more research on the Florida SYG immunity hearing and concluded that the legislature intended that the hearing occur prior to trial. The Florida Supreme Court agrees.

The Florida legislature created confusion when it did not provide a procedure for asserting, litigating and deciding a defendant’s claim of immunity from criminal prosecution and civil liability under the SYG law.

In Dennis v. State, 51 So.3d 456, 462 (2010), the Florida Supreme Court stated,

While Florida law has long recognized that a defendant may argue as an affirmative defense at trial that his or her use of force was legally justified, section 776.032 contemplates that a defendant who establishes entitlement to the statutory immunity will not be subjected to trial. Section 776.032(1) expressly grants defendants a substantive right to not be arrested, detained, charged, or prosecuted as a result of the use of legally justified force. The statute does not merely provide that a defendant cannot be convicted as a result of legally justified force.

(Emphasis supplied)

In Dennis, the Court approved a procedure to conduct SYG immunity hearings developed by the trial court in Peterson v. State, 983 So.2d 27 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). That procedure requires the defendant to file a motion before trial requesting immunity pursuant to Rule 3.190(b).

In Peterson, the First District Court of Appeals set forth the procedure to be followed after the defendant files the motion to initiate the process. The Court said at pages 29-30:

In the absence of a procedure for handling these matters, we find guidance from the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Guenther, 740 P.2d 971 (Colo. 1987). In that case, the court decided that Colorado’s similar immunity statute authorized a trial court to dismiss a criminal prosecution at the pretrial stage and did not merely create an affirmative defense for adjudication at trial. Id. at 976. The court further determined that a defendant raising the immunity would have the burden of establishing the factual prerequisites to the immunity claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 980. The court imposed the same burden of proof as it would in motions for postconviction relief or motions to suppress. Id.

(Emphasis supplied)

The immunity hearing would resemble a trial with four important exceptions:

(1) The order in which the parties present their respective cases would be reversed with the defendant going first,

(2) Rather than being presumed innocent with the right to remain silent and no obligation to testify, the defendant would have the burden of proof,

(3) The burden of proof would be by a preponderance of the evidence (i.e., more probable than not), and

(4) The judge would be the fact-finder and decide the outcome, instead of a jury.

Judge Nelson told Mark O’Mara that, if the defense wanted an immunity hearing, she wanted to hold it prior to trial sometime during the last two weeks of April. She reserved those two weeks for the hearing and told O’Mara to file an appropriate motion prior to that time, if the defendant decided to ask for one.

At the hearing on Tuesday, she asked him if he still wanted her to reserve those two weeks because she wanted to use that time to schedule other matters, if he did not intend to ask for a hearing, . He responded that he would not be asking for a hearing during those two weeks.

He added that he was not waiving the hearing; rather, he was considering “combining it with the trial.” She acknowledged that she understood he was not waiving the hearing. However, he did not request and she did not agree to combine it with the trial. Whether she will agree to do so has yet to be decided.

O’Mara would have to file a motion to dismiss pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(b) asking her to combine the immunity hearing with the trial and she would have to grant his motion for that to occur.

I published a post here two days ago in which I explained why combining the two matters could create constitutional error resulting in a reversal and remand for a new trial, if Judge Nelson denies the motion for immunity and the jury convicts the defendant.

There is little point to having an immunity hearing, if it is going to be combined with a trial at the risk of injecting constitutional error into the trial that requires convictions to be reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Finally, please know that I made a mistake in some comments earlier this week when I said Florida has a rule that requires immunity hearings to be held no later than 45 days before trial. Florida does not have such a rule. I recalled Judge Nelson’s statement that she wanted to schedule an immunity hearing not less than 45 days before the June 10 trial date, if the defense decided to request one, and mistakenly assumed there was a 45-day rule. I realized my mistake while researching to write this article. I apologize for any confusion that might have caused.

I note parenthetically that Florida could use such a rule, but it’s up to the Florida Supreme Court to decide whether to promulgate one.

If you like this post and the quality of this site, please consider making a secure donation via Paypal by clicking the yellow donation button in the upper right corner just below the search box.


The Full-Text Motion For Discretionary Review [Frog Gravy Legal Case]

December 22, 2011

For those of you following the legal case, the 26-page Kentucky Court of Appeals Published Opinion Affirming is available online at the Kentucky Court of Appeals site. Other documents, such as this one, while they are in the public domain, are not readily available. (One must file an open records request)

I am also going to make the opening brief and response available here, online, for the public. This first document is a Motion For Discretionary Review. It was filed with the Supreme Court in June of this year (2011). The attorney is The Honorable Julia K. Pearson.

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
SUPREME COURT OF KENTUCKY
FILE NO.2011-SC-000272

RACHEL LEATHERMAN MOVANT

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY RESPONDENT

MOTION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

The Movant, Rachel Leatherman, comes by counsel and pursuant to CR 76.20, requests this Court to grant discretionary review of the decision of the Kentucky Court of Appeals in Leatherman v. Commonwealth, 2008-CA-0849, which was decided on January 21, 2011. The Petition for Rehearing was denied on April 12, 2011. Ms. Leatherman explains the grounds for this motion below.

THE JURISDICTIONAL FACTS

1. The Movant’s name is Rachel Leatherman. Counsel for Movant is Hon. Julia K. Pearson, Assistant Public Advocate, Department of Public Advocacy, 100 Fair Oaks Lane, Suite 302, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601.

