Bad Experience with Carmel PD

[E5RANGER375]

There is one unfortunate reality of modern life that hasn't been addressed here yet.

One very chilling statement made here sums up what this entire thing has been about from the beginning:

"Even if the dogs were vicious, I could have convinced the judge that they weren't."

Think about that for a minute...if that statement doesn't freeze the blood of any patriot in his veins, nothing will.

Mark this down and don't forget it: It is NOT the job of a prosecutor to seek justice; it is the job of a prosecutor to GET CONVICTIONS!

If the defendant is guilty, fine. But if a guilty defendant isn't available, an innocent one will do nicely, just as long as it gets the prosecutor's office another win.

We have a rare opportunity here. We are actually witnessing an officer of the court readily admitting that even if he knows that a statement made by a defendant is absolutely true, he will attempt to convince the judge that it is not true (in my particular case by encouraging perjured testimony) if such a twisting of the truth will help him win! The guilt or innocence of the defendant is completely irrelevant.

Can there be a more accurate definition of corruption and tyranny than this?

Not long after I reached the rank of lieutenant in Cincinnati, I committed a crime so heinous and so outrageous that for the next seven years the main priority of the Cincinnati Police Administration was to get rid of me.

What was this crime?

I testified, in my official capacity, for the defense in a criminal trial! My superiors went stark raving mad.

Cincinnati had passed a typically unconstitutional "assault" rifle ban and were champing at the bit for an arrest under the ordinance. They found one, a young black man from the ghetto who owned a GI carbine inherited from his father. No one would care about a young, black, poor and powerless gunowner from the ghetto, right?

What my superiors didn't realize was that in the Second Amendment Community there is no litmus test of power or prestige to be a gunowner, and there is no racism.

The young man's attorney knew nothing of the technical issues of the case and appealed to the gun community for advice. They referred him to me.

I assisted the attorney in his case preparation and testified in the case.

The young man was acquitted on all charges. The city had lost its much vaunted test case, because of my testimony. My superiors were furious.

I was actually brought up on departmental charges of "Failure of Good Behavior" for responding to a subpoena and giving truthful sworn testimony in a court of law.

How could you do such a thing? Don't you know the police department supports this law to take guns out of the hands of citizens? It's your JOB to support our efforts to do this!

No, I replied. It's not my job. I didn't swear an oath to support the city council, or the police chief. I swore an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Police chiefs come and they go...the people we're sworn to protect are always there.

There it was again. I was not supposed to seek justice. I was supposed to help the prosecution. And If I possessed information that would prove the innocence of a defendant, it was my job to keep my damned mouth shut.

Never forget that a prosecutor is perfectly willing to utterly destroy you and your family for nothing more important than another mark in the "win" column.

well now maybe this prosecutors words will come back to bite him one day! Liberty you hit it on the head. You Sir are an honorable man and its an Honor and a privilege to have you among us as a true Patriot!

 

[Liberty Sanders]

You have a way with words. You might have missed your calling as an author.



Yeah, I hadn't commented on that, but I didn't like the sounds of it. However, based on what I heard in the courtroom, I doubt he could have convinced the judge of that. It seems to me he tried and failed.

I thought the whole "sweet puppies" thing was laughable, anyway. I have seen lots of dogs who acted very aggressively toward one person one minute, and then docile the next. Dogs don't understand warning shots, but they instinctively read body language and act based on that. Heck, I have a lab who cowers at the sight of stuffed animals that make noise, but will stand his ground and growl at guys in hats. They're not always predictable, even to their owners.

You remember when my attorney asked me about encounters with vicious dogs when I was on the job, and I told him that I would stare them down?

The folk wisdom that I've always heard is to never make eye contact with a mean dog, but it almost always worked for me. I'd also growl back at them, but I refrained from mentioning that particular tidbit in court.

One day one of my troops got a call to investigate a vicious dog that had gotten into someone's fenced yard. I was close by and I always covered my guy's butts whenever I could, so I responded with him.

The homeowner called to us that there was a mean Rottweiler in his side yard that had chased him into the house. Joe and I went to the side yard. The mutt was in a far corner, and the instant that I was framed in the gate in the fence, he spied me and charged me like a locomotive.

I could see that this was one time that my usual bull**** tactics weren't going to work.

