Oh No! Not Again!

O.K. In a most unusual happening, we have a post conviction case where the Jackson County Prosecutor appeared to have actually provided all discovery. Well, everything except what they say they don't have to provide.

We have this ongoing dispute, or actually a few disputes. In this case, the prosecutor cut a deal with a co-defendant. Jackson County Prosecutors think that it is O.K. to cut a deal and not tell anyone until the deal is done: I'll give a witness probation, but it's not a done deal until probation is given, so they claim they don't have to disclose the deal.

Or, the prosecutor sits in on a deposition of a witness taken in a co-defendant's case. So, there is a statement under oath by a state's witness, but the prosecutors think they don't have to disclose that.

ANYWAY, in this post conviction case, other than not disclosing a deal and not providing a deposition of a witness, the assistant prosecutor had apparently done pretty well.

The prosecutor had actually provided a list of witnesses with convictions!!! Now, of course, that is required by Supreme Court Rule, but in Jackson County the prosecutors just ignore that little detail. Even though the Missouri Supreme Court, in Merriweather v. State, said that the failure to provide convictions is a due process violation and automatic reversal, it is still something that Jackson County doesn't do very often.

Anyway, the prosecutor in this case had listed four witnesses with convictions. On a lark, I entered the first witness in casenet (the public website listing Missouri criminal cases). Now, casenet won't show all convictions, won't show closed convictions (like suspended imposition of sentence), but it's pretty good.

First witness . . . casenet shows two convictions not disclosed by the prosecutor.

Second witness . . . casenet shows five convictions not disclosed by the prosecutor.

Third witness . . . casenet show one conviction not disclosed by the prosecutor.

Fourth witness . . . casenet shows two convictions not disclosed by the prosecutor.

Don't know what database the prosecutor is using, but it makes you wonder if they EVER disclose convictions as the Supreme Court requires. Most bizarre is that they had disclosed out of state convictions and convictions from other counties, but had missed convictions from Jackson County.