2. The Respondent is the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Counsel for Respondent is Hon. Jack Conway, Attorney General, Commonwealth of Kentucky, Criminal Appellate Division, 1024 Capital Center Drive, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601.

3. The Court of Appeals finally disposed of Movant’s case on April 12, 2011.

4. Neither Movant nor Respondent has a Petition for Rehearing or a Motion for Reconsideration pending in the Court of Appeals. The Petition for Rehearing filed in this case was denied on April 12, 2011.

THE MATERIAL FACTS

Sometime in the evening of June 28, 2006, a man identifying himself as Vernon Wilkey, residing on Queensway Drive in Paducah, called 911 and said, “there is a lady in a dark blue looks like a Buick LeSabre. I’d say it’s a late 80s, early 90s model. And I’ve got a license plate number. But she’s out here walking around in my neighbor’s yard. . . and writing stuff down and she’d talked to him and mentioned something about tar heroin and all that stuff.” Wilkey said the woman driving the car was white and that the vehicle had Washington state plates. Wilkey testified at trial that she “didn’t seem like she was really all together there.” He did not give the 911 operator that piece of information.

McCracken County Deputy Sheriff Eddie McGuire testified at trial that he received a dispatch about a suspicious person on Queensway Drive. He thought it took fifteen to twenty minutes to arrive on scene, where he looked for a car with Washington state license plates, but was unsuccessful. At the suppression hearing, McGuire testified when he entered the Queensway Drive neighborhood, he did not check with Vernon Wilkey to obtain any additional information, such as what time Wilkey encountered the woman, whether Wilkey saw her leave in a particular direction, whether Wilkey thought she was under the influence or whether the woman had said where she was going. McGuire testified that he spoke with Wilkey and took his written statement the next day, after he had arrested Ms. Leatherman.

At trial, the deputy testified that he had just come through the Metropolis Lake intersection when he saw a car with its left turn signal flashing. McGuire admitted that he did not know how fast he was driving as he drew alongside the vehicle.

“As I was passing the vehicle, she had her left blinker on as if she was going to turn out in the passing lane, but she never did. And then as I was going to go ahead and go past her, I noticed that the license plate—it was a Washington license plate that was the description that was also given at the time of the call. So when I noticed that, I slowed down and let her go back by me and then when I pulled in behind her, she pulled over.”

After McGuire pulled in behind her, the woman pulled over to the shoulder. He thought that action was as suspicious as the woman leaving her left turn signal blinking, so he pulled over to the side and activated his emergency lights. McGuire said as he walked up to the vehicle, he noticed that the driver’s pants were unbuttoned and unzipped, but belted. Even so, Rachel Leatherman “promptly” handed her identification and proof of insurance to Deputy McGuire. He ordered her to get out of the car and stand behind it. McGuire said she had no problem getting out of the car. In fact, he said that if she had been unsteady on her feet or slurring her speech, he would have documented it in his citation.

Sometime after that, Deputy Jason Walters came to the scene. The men searched the car for contraband, but came up with nothing. Later, Officer Gretchen Dawes arrived and searched Leatherman. Before she arrived, however, McGuire testified that Leatherman had emptied her two front pockets. He could not remember whether Leatherman had buttoned her pants at any time during the automobile and personal searches.

Neither Officer Dawes nor Deputy Walters testified at the suppression hearing. However, as her testimony at trial showed, Dawes’ search was not a simple Terry pat-down. Dawes searched the inside rear pockets of Rachel Leatherman’s jeans and made her open the front of her pants so she could search Leatherman’s crotch. Dawes made Leatherman lift her shirt so she could search her breasts for concealed controlled substances. Even McGuire conceded that Dawes’s search was “thorough.”

Deputy McGuire agreed that “[u]nder the circumstances, [Dawes] was not only looking for weapons but also looking for possible drugs,” but found none. McGuire did not see Dawes search Leatherman’s back pockets, but he assumed she did so as part of that thorough search. Finally, McGuire said that en route to Lourdes Hospital, he did not see Leatherman moving in any sort of fashion to indicate that she was trying to hide something.

A thorough search by a trained police officer would presumably “sanitize” a suspect before she is handcuffed and placed into a police car. In other words, how is it possible that Rachel Leatherman held onto a baggie with rock cocaine through a search of her vehicle and her person? Officer Dawes offered her speculation at trial. She said she was told only that the deputies wanted a female officer to search a female suspect. The deputies did not tell her anything about the case such as whether she was supposed to conduct a Terry pat-down or the more thorough search incident to arrest. Interestingly, Dawes said that if she had prior knowledge that Leatherman had drugs on her person, she would have done an even more thorough search.

Deputy McGuire and the two backup officers searched Ms. Leatherman’s person and her car for about 1.25 hours. That search yielded no illegal drugs, no drug residue and no paraphernalia. Despite the fact that Leatherman had not committed a traffic violation and a PBT (Portable Breath Test) registered no alcohol, McGuire arrested her for Driving under the Influence and transported her to Lourdes Hospital for a blood draw.

Subsequent analysis found no alcohol or drugs in Leatherman’s blood.

McGuire was certain Leatherman was wearing a watch, but only thought it was on her right arm. McGuire’s story was that as he assisted her out of the car at the hospital, he noticed that Leatherman had dropped her watch and a small baggie containing a substance consistent with a rock of cocaine. He did not confront Leatherman at that time. McGuire was unsure how long the two remained at the hospital. Once he arrived at the McCracken County Jail and booked Ms. Leatherman, he ran a field test for heroin. That test came back negative.