I had barely enough time to throw down, and just as he was almost on me and I was about to launch a .38 Special +P+ up one of his nostrils he literally skidded to a stop, like Wile E. Coyote in a Road Runner cartoon. We were literally muzzle to muzzle, with HIS muzzle curiously sniffing MY muzzle. He then turned and walked calmly back into the yard as if nothing had happened.

Without turning around, I said "Joe, I think I have him buffaloed. Joe? JOE???

I turned around. My cop (who I quickly learned was deathly afraid of dogs) had run down the hill, across the street, jumped into his police car...AND LOCKED THE DOORS!!!

In his fervor to escape, the fact that Rottweilers don't have thumbs had slipped his mind. I laughed until tears rolled down my face.

Right then a young man on a 10 speed came rolling down the street and asked us if we'd seen a Rottweiler. I directed to him to his pet and explained that he had come very near to needing a snow shovel to take the mutt's brains home with him. I sent man and dog on their merry way.

 

[inav8r]

Never forget that a prosecutor is perfectly willing to utterly destroy you and your family for nothing more important than another mark in the "win" column.

^ This.

Probably the most important point discussed in this thread.

 

[38special]

(On lunch break.)
Even in this case, had we not prosecuted, and LS went postal, we'd have the same problem. Not that I think he will, just saying that we make the decision based on the information we have at the time, and the rest sorts itself out.

Oh, and people should only fear the natural consequences of free speech. Say something stupid, be prepared at some later date to have the stupidity revealed. Just be prepared to stand by what you say, just like LS did.
)

Kind of insulting to imply that a retired officer who used a gun in self defense against an attacking dog would suddenly go postal.

There is one unfortunate reality of modern life that hasn't been addressed here yet.

One very chilling statement made here sums up what this entire thing has been about from the beginning:

"Even if the dogs were vicious, I could have convinced the judge that they weren't."

Yeah - that stood out to me immediately.

Also interesting, T.Lex / Thomas Perkins seems to still have his head high in arrogant ignorance. He lost this case miserably, openly admits that he could have convinced a judge of things he knows are LIES (though that doesn't seem to be the case - based on the outcome), and still he sits with his head high as if he's done something good.

Integrity? I don't see an ounce of integrity here.

Also interesting that he thinks using Google makes him some kind of investigative jedi.

Found your new lawyer firm because I'm "just that good" with typing names into Google.

Frost Brown Todd - Lawyers - Thomas D. Perkins


I hope someone prints this thread, and shows it to the judge in his next case citing his apparent approval of lying in open court to the judge.

Bet that'll go over well. Hey, T.Lex, "Say something stupid, be prepared at some later date to have the stupidity revealed. Just be prepared to stand by what you say."

 

[Benny]

Someone needs to print all of this out(like Mrs. Lex did) before it gets edited.

 

[CarmelHP]

You know, I know this isn't a criminal case as 3.8 contemplates but maybe you should go back through the comments to the special duties of a prosecutor section of the rules of professional responsibility before you go on the web bragging about your ability to deceive judges.



Maybe your should brush up on your candor before the tribunal part as well.

No wonder so many people hate lawyers and prosecutors. You can't even meet a "more likely than not standard" and you are here with a bunch of PC reason you needed to try this? I'm really at a loss here.

Joe

Fargo, I'd rep you again if I could. You hit the nail on the head.

 

[T.Lex]

Wow - I knew this place would generally be unwelcoming, but such intense personal hostility is surprising.

Everyone is welcome here on INGO and should feel comfortable being associated with this site.

Anyway, let me address a few specific things:
If I had done anything unfair (in the legal sense) there were 2 other attorneys in that proceeding that could have stopped me. They didn't.

@ Fargo - IRE 616 Bias of Witness

For the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, evidence of bias, prejudice, or interest of the witness for or against any party to the case is admissible.

There's a bunch of caselaw on that, too, if you're interested.

We can go into statements of a party opponent not being hearsay, too, if you want, but I'd rather not turn this into any more of a law school seminar than it already is.

Also, I did not, and would not, present perjured testimony. I don't need to. Which raises another point: ain't no way on God's green earth that either I or that officer would sacrifice our careers over LS. Just. Not. Gonna. Happen. Officers, particularly CPD officers, know that if they get caught 1 time doing something like that, they are done.

