Showing posts with label witnesses. Show all posts
Showing posts with label witnesses. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
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!
Saturday, December 17, 2011
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.
Labels:
credibility,
Jackson County,
judges,
press releases,
prosecutors,
system,
witnesses
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Sisco found not guilty on all counts
Late yesterday, Anthony Sisco was found not guilty of murder first degree, armed criminal action, assault first degree and armed criminal action. The jury started deliberations on Monday at about 2:30 p.m. and, according to the jury, were 11-1 for acquittal when they broke at 5 p.m.
The jury thought the case was clearly self-defense, both because the purported victims had pointed an AR-15 at Anthony and because once Sylvester Sisco started shooting, a "reasonable person" would think he was in imminent danger of death or serious physical injury.
As previously noted, the KCPD, the crime lab and the prosecutors had managed to keep from four judges, one petit jury, and four grand juries the fact that their "enhanced" video showed the AR-15 being pointed at Anthony Sisco.
The jury thought the case was clearly self-defense, both because the purported victims had pointed an AR-15 at Anthony and because once Sylvester Sisco started shooting, a "reasonable person" would think he was in imminent danger of death or serious physical injury.
As previously noted, the KCPD, the crime lab and the prosecutors had managed to keep from four judges, one petit jury, and four grand juries the fact that their "enhanced" video showed the AR-15 being pointed at Anthony Sisco.
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Why you should never talk to the police, part 1,234,873
The insanity continues. As KCPD laments their inability to solve murder cases, I experience yet another in the seemingly endless examples of how not to deal with witnesses and the public.
Client and friend are going to house where friend is going to pay back $50 to female friend. All above board: returning some borrowed money. Not for drugs or sex or bribery of public officials.
Client drives friend, who gets out and approaches female. Guys with female start arguing with friend and fight starts. Client is still in car, watching. During fight, gun comes out and one of the guys is shot and killed. Friend gets in car and client drives off.
Client didn't have gun, didn't anticipate any problems, didn't shoot anyone, didn't do anything more illegal than witness a shooting.
So . . . client gets charged with murder first degree! Amazing probable cause statement, tells straight story--no criminal activity, just a witness to a shooting. Now, it's alarming that a detective thinks that's a crime. More bizarre is a prosecutor signing off on probable cause. And a judge signed the complaint. And a grand jury indicted.
$500,000 cash only bond (reduced by Judge Youngs, who probably read the (lack of) probable cause statement. Now, realizing that no crime was committed by client, the prosecutor wants him as a witness.
Instead of dismissing and apologizing for arresting, charging and incarcerating a mere witness, the prosecutor is offering a "deal:" plead to a felony of hindering prosecution, take four years, be a snitch.
We have declined the offer.
And they wonder why the public doesn't want to cooperate . . . .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)