Rachel Leatherman was charged with Possession of a Controlled Substance in the First Degree, Tampering with Physical Evidence and Driving an Automobile under the Influence. She was convicted on all three charges and sentenced to eight years.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. A trial court shall make written findings of fact and conclusions of law after holding a suppression hearing. RCr 9.78. Is it appropriate for a trial court to render findings of fact and conclusions of law after trial, using information gained at the trial, but not the suppression hearing?

The panel concluded:

Based upon the 911 call, during which the caller described a woman. . . who was committing criminal activity, and the undisputed fact that Leatherman pulled to the side of the road and stopped before Deputy McGuire activated his emergency lights, we hold that there was no constitutional violation in the investigatory stop.

Leatherman v. Commonwealth, 2011 WL 181251, *7 (Ky. App., January 21, 2011).

Walking around a neighborhood and saying the word “heroin” are not criminal acts.

The trial court’s second conclusion of law was that: “[t]he combination of a report of an unknown person, driving a Washington state licensed vehicle in a Paducah, Kentucky residential area, asking about tar heroin, later observed to signal a left turn but pull off the roadway in the right, constitutes reasonable suspicion to investigate and possibly cite for improper signal. TR 222.

The court’s third conclusion was that “[a] report of suspicious activity by a person who identifies himself by name, phone number and address is presumptively reliable.” TR 222. These conclusions came not after the suppression hearing, but after the trial.

The court should have relied only upon the information in the 911 call, not evidence it heard at trial, in order to decide whether Deputy McGuire had reasonable suspicion to stop Rachel Leatherman. United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221 (1985).

The information in the particular 911 call left a good deal to be desired. Vernon Wilkey did not tell the dispatcher that Leatherman was asking “where may I get black tar heroin” “do you have any black tar heroin” or even “does a drug dealer live in this neighborhood”? He simply told the dispatcher that she “mentioned” tar heroin. All Deputy McGuire had was a dispatch that a woman was walking around a neighborhood in McCracken County and mentioned tar heroin. McGuire admitted at the suppression hearing: “[a]t the time we responded, the only information that we had was the fact that she had come up to his house and asked about heroin.” TR 155. He admitted that he talked to Wilkey after he arrested Leatherman. Id., emphasis added. He admitted at trial that he had no idea when the woman had made contact with the neighbor (or Wilkey, for that matter). VR 4; 11/27/2006; 14:05:04.

The Fourth Amendment requires that reasonable suspicion comes only when the police believe criminal activity is currently afoot. See Joshua v. DeWitt, 341 F.3d 430, 446 (6th Cir. 2003), citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20 (1968); emphasis in original. Was the woman “asking about 218A” doing a survey for the local newspaper or television station? Doing surveys for local media is a perfectly legal action. Was she a teacher doing a survey for a local high school civics or social studies class? Doing those sorts of surveys is also a legal act. But McGuire jumped to the conclusion that Rachel Leatherman had to be committing some sort of crime because she was talking to people in a neighborhood and mentioned tar heroin. Unfortunately for McGuire, in Terry, supra, the Supreme Court made clear that the officer’s reasonable suspicion must be made from the facts and the “specific reasonable inferences he is entitled to draw from the facts in light of his experience.” 392 U.S. at 21; emphasis added. McGuire’s suspicion was not based upon reasonable inferences from the facts he had at hand.

The panel ignored United States and Kentucky Supreme Court precedent in finding those facts were enough predictive information with which Deputy McGuire could arrest Ms. Leatherman. In Florida v. J.L., Florida officers received a phone call that a young, black male who was wearing a plaid shirt and standing with two other males at a bus stop was carrying a gun. Officers arrived and found the young man wearing a plaid shirt standing at the bus stop and arrested him. The United States Supreme Court found that the tip gave police no independent reason to suspect that J.L. was up to a nefarious act. 529 U.S. 266, 274 (2000).
In Collins v. Commonwealth, this Court found that a tip claiming that a man driving a white Chevrolet Blazer with a certain license plate threw alcohol at another vehicle parked at a gas station was likewise not enough information that something criminal was afoot.

As in J.L., the tip provided in this matter contained no predictive information; rather, it consisted almost entirely of information readily available to a casual bystander, such as Appellant’s license plate number, his direction of travel, and the make and model of his vehicle. Thus, Trooper Oliver was left with no predictive information to corroborate, or other means by which to verify that the tipster had intimate knowledge of any illegal behavior. 142 S.W.3d 113, 116 (Ky. 2004).

If the panel’s Orwellian holding remains valid, the simple acts of “walking around” in a neighbor’s yard, “writing stuff down” and merely uttering the words tar and heroin, without any further indication of intent to buy or sell, then, in contravention of federal and state case law, the police are absolutely free to engage in fishing expeditions.

Moreover, any person—axe to grind or not–who gives his name and address may pick up a phone and report some “crime” and have that report be deemed reliable. That analysis flies in the face of J.L., supra; Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (1983), Hensley, supra; and Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).

“Hunch” that Rachel Leatherman possessed a controlled substance did not constitute suspicion for a stop or reasonable cause for an arrest

The trial court’s first conclusion of law was that “[t]he deputy did not conduct a stop of Defendant’s vehicle. Defendant pulled off the roadway and stopped. The deputy then pulled in behind her and activated his emergency lights so as to investigate.” TR 222. This is incorrect as a matter of law and is unsupported by the evidence.