I am also surprised about the narrow-mindedness here in terms of one side must be telling the truth and the other side must be lying. The truth is the truth. But, in this world, it is always filtered through human senses and brains, which are imperfect recording media.

Both the officer and LS were telling the truth as they knew it to be. The lawyers presented it. The judge decided it.

And indeed, while not a criminal prosecutor as contemplated in that rule cited above, I did (and do) comply with it. I am absolutely comfortable that my prosecution of this case was well within the fair side of that (and every) rule.

Whenever I "lose" (and often, even when I "win"), I try to improve. That's why I'm a good attorney. In this case, I should've presented more evidence from the animal control officer about the behavior of "vicious" dogs. I could've done a better job of presenting evidence that the dog was not in "attack mode."

Now, that doesn't make LS a liar, or even mean that I necessarily would've won the case. As the judge made clear, the self defense law depends heavily on the subjective judgment of the person claiming self defense. Even if I prove the dog wasn't vicious, it still doesn't mean I win. LS could still have proven that he THOUGHT the dog was vicious. In that case, the judge probably still would've found in his favor.

Now that ya'all know where I work, if you ever need an attorney, look me up. I can probably come up with some sort of discounted rate for INGO members. Now that I'm in private practice, I was planning on getting more involved in the gun rights advocacy stuff, anyway.

Take care.

 

[Fargo]

Mark this down and don't forget it: It is NOT the job of a prosecutor to seek justice; it is the job of a prosecutor to GET CONVICTIONS!

If the defendant is guilty, fine. But if a guilty defendant isn't available, an innocent one will do nicely, just as long as it gets the prosecutor's office another win....



...There it was again. I was not supposed to seek justice. I was supposed to help the prosecution. And If I possessed information that would prove the innocence of a defendant, it was my job to keep my damned mouth shut.

Never forget that a prosecutor is perfectly willing to utterly destroy you and your family for nothing more important than another mark in the "win" column.

Now Liberty, don't you think that is a bit overbroad? T Lex here isn't even sworn prosecutor, he is a contract attorney for the city attorney's office; basically a hired gun that Carmel uses to prosecute ordinance violations and nothing more. He isn't even an employee of or controlled by the Hamilton County prosecutor's office.

While there certainly are some prosecutor's who are willing to engage in unethical and end-justifies-the-means type prosecution, it is far from the entire profession. I know some of the local prosecutors here followed your case in the news and the ones I spoke to were unanimously in support of you.

I recently saw a trial where a police off icer gave a non-responsive answer to a question asked by the prosecutor. Basically, he added derogatory comments the defendant had made about the judge into an answer to a question that was unrelated to that info. Does this mean I should now say:

Mark this down and don't forget it: It is NOT the job of the police to seek justice; it is the job of the police to GET CONVICTIONS!

The position of prosecutor is not evil in itself. As I noted in my above post, prosecutors have a special duty to seek justice. Just like any other job, it will only be as good as the person who fills it. In Indiana, the prosecutor is an elected position. I encourage "the People" to make sure they choose a good person to fill it.

Best,

Joe

 

[phatgemi]

Remember the story:

[FONT=Verdana, Arial]One day, there was this lawyer who had just bought a new car, and he was eager to show it off to his colleagues, when all of a sudden an eighteen wheeler came out of nowhere and took of the driver's side door with him standing right there. "NOOO!" he screamed, because he knew that no matter how good a mechanic tried to fix it, it never would be the same. Finally, a cop came by, and the lawyer ran up to him yelling. "MY JAGUAR DOOR WAS JUST RUINED BY SOME FOOLISH DRIVER!!!" he exclaimed. "Your a lawyer aren't you?" asked the policeman. "Yes, I am, but what does this have to do with my car?!?!" the lawyer asked. "HA! Your lawyers are always so materialistic. All you care about is your possessions. I bet you didn't even notice that your left arm is missing did you?" the cop said. The lawyer looked down at his side and exclaimed "MY ROLEX!"[/FONT]

 

[4sarge]

Fargo, I'd rep you again if I could. You hit the nail on the head.

I rep'd him for you. I do not have your clout but it's the thought that counts

This whole unfortunate incident has been a travesty of justice and shows the imbalance that has occurred between the community and those who police us (police & prosecutor) A little Common Sense and Reasonableness will go a long way in restoring faith in the system. Every major rebuke of abuse of power by the police or persecutor results in legislation or judicial decision limiting their power to enforce. Many times We (the police) are Our Own Worst Enemies.

