Howard "Ray" Stephenson--A likely murder trial in Jackson County

This has potential for a trial, so I thought I'd start keeping tabs on how homicide cases really work in Jackson County. Howard Stephenson is charged with two counts Murder First Degree and two counts Armed Criminal Action.
Howard "Ray" Stephenson is a mid-40s black male married almost 25 years to Michelle, and they have 4 kids: Marcus, Rachel, Cody and Colby. (An interesting side note is that Ray's brother Donald is offensive tackle for the Kansas City Chiefs.)
On April 29, 2013, Michelle was driving Ray and the kids back from the barber shop, and as they drove down Blue Parkway, Jaron Syrus and Qwentelia VanZant (with their two young kids, Jaron and Honesty) pulled up and started yelling at the Stephensons. It was decided to pull into Discount Smokes and "squash" the argument. Just a few minutes after pulling in, Jaron and Qwentelia are dead.
It looks like self-defense/defense-of-others to me. Original prosecutor talked about one count of voluntary manslaughter, new prosecutor is taking tougher stance.
Everything at Discount Smokes is captured on two surveillance cameras, without sound. The argument/fight takes place pretty far from the cameras, so it's not real clear. The State sent the video to some expert, but when the two cameras play side-by-side, they get out of synch. I'm requesting a continuance of the November 10, 2014 trial date to see if the video can be improved. Prosecutors have no objection to continuance, since a better video would be helpful.

Unauthorized (and unethical) practice of law.

Just another day dealing with the bull that goes on in Jackson County. Shelley called our client's wife to talk with her, and was told that Marilyn from the Prosecutor's Office told her that she was not allowed to talk with us without prosecutors being present. Now, Marilyn presided over the prosecution mob in Monday's riot in the Courthouse. Now she's giving legal advise to witnesses. Makes me cringe to see my taxpayer dollars at work!

Another day. Another courthouse assault.

So, after yesterday's riot, it turns out that although four were arrested, no charges were filed! Guess it's o.k. to assault people in court, as long as you're invited by the prosecutors. One concussion, one with stitches, four to hospital for an assault ON VIDEO and no charges filed. Dan Ross covers something before Judge Sauer (same floor as yesterday's assault) and as he walks out of the courtroom, baby's mama (State's witness) attacks with a high heel shoe (certainly an article or substance capable of causing serious physical injury in the manner in which it was used). I arrive later and ask the deputy on duty if he was present. Yes. Did you arrest her? No. The escalating violence by prosecution fans is out of control. The police don't step in when it's an assault, and from past experience we know it will be worse on the street than in the courthouse.

Prosecution mob causes riot in court

Prior to arraignment, brother of victim had pointed gun at my client's mom and brother on two separate occasions. Of course, the police did nothing, even though victim's brother on felony probation. So, I show up for arraignment and the prosecution has gathered an impressive mob. The "victim advocate" has a group of about 50 in the courtroom, and my client's well-dressed, professional family and friends are woefully outnumbered. I let the sheriff's deputy know that we need more security, and she notes my client's name by writing it on her hand. Judge Torrence comes out, admonishes the crowd to be civil, calls our case first, and everything is fine. There's a big crowd outside, and another deputy offers to walk me out the back way. As we are about to the door, we hear the eruption in the hall and both go outside. It's a riot. My client's family and friends are getting a beat down, blood and hair flying, and there is no end in sight. The sheriff calls for backup, I move to break up one group and a female comes in with fists flying. I run into the courtroom and yell for more sheriffs. When I come out, the prosecution mob has my client's step dad down on the ground. He's not moving and they're stomping on his head. Still only one sheriff, and he's not doing anything. Back to the courtroom yelling for an ambulance. Attorney Dave Suroff comes out and starts yelling for people to stop, with a volume that was the "voice of god" and it had some effect. This had been going on for about 10 minutes, and a plain clothed detective sheriff came up from the 1st floor, and started telling people to calm down. I think the prosecution mob was just getting tired and running out of people to beat up. About that time, the elevator doors open and about a dozen KCPD officers come out, responding to an call for "officer assist." Only the shouting remained. And the blood. And teeth. And hair. And shoes. And other debris. My client's step-dad wasn't moving and was bleeding from his ears. He got up, in his work uniform, and was covered with blood. Uncle had a nasty gash on his cheek with blood everywhere. Even my client's mom--a classy professional--had a cut on her face. Downstairs, I'm told four got arrested, including the instigator. As he was being arrested, he pointed at my client's brother and said he was going to kill him. Lots of talk about getting their guns, etc. Ambulance comes, lots of cops, four arrests, four to hospital.