Deputy McGuire admitted at the suppression hearing that he “was going to” stop Leatherman “anyway” when she pulled to the shoulder. TR 165. He admitted, “I suppose she assumed I was going to stop her, so she went ahead and pulled over, anyway.” He admitted that Leatherman’s actions “were a safe assumption” that he was going to stop her. TR 166; emphasis added. McGuire conceded that it was possible Leatherman had activated her turn signal, but decided against moving into the left lane when she saw the cruiser come up in her rear view mirror. VR 4; 11/27/2006; 14:15:05. McGuire had already testified that he was driving faster than the Leatherman vehicle. That Leatherman did not move to the left lane and collide with the cruiser is evidence that she noticed him coming up on her side.

Yet, McGuire, the trial court and the panel found it suspicious that Leatherman speedily obeyed the demands of KRS 189.930, which mandates that emergency vehicles are to be given the right of way, by the operator of the motor vehicle “driv[ing] to a position parallel to, and as close as possible to, the edge or curb of the highway clear of any intersection. . .”

The panel absolutely ignored Garcia v. Commonwealth, in which a member of the panel had found that the police did not have reasonable suspicion to stop a driver who “quickly changed to the right lane” as a Kentucky State Police Trooper approached the vehicle. 185 S.W.3d 658, 660-661 (Ky. App. 2006). The panel found that “Garcia’s nervousness, lane change, failure to make eye contact, ‘death grip’ on the steering wheel, and out-of-state license plate. . . . describe a substantial number of drivers on our highways.” Further, the panel said, “[i]f we were to accept the Commonwealth’s argument, ordinary law abiding citizens could be subjected to a stop by police based upon routine driving habits.” Id., at 665.

Contrast the behavior in Garcia with that in the case at bar. According to the officers in each case, both Leatherman and Garcia appeared nervous and changed lanes and had out-of-state license plates. The difference is that Leatherman driving with a turn signal blinking was somehow seen as suspicious behavior, rather than the routine (for some drivers) driving habit that it is.

Exculpatory scientific tests trumped by “glassy eyes” and an improper HGN

As a result of the panel’s opinion, exculpatory blood test results are no longer good evidence. The panel used as part of its reasoning for affirming Rachel Leatherman’s convictions that she “failed the HGN test, which reveals intoxication by alcohol or some other drug”. Even assuming arguendo that the other indicators had been present (addressed infra), McGuire improperly administered the test.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration warned police officers to position DUI suspects so that they do not face blinking cruiser lights or oncoming traffic because the lights can create a false nystagmus (optokinetic nystagmus). The field video shows McGuire positioned Rachel Leatherman facing the blinking cruiser lights and oncoming traffic. Moreover, the panel ignored the fact that Metoprolol, which Leatherman told McGuire she was taking for hypertension, can cause nystagmus. The test was neither administered properly nor documented. For the panel to rely on this so-called “failed” test in order to affirm Leatherman’s conviction is the height of arbitrariness and incorrect legal analysis.

The panel noted that his “observation of [Rachel] Leatherman’s glassy eyes and odd behavior coupled with her admission that she was taking prescription medication” was sufficient to provide Deputy McGuire with probable cause to arrest her for DUI. Leatherman, supra, at *9.

The panel absolutely ignored McGuire’s admissions that Leatherman drove in compliance with traffic laws. It even cited McGuire’s testimony that Leatherman was neither driving erratically nor weaving! Id. Leatherman produced her license and registration quickly after he asked for them. Her eyes were not watery or bloodshot. Her pupils were not pinpoint or dilated. She did not have a runny nose as is common with some cocaine users. She did not have scabs or needle marks, also common with intravenous drug users. She was not coughing or short of breath; she was not sneezing or sweating. She did not complain of nausea or chest pains. Her face was not flushed. She was alert.

Moreover, McGuire admitted at the suppression hearing that the HGN result by itself could not provide probable cause. VR 4; 11/27/2006; 14:21:45. Neither does nervous behavior.

The panel also absolutely ignored United States Supreme Court and Sixth Circuit case law which establishes that nervous, evasive behavior is the standard to justify reasonable suspicion, not simple nervousness or restlessness. Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 124, (2000); Joshua v. DeWitt, 341 F.3d 430 (6th Cir. 2003).

One need only look at several Supreme Court cases regarding drug smuggling at the United States-Mexico border to determine that evasive behavior is the key. United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 885 (1975) (“The driver’s behavior may be relevant, as erratic driving or obvious attempts to evade officers can support a reasonable suspicion.”); Florida v. Rodriguez, 469 U.S. 1, 6 (1984) (“[T]he three confederates … had spoken furtively to one another. One was twice overheard urging the others to ‘get out of here.’ Respondent’s strange movements in his attempt to evade the officers aroused further justifiable suspicion….”); United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S.1, 5, 8-9, (1989) (noting that “[Respondent] appeared to be very nervous and was looking all around the waiting area,” but that “one taking an evasive path through an airport might be seeking to avoid a confrontation with an angry acquaintance or with a creditor”).

The ultimate irony for this case is that after the hour and one-half Deputy McGuire held Rachel Leatherman on the side of the road, he found nothing illegal. The panel stated as much when it said, “consent searches of her automobile and her person did not reveal any heroin or any other illegal substance.” Leatherman, supra, 2011 WL 181251, at *7.

Effects of Clonazepam/Klonopin

As the final rung of its finding that McGuire had probable cause to arrest Ms. Leatherman for DUI, the panel cited to “the product information for Klonopin. . . .[which] states that patients taking that medication “should be cautioned about operating hazardous machinery, including automobiles, until they are reasonably certain the Klonopin therapy does not affect them adversely.” Leatherman, supra, at *9.