 

[Fargo]

Anyway, let me address a few specific things:
If I had done anything unfair (in the legal sense) there were 2 other attorneys in that proceeding that could have stopped me. They didn't.

@ Fargo - IRE 616 Bias of Witness


There's a bunch of caselaw on that, too, if you're interested.

IRE 616 requires that the bias be for or against a party. The judge of the Carmel City Court was a party to this action how? Unless he is working for the prosecution or defense, that dog doesn't hunt. If he is, then you have much bigger problems...

We can go into statements of a party opponent not being hearsay, too, if you want, but I'd rather not turn this into any more of a law school seminar than it already is.

Just because something isn't hearsay or is excepted from the prohibitions on hearsay doesn't make it automatically admissible.

From what I see here, you prosecuted a case where:

1. The prosecution had no witnesses with a 1sthand sense impression of the events.
2. The prosecution had no witnesses to how the dog was behaving at the time of the attack.
3. The defendant had called the incident in to the police.
4. The defendant had a sterling reputation and hadn't previously been causing trouble.
5. The backbone of your case was built on recollections of admissible hearsay by a person not present for the event.

You were willing to prosecute that case knowing there were multiple defense witnesses that were there.

Here is a thought, if EVERYONE who was present is testifying for the defense, you might want to reconsider why you are prosecuting a case.

Joe

 

[CarmelHP]

For the purpose of attacking the credibility of a witness, evidence of bias, prejudice, or interest of the witness for or against any party to the case is admissible. There's a bunch of caselaw on that, too, if you're interested.

The judge isn't a party to the case. He's an impartial trier of fact and law. Attempts to deliberately prejudice the judge are not acceptable.

 

[Expat]

Fargo, I'd rep you again if I could. You hit the nail on the head.

I rep'd him for you. I do not have your clout but it's the thought that counts

I got him.

 

[T.Lex]

And the judge of the Carmel City Court was a party to this action how? Unless he is working for the prosecution or defense, that dog doesn't hunt. If he is, then you have much bigger problems...

Judge Poindexter is good, as all good judges are, about letting attorneys know if they want something cut off.

He can also be rather activist if there's stuff he doesn't want to hear. He doesn't mind telling attorneys to move on, although he rarely has to in the absence of an objection.

(Edit - forgot to address the other point, that bias against Carmel is bias against Carmel. The comment I quoted from LS suggested that CPD and the Court work in concert. It was fair evidence of his bias against the City and its agencies.)

Just because something isn't hearsay or is excepted from the prohibitions on hearsay doesn't make it automatically admissible.

Indeed - but I cited the rule that made it admissible, but you are apparently ignoring it.

<shrug>

From what I see here, you prosecuted a case where:

1. The prosecution had no witnesses with a 1sthand sense impression of the events.

Not particularly rare. Police generally arrive at a scene AFTER the actions have taken place.

Plus, I count LS as a witness for my case, too. Strategically, I really only needed him to establish the points I wanted to make.

2. The prosecution had no witnesses to how the dog was behaving at the time of the attack.

Except for LS.

3. The defendant had called the incident in to the police.

Not particularly compelling evidence, but it was admitted.

4. The defendant had a sterling reputation and hadn't previously been causing trouble.

How did you manage to miss the rules on reputation and character evidence?

Plus, the officer had never met LS before and had no reason to know of his reputation - good or bad. Generally, someone's good reputation is no more compelling than someone's bad reputation. Good people make mistakes sometimes, it doesn't mean they are not guilty.

5. The backbone of your case was built on recollections of admissible hearsay by a person not present for the event.

And LS's testimony.

In any litigation, you play the hand you are dealt.

Here is a thought, if EVERYONE who was present is testifying for the defense, you might want to reconsider why you are trying a case.

It is a little bit late by that point - we are already in trial!

Plus, it isn't about how many witnesses are on each side. That certainly isn't justice.

It is about presenting the human-filtered testimony of any relevant witness (and any other evidence that might be available) and waiting for the judgment.

 

[Fargo]

Judge Poindexter is good, as all good judges are, about letting attorneys know if they want something cut off.