Savory Twins: right idea, wrong execution.

So, Dorothy Savory had the right idea: the eyewitness couldn't really identify the black male who stole her purse. In our Alice-In-Wonderland system, you can't let the jury know that eyewitness testimony is demonstrably unreliable. So, Dorothy probably thought, I'll just show it's unreliability in this case. Apparently, the problem is in the execution. She didn't let the judge know. In surrounding jurisdictions that have preliminary hearings, it is not unheard of to not have the charged defendant sitting at counsel table, and have him or her sitting in the gallery. In my many years of practice, I've seen prosecutors point out the defendant through the courtroom window, but that's apparently o.k. (You would think the only black guy sitting in the courtroom would be enough of a clue!)

Attorney Dorothy Savory's Twin Trouble

Attorney Dorothy Savory is in the news for showing up at a preliminary hearing for her client Darrel White, Jr. with his twin brother, Darrel White instead. Mark Morris's story in the KC Star is a good one and has a catchy headline: "Double trouble for KC lawyer who appeared with client's twin." Prosecutor Jean Peters Baker said she is duty bound to report Savory to the Missouri Bar. "That's a responsibility I take very seriously and one I'm heavily reviewing under these circumstances." Russ Ptacek did a nice follow up for KSHB and reported that Savory had also made the news in the Baby Lisa saga and been accused of "fraud" and "mockery" in a custody battle.

If cops lie under oath, it isn't perjury.

Another trial, another cop, another lie, another pass. Attorney Dan Ross is in trial this week on a shooting case. One of the witnesses was a homicide detective who signed an affidavit for probable cause in a co-defendant's case and noted that he was only able to see and identify one of three shooters. The detective's affidavit goes into some detail about only being able to identify the one shooter. Since the detective did not identify the client on trial in the sworn affidavit, Dan was a little miffed when, during the trial, the detective testified before the jury that he could identify two shooters, one of them being the defendant on trial. Obviously the prosecutor and detective had "forgotten" about the affidavit filed in the companion case and so just presented the false testimony since it helped the prosecution. So, a detective gives two different statements under oath, and one of them must be false. He either could identify one suspect, or he could identify two suspects. He either testified falsely in the affidavit or at trial. What happens when a prosecution witness is caught lying under oath? Nothing. If you're interested, this is the perjury statute: Perjury. 575.040. 1. A person commits the crime of perjury if, with the purpose to deceive, he knowingly testifies falsely to any material fact upon oath or affirmation legally administered, in any official proceeding before any court, public body, notary public or other officer authorized to administer oaths. 2. A fact is material, regardless of its admissibility under rules of evidence, if it could substantially affect, or did substantially affect, the course or outcome of the cause, matter or proceeding. 3. Knowledge of the materiality of the statement is not an element of this crime, and it is no defense that: (1) The defendant mistakenly believed the fact to be immaterial; or (2) The defendant was not competent, for reasons other than mental disability or immaturity, to make the statement. 4. It is a defense to a prosecution under subsection 1 of this section that the actor retracted the false statement in the course of the official proceeding in which it was made provided he did so before the falsity of the statement was exposed. Statements made in separate hearings at separate stages of the same proceeding, including but not limited to statements made before a grand jury, at a preliminary hearing, at a deposition or at previous trial, are made in the course of the same proceeding. 5. The defendant shall have the burden of injecting the issue of retraction under subsection 4 of this section. 6. Perjury committed in any proceeding not involving a felony charge is a class D felony. 7. Perjury committed in any proceeding involving a felony charge is a class C felony unless: (1) It is committed during a criminal trial for the purpose of securing the conviction of an accused for murder, in which case it is a class A felony; or (2) It is committed during a criminal trial for the purpose of securing the conviction of an accused for any felony except murder, in which case it is a class B felony.