Unfortunately, that information is also after-acquired and not something Deputy McGuire knew at the scene. The trial court made the same error when it noted her statement that “she was taking medication that would cause her to fail the test, constitutes probable cause to arrest for DUI.” TR 222.

Moreover, the panel and the trial court absolutely ignored KSP lab tech Ryan Johnson’s testimony that Klonopin itself could cause “positive” HGN signs. VR 4; 1/22/2008; 2:59:55. The panel (and the trial court) also absolutely ignored Johnson’s testimony that even if he had the equipment to test Rachel Leatherman’s blood for the presence of Klonopin, the simple presence of the drug was not an indicator that the person was under the influence such that she could be charged with, let alone convicted of, driving under the influence of an intoxicant. Id., 3:03:36.

Conclusion

The panel ignored the facts and law of this case in affirming Rachel Leatherman’s convictions for driving under the influence. Moreover, the trial court ignored the facts and the law, including the dictates of RCr 9.38, when it used information gained from trial testimony to concoct a third set of findings of fact and conclusions of law. This Court must grant discretionary review.

2. The panel erred when it found the trial court properly granted the government’s motion in limine which prohibited defense counsel from mentioning that Rachel Leatherman asked Deputy McGuire to retrieve her watch from the backseat.

The panel found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it did not admit Leatherman’s statements to Deputy McGuire from the back of his cruiser. The panel said, “the trial court indicated that it would permit Leatherman to testify to her statement regarding the watch had she opted to take the stand in her own defense.” Leatherman, supra, at *10. That finding is inconsistent with the trial court’s ruling that Leatherman’s statements were inadmissible, self-serving hearsay. VR 1; 1/22/2008; 8:56:24.

In light of the government’s announcement that it believed “801A(b)” prevented trial counsel from broaching the subject, this Court cannot seriously believe that had Leatherman testified, “I asked Deputy McGuire to look for my watch,” the government would not have been strenuously objecting on hearsay grounds. But why should Leatherman be forced to give up her right to remain silent to an admissible statement?

The panel next found, “Leatherman did not attempt to impeach Deputy McGuire’s prior statements regarding discovery of the watch and drugs through laying a proper foundation.” Leatherman, supra, at *10. The panel ignored trial testimony. In his cross-examination, defense counsel asked Deputy McGuire:

DC: How is it that you came to find the watch?

DM: Whenever she got out of the backseat, that’s when I found it.

DC: She actually asked you about the watch, didn’t she?

VR 2; 1/22/2008; 5:40:32. The government immediately objected.

It is hard to fathom what else counsel was doing besides beginning to lay a foundation so that he could cross-examine McGuire when he was prevented from doing so by the government’s objection and the trial court sustaining it. The panel focused on Leatherman’s alleged failure to impeach McGuire to the exclusion of the impeaching material to be discovered.

It absolutely ignored just how Deputy McGuire’s testimony changed in the months between the preliminary hearing, the suppression hearing and trial. At the preliminary hearing, McGuire’s testimony was that the watch and baggie were not in plain view. In fact, he testified that he saw the baggie only when he moved the seat. TPH 11.

By the time the suppression hearing came around, the baggie and Ms. Leatherman’s watch were in plain view next to her in the back seat. VR 4; 11/27/2006; 14:25:55. Interestingly, he also said Leatherman had told him before they went into the hospital that she had dropped her watch. Id., 14:28:15. At trial, McGuire testified that as he assisted Ms. Leatherman out of the cruiser at Lourdes Hospital, he saw a baggie with what appeared to be a rock of cocaine lying underneath her watch in the seatbelt crack of the back seat. VR 2; 1/22/2008; 4:06:20.

The panel could not then—this Court cannot now—reconcile McGuire’s conflicting accounts regarding whether he saw the baggie and watch in plain view or not in plain view. McGuire had been a member of the McCracken County Sheriff’s Department for four and one-half years. VR 1; 1/22/2008; 14:08:45. Presumably, he was familiar with the meaning of the phrase “plain view.” Yet, his story about plain view progressed over the months.

Finally, the panel opined that the outcome of the case would not have been changed because of the “strength of the rest of the testimony that was introduced, including the close proximity of the watch and the drugs as well as the search of the area prior to Leatherman’s placement in the cruiser.” Leatherman, supra, at *10. It is hard to fathom how testimony which changes in material ways from preliminary hearing to trial is “strong”.

The panel absolutely ignored Gretchen Dawes’s testimony about how she searched Rachel Leatherman’s person. Prior to Dawes’s arrival, McGuire testified, Rachel Leatherman emptied her front pockets. VR 4; 11/27/2006; 14:25:36.

Dawes searched the inside rear pockets of Leatherman’s jeans and made her open the front of her pants so she could search Leatherman’s crotch. She made Leatherman lift her shirt so she could search her breasts for concealed controlled substances. TR 26. Even McGuire conceded at the suppression hearing that Dawes’s search was “thorough.” VR 4; 11/27/2006; 14:25:40.