He can also be rather activist if there's stuff he doesn't want to hear. He doesn't mind telling attorneys to move on, although he rarely has to in the absence of an objection.


Indeed - but I cited the rule that made it admissible, but you are apparently ignoring it.

<shrug>

No, I'm not ignoring it. The rule you cited allows evidence of bias for or against a party. You introduced evidence of bias against the judge of the Carmel city court. The judge is not a party to the proceeding. IRE 616 does not allow bias evidence against a non-party.

I don't know how to spell this out any more simply for you.

How did you manage to miss the rules on reputation and character evidence?

I didn't, my point was directed toward your decision to prosecute, not presentation of evidence.

Plus, the officer had never met LS before and had no reason to know of his reputation - good or bad. Generally, someone's good reputation is no more compelling than someone's bad reputation. Good people make mistakes sometimes, it doesn't mean they are not guilty.

ID.

In any litigation, you play the hand you are dealt.

Hmmmm, I thought that rule 3.8, which you claim to follow, makes it pretty clear that there are hands you need to fold as a prosecutor. That whole "minister of justice" bit.

It is a little bit late by that point - we are already in trial!

Yeah, and you chose to try it knowing all that. Plus, a motion to dismiss is not foreclosed by a trial beginning.

Plus, it isn't about how many witnesses are on each side. That certainly isn't justice.

It is about presenting the human-filtered testimony of any relevant witness (and any other evidence that might be available) and waiting for the judgment.

I thought prosecution was about meeting your burden of proof on all elements with admissible evidence. I thought it was about seeking justice/truth.

I know the first didn't happen and I'm having a really hard time seeing how the second happened here either.

Joe

 

[T.Lex]

I cannot and will not divulge the specific privileged conversations about the decision not to dismiss this case.

However, I will point out 2 things:
1) That the officer did not witness the event is unusual for ordinance violations (usually speeding, not stopping at stop signs, etc.) but certainly not unusual for prosecutions generally. Likewise, the fact that the officer has one version and the defendant has another version is not particularly unique. Neither of those compel dismissal.

2) The undisputed facts support prosecution: LS shot his gun inside City limits and that he was not shooting at the threat that he perceived. As the hypothetical conversation I posted last night points out, the failure to issue a citation is more absurd than issuing one.

There is significant gray area - especially in self defense cases. They are examined on a case-by-case basis. It was entirely appropriate to let the judge make the decision.

Methinks you and I will have to agree to disagree. When you have to make the decision in several hundred cases a year (the vast majority of which are pretty straightforward, of course), then you may have more insight.

The decision to prosecute was taken seriously.

 

[Roadie]

 

[Fargo]

I cannot and will not divulge the specific privileged conversations about the decision not to dismiss this case.

However, I will point out 2 things:
1) That the officer did not witness the event is unusual for ordinance violations (usually speeding, not stopping at stop signs, etc.) but certainly not unusual for prosecutions generally. Likewise, the fact that the officer has one version and the defendant has another version is not particularly unique. Neither of those compel dismissal.

2) The undisputed facts support prosecution: LS shot his gun inside City limits and that he was not shooting at the threat that he perceived. As the hypothetical conversation I posted last night points out, the failure to issue a citation is more absurd than issuing one.

There is significant gray area - especially in self defense cases. They are examined on a case-by-case basis. It was entirely appropriate to let the judge make the decision.

Methinks you and I will have to agree to disagree. When you have to make the decision in several hundred cases a year (the vast majority of which are pretty straightforward, of course), then you may have more insight.

The decision to prosecute was taken seriously.

And rule 616?

 

[Pocketman]

100s of posts on this forum and others; news stories; bad feelings toward CPD - for what purpose?

I once watched another officer shoot a dog in the line of duty. I've never fired a warning shot, nor have I attempted to scare a vicious dog with a shot into the ground. (We won't talk about the cat encountered in the dark during prowler call.) I've never cited anyone for firing a weapon inside the city limits. Point is, I do not have a dog in this fight (no pun intended), but can't help but wonder how the time and expense (Carmel's and Liberty's) of prosecuting this incident benefited the community.

Officer should have warned Liberty about shooting in the city, filed a report and then moved on. Perhaps this is the benefit from what's transpired.

 

[T.Lex]

Once the decision to try the case is made, my job is to do the best I can.

Rule 616 allows LS's statements from this thread.