Yet, the panel believed the impossibility that Rachel Leatherman held onto a baggie with rock cocaine through a search of her vehicle and her person. Assuming for sake of argument that Leatherman did so, where did she conceal the baggie? As was clearly seen on the dashboard camera (the recording is a part of the exhibits in the file housed with the Clerk of the Kentucky Court of Appeals), McGuire had her open her hands up together, at one time—she could not have held the baggie in one hand, then the other. Dawes opened her jeans zipper—Leatherman could not have concealed the baggie in her crotch. Dawes had her raise her blouse—Leatherman could not have concealed the baggie in her bra. The search also begs the question of how Leatherman retrieved the baggie–in handcuffs–without moving enough to make at least one of the officers suspicious.

Conclusion

The panel ignored the facts and law of this case. This Court must grant discretionary review.

CONCLUSION

The panel ignored clear precedent and the facts of this case in affirming Rachel Leatherman’s convictions. Moreover, the panel also ignored the fact that the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law changed over three iterations, one coming after it had heard all the trial testimony. Just as Deputy McGuire used after-acquired information, so, too, did the trial court. This Court must grant discretionary review.

Respectfully submitted,

JULIA K. PEARSON

NOTICE

Please take notice that the foregoing Motion for Discretionary Review will be filed in the Office of the Clerk of the Supreme Court on this 17th day of June 2011.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and accurate copy of the foregoing Motion for Discretionary Review has been mailed, postage paid, to Hon. Jack Conway, Attorney General, 1024 Capital Center Drive, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601 and Hon. Samuel Givens, Jr., Clerk of the Court of Appeals, 360 Democrat Drive, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601, this 17th day of June 2011.

Julia K. Pearson


The Curious Case of the Three Suppression Orders (Part 3)

December 9, 2011

This music is fitting for this post ( and the FG legal case). You can simply click on the video and then read the post. You do not have to watch the video.

Part 1

Part 2

The Curious Case of the Three Suppression Orders (Part 3)

Author’s Note: Judge Clymer surprised us with a third suppression order that he issued out of the blue 3 days after the trial concluded. He did not inform us that he was considering modifying his second order and he did not schedule a hearing, request any input or allow any discussion or objections. He simply mailed it out as one might do with a letter bomb.

The order consists of the judge’s personal opinions set forth as findings of fact in a transparent effort to strengthen his order denying suppression by making stuff up and characterizing it as “unusual, suspicious, and disturbing,” even though Deputy McGuire never uttered those words at the suppression hearing. He even uses the word appellant, instead of defendant, obviously anticipating an appeal.

During my 30 years representing clients charged with felonies in state and federal courts, I never had a case in which a judge did this and I never heard of a case in which a judge did something like this.

3. The Third Suppression Order Issued Post-Trial on January 28, 2008.

In his third suppression order, the supplemental suppression order, Judge Clymer modified his first finding of fact in the second order (that correctly quoted what the caller reported to 911) by eliminating the quote and replacing it with the following statement.

The 911 dispatcher received a call from an identified public citizen, Vernon Wilkey, who reported that a white female driving a dark blue LeSabre with Washington State license plates made unusual and disturbing statements about heroin in his neighborhood.

(Finding of Fact 1)

Finding of Fact 2 states,

911 called deputies, and alerted them to the woman, her vehicle, and her suspicious drug activity.

Finding of Fact 3 characterizes the appellant’s driving and states,

The vehicle was travelling slowly in the right traffic lane of Highway 60 with the left-turn signal activated for an unusually long time for no apparent reason. The vehicle did not turn left, but continued on straight, which all appeared unusual and suspicious to the deputy.

Finding of Fact 4 (mis-numbered as a second 3) states,

The vehicle then pulled to the right side of the road and stopped without any signaling to do so by the deputy. This demonstrated additional unusual behavior by the appellant. The deputy then pulled in behind the appellant’s vehicle and activated his roadstop lights. By the time the deputy stopped, he had reasonable grounds and reasonable suspicion to approach the driver. He exited his cruiser and walked to speak to the driver.

Finding of Fact 5 (mis-numbered as 4) states in part,

The appellant failed all HGN tests. She also gave unusual responses to instructions given to her by the deputy; she appeared somewhat confused; she appeared nervous; and she appeared to the deputy to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

Finding of Fact 6 (mis-numbered as 5) states,

The appellant admitted to the deputy that she was on a number of medications, including Clonazepam. Clonazepam is a strong anti-psychotic medication which interferes with motor performance, including driving a motor vehicle. Clonazepam also causes abnormal eye movements.

Finding of Fact 7 (mis-numbered as 6) states,

The deputy had reasonable grounds and probable cause to arrest the appellant for DUI.

Finding of Fact 8 (mis-numbered as 7) states,

The appellant was transported to the hospital for the taking of a blood test. At the hospital a suspicious baggie was found next to the appellant’s watch in the back seat of the deputy’s patrol car. The deputy knew that the patrol cruiser did not have the suspicious plastic baggie or a watch before the appellant was placed into the back seat. The appellant admitted losing her watch. The deputy had probable cause and exigent reasons to seize the baggie. The baggie appeared to contain crack cocaine. The deputy had probable cause to arrest the appellant for tampering with evidence and possession of cocaine.

Conclusion of Law 1:

The caller who reported the appellant’s unusual interest in heroin was identified. Such a report is considered more reliable than an anonymous tip.

Conclusion of Law 2:

The deputy had reasonable suspicion and probable cause to make an investigation stop and search of the appellant and her vehicle.

Conclusion of Law 3:

Discovery of the suspicious plastic baggie in the back seat of the deputy’s cruiser was based on plain view discovery. The appellant and her vehicle had previously been detained based on the circumstances described above which proceeded (sic) the discovery of the baggie.

Author’s Note: We have previously discussed Deputy McGuire’s testimony under oath at the preliminary hearing in which he said he found the rock of crack under his rear seat while he was looking for Crane-Station’s watch that she had asked him to retrieve for her.

I was confident that the Court of Appeals would reverse on the suppression issue in this”unusual, suspicious, and disturbing” case, but it did not, and that is when I lost hope for an honest and judicious review of her case.

If this could happen to Crane-Station, it can happen to you. We are all lost when our judicial system ceases to function.


The Curious Case of the Three Suppression Orders (Part 2)

December 8, 2011

Author’s note: In case y’all missed it or want to refresh your recollection, Part 1 is here.

Deputy McGuire testified at the suppression hearing that he was dispatched by 911 to investigate a call by a citizen who reported that, “There’s this lady walking around in my neighbor’s yard talking to my neighbor and writing stuff down in a notebook and she mentioned something about tar heroin and all that stuff.”

The caller identified himself and described the woman and her vehicle. He also reported that the vehicle had a WA license and provided the number. He did not indicate if he had spoken with the woman; if he was present when the conversation took place; who told him about it if he was not present; or what she was writing down.

When he arrived in the area, the deputy searched for but he did not find the woman or the vehicle and he cleared the call without talking to the 911 caller. As he was approaching the traffic-controlled Cairo Road intersection in the passing lane on Highway 60, he noticed that he was passing a vehicle with its left turn signal blinking. The vehicle had WA plates and both the driver and the vehicle matched the description provided by the caller. He decided to pull her over and investigate.

He slowed down, allowing her to move ahead, and then he fell in directly behind her. She reacted by activating her right turn signal and moved over into the emergency lane along the right shoulder of the highway. As she did, he activated his emergency lights, moved over with her, and stopped behind her.

Upon request, she produced her license, registration, and proof of insurance without difficulty.

When he ordered her to get out of her vehicle, she did so without stumbling, and she followed his instructions without exhibiting any confusion or mental impairment. Other than “glassy” eyes and nervousness, he saw no signs of possible impairment. He administered a portable breath test (PBT) that she passed, effectively ruling out alcohol intoxication. Although she “failed all six clues” on the horizontal gaze nystagmus test (HGN), he administered the test improperly, according to the National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration (NHTSA) because he positioned her facing the headlights of oncoming traffic and his patrol cruiser’s emergency lights. NHTSA, which developed the test, warns police not to do that because the lights produce a false nystagmus.

The deputy conceded that he did not witness any bad driving and her blinking left-turn signal could have been due to her intending to move into the left lane, but his approaching vehicle in that lane prevented her from doing so.

After he placed her under arrest for DUI, he transported her to a hospital for a blood draw and discovered an apparent rock of crack next to her watch in the seatbelt crack of his back seat next to where she was sitting.

Author’s note: In another post we discussed his prior testimony under oath at the preliminary hearing and the grand jury in which he said he found her watch and the rock of crack under his back seat. In other words, he did not find it in plain view on the seat beside her. He said he pulled the back seat forward to look for her watch after she told him that it had fallen off and slipped behind the seat. She asked him to retrieve it because she was handcuffed and could not do it herself.

The trial judge entered three suppression orders.

1. The First Order.

On January 11, 2007, Judge Clymer issued his first order denying the motion to suppress evidence. Although all of the material findings of fact and conclusions of law were clearly erroneous, one finding of fact and its corresponding conclusion of law merit special consideration. In Finding of Fact 5, Judge Clymer wrote,

When Defendant first exited the [her] vehicle the Deputy observed a wristwatch in close proximity to a baggie with apparent controlled substance inside the car. Defendant denied the apparent controlled substance was hers but acknowledged the wristwatch was hers.

This did not inspire confidence as one can only wonder how the judge forgot or became confused and thought that the rock of crack was discovered in her vehicle rather than the police cruiser.

Not to worry, we thought. We pointed out that and other errors and asked him to reconsider his order, which he agreed to do.

2. The Second Order

On January 18, 2008, Judge Clymer entered his second order concerning the defense suppression motion. He found that while driving “in a right hand traffic lane with her left turn signal activated, [the appellant] did not turn but pulled to the right side of the roadway and stopped.” (Finding of Fact 3) “The deputy pulled in behind the stopped vehicle and activated his emergency lights.” (Finding of Fact 4) He concluded that the arresting officer “did not conduct a stop of the appellant’s vehicle” because she “pulled off the roadway and stopped” before “he pulled in behind her and turned on his emergency lights so as to investigate.” (Conclusion of Law 1)

Author’s note: We have already discussed whether this was an investigatory stop initiated by a police officer or a voluntary citizen initiated contact with a police officer. This was an investigatory stop.

Judge Clymer also concluded that “[t]he combination of a report of an unknown person, driving a Washington state licensed vehicle in a Paducah, Kentucky residential area, asking about tar heroin, later observed to signal a left turn but pull off the roadway to the right, constitutes reasonable suspicion to investigate and possibly cite for improper signal.” (Conclusion of Law 2)

Author’s note: A person who calls 911 to report a possible crime is presumed to have provided reliable information if he identifies himself and provides a current address. Since the caller in this case provided the requisite information, he would be presumed to have provided reliable information. However, even if one assumes that his information was accurate and reliable, he did not describe criminal activity. In addition, the judge’s findings of fact conflict with the information provided by the caller and the deputy’s testimony, which described an alert driver operating her motor vehicle in compliance with the traffic laws. He could not have cited her for “improper signal” because no such statute exists. Since the information provided by the presumptively reliable caller and the deputy described lawful activity, the judge erroneously concluded that the deputy had a reasonable suspicion “to investigate and possibly cite for improper signal.”

Regarding the appellant’s arrest, he found as fact that the appellant admitted that she had taken several prescription medications, including Clonazepam. (Finding of Fact 6) He also found that “[t]he maker of Clonazepam warns that it should not be used when driving a vehicle and that the drug causes abnormal eye movements.” (Finding of Fact 7) He concluded, “[d]efendants inquiring about heroin, failing an HGN test, signaling a left turn and pulling off the road to the right, and stating she was taking medication that would cause her to fail the test, constitutes probable cause to arrest for DUI.” (Conclusion of Law 4).

Author’s note: We have already discussed the HGN and Clonazepam issues noting that the product insert does not warn “that it should not be used when driving a vehicle and that the drug causes abnormal eye movements.” It advises physicians to warn their patients for whom they first prescribe Clonazepam to be careful because the drug might cause drowsiness and impair their ability to operate a motor vehicle or other machinery. If that happens, the dosage can be lowered to avoid impairment. This is actually a common warning given for many drugs that are prescribed to improve functioning. Clonazepam is such a drug and it is prescribed to enhance function by reducing anxiety and to control seizures. Dosage is critical. Assuming the judge was honest, the rest of the finding establishes that he was thinking of a different case when he crafted this effort.

To be continued.


The Curious Case of the Three Suppression Orders

November 23, 2011

Author’s note: This diary is part of the Frog Gravy legal case and will be posted in three parts beginning today and ending on Thursday, which is Thanksgiving. In this part I explain basic pretrial legal procedure that is common in criminal cases. Specifically, I explain suppression hearings, which most of you probably have heard about, but might not know some of the finer details. This information will be helpful to understanding the incredibly bizarre events that followed; events that will be the subject of the next two parts. Now, get comfortable, buckle your sealtbelt, and get ready for your ride down the rabbit hole.

If you have not already done so, I recommend you watch the embedded video, in which a 16-year-old white girl is ordered to stand trial for murder as a 300-pound black man, to get yourself in the proper frame of mind. And, now here is The Curious Case of the Three Suppression Orders

The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. The exclusionary rule prohibits the prosecution from using evidence against a defendant, if that evidence was seized by police in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

A suppression hearing is a pretrial hearing in which a defendant asks the court to suppress evidence that the prosecution intends to introduce at trial against the defendant. If the court grants the request and orders the evidence suppressed, the prosecution is prohibited from introducing it or referring to it during the trial.

Suppression hearings are held before trial to resolve legal issues relating to the admissibility of evidence allegedly seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment, because in many cases, especially drug cases, the prosecution would be unable to try the case, if the court were to order the evidence suppressed. If that were to happen, the prosecution would be forced to dismiss the case and there would be no need for a trial.

Normally, a court issues a written order granting or denying the motion to suppress and sets forth findings of fact and conclusions of law that support the order. Findings of fact, as the term implies, are findings regarding what happened. They are the facts of the case upon which the conclusions of law must be based.

For example, let us suppose that Archie testified that a traffic light was green and Gillian testified that it was red. Whether the light was green or red would be a disputed fact and the judge would have to find as fact one or the other. If both witnesses agreed that the light was red, that would be an undisputed fact and the judge would have to find as fact that the light was red.

Normally, there is only one suppression order and it is entered before the scheduled trial date. Usually, the prevailing party drafts the order and provides opposing counsel with a copy. If opposing counsel agrees to the proposed order, the trial court will enter it as an agreed order without a hearing, unless the judge wants to change something. When that happens, the judge will schedule a hearing to finalize the order. The prosecutor, defense counsel, and the defendant appear for the hearing, hash out their differences, and the judge makes a final ruling. In other words, the process is transparent and ex parte contact with the judge (by one lawyer without the other present) is prohibited.

When suppression orders are appealed, the appellate courts review challenged findings of fact to determine if they are “clearly erroneous.” That is, unsupported by any evidence. Appellate courts uniformly refuse to second-guess a trial court’s challenged finding of fact, as long as there is some evidence to support it, even if the appellate judges might personally disagree with the trial court. Their reluctance to second-guess the trial court is based on the well-founded notion that they are not in as good a position to judge witness credibility since they were not present when the witness testified.

Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. That is, they are reviewed anew without any deference to the trial court.

Crane-Station’s lawyer filed a motion, which is a formal request, to suppress all of the evidence seized by police after she was pulled over while driving down the highway and arrested for driving under the influence of drugs. Her lawyer argued for suppression on the grounds that:

1. The stop violated the Fourth Amendment because police pulled her over without a reasonable suspicion to believe that she had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime; and even if they did have a reasonable suspicion;

2. The subsequent arrest violated the Fourth Amendment because police lacked probable cause to believe that she had committed a crime.
The suppression hearing took place on November 27, 2006. Only one witness testified, Deputy Eddie McGuire of the McCracken County Sheriff’s Department.

We have already recounted his testimony in some detail and will not repeat it here, except to briefly summarize and note that there were no disputed facts, since he was the only witness who testified. Therefore, it should have been relatively easy for a sentient being, especially an educated judge who took an oath to uphold the Constitution and impartially follow the law, to come up with a set of findings of fact that were supported by the evidence.

Alas, it was not to be.

To be continued

Cross posted at Firedoglake/MyFDL and the Smirking Chimp.


%d bloggers like this: