Leaderboard 728 X 90

Tuesday, June 20, 2017

My wife, Carol, returns to court on Wednesday, and at least one of two charges against her should be dismissed, leaving only the bogus "assault" claim


Carol Tovich Shuler
My wife, Carol, returns to court on Wednesday (6/21), and she will be armed with a document that should prompt dismissal of at least half of the charges against her.

Public Defender Patty Poe has filed a Motion to Dismiss Count II, which essentially states that the trespass charge against Carol is not supported by facts sufficient to support a finding of probable cause to believe the offense occurred. (The Motion to Dismiss Count II can be viewed by clicking on the link above; also, it is embedded at the end of this post.)

(Note: Carol's next court appearance originally was set for June 14, but a continuance was granted, pushing it back one week.)

If the trespass charge in Count II is dismissed, that will leave only Count I -- the alleged misdemeanor charge of "assault on a law enforcement officer." There are no facts to support that charge either, as Carol pointed out in her own Motion to Dismiss before Ms. Poe came on board, But for now, we are focusing on getting the trespass charge out of the way.

One reason is that we've met with Ms. Poe for only about 10 minutes, and she likely needs more information from us about the unlawful eviction that led to a deputy breaking Carol's arm, and bogus charges being filed against her. Plus, Ms. Poe has explained that the system moves slowly -- it takes quite a while for documents to flow from the court to the Public Defender's office, for example -- so we are trying to be patient. (For the record, Carol is better at this patience thing than I am.)

As for the Motion to Dismiss the trespass charge, Ms. Poe points out that Missouri law requires a Misdemeanor Information (MI) be supported by a Probable Cause (PC) Statement. The PC Statement, by law, must "state facts that support a finding of probable cause to believe a crime was committed and that the accused committed it."

The charging documents against Carol, taken together, fall way short of their burden on the trespass count. Ms. Poe states that Missouri law "provides that the offense of trespass in the first degree requires that the defendant knowingly remained unlawfully in an inhabitable structure."

Did the prosecution meet that burden? Not even close. Writes Ms. Poe:

The statement of probable cause filed herein fails to state facts sufficient to support a finding of probable cause to believe that this offense occurred, in that nowhere in the probable cause statement does it allege defendant remained in an inhabitable structure unlawfully and knowingly.

In fact, the PC Statement does not say a word about trespass, meaning there are zero facts to support the charge. What does that mean? Ms. Poe spells it out:

As such, the Misdemeanor Information filed herein is insufficient to confer personal jurisdiction over Defendant and, therefore, all proceedings subsequent to the filing of the Misdemeanor Information herein are void and of no force and effect.

I like the way that sounds, and the same could be said regarding the "assault on a law enforcement officer" charge in Count I. But for now, I will try my best to remain patient and let Count I play out on another day. There is no question that Ms. Poe is correct on the facts and the law regarding Count II, and at a minimum, Carol should leave the courthouse tomorrow with half of the charges against her dismissed.







19 comments:

Anonymous said...

That BS trespass charge should be dead in the water.

Anonymous said...

Go, Carol. Kick butt!

Anonymous said...

Who runs the prosecuting attorney's office in that Missouri county? The Three Stooges?

legalschnauzer said...

@8:33 --

The Three Stooges run the Sheriff's Office. I think Laurel & Hardy run the prosecutor's office.

Anonymous said...

How can you charge someone with trespass, and then provide no evidence of trespass? That's nuts.

legalschnauzer said...

Yes, it is nuts. But that's what you get when you have baboons in charge of a county's law-enforcement apparatus. And I apologize to baboons for that comparison.

Anonymous said...

Did the police have body cams on or cruiser cameras on? This would seem to clear up most of the disparity between the two parties. I know most units record at least audio even when the officers are out of the car.

legalschnauzer said...

@9:49 --

Excellent question. In discovery of Carol's criminal case, we've asked for production of any and all audio or video from the eviction. With 6-8 officers and a similar number of vehicles on hand, it's highly likely some audio/video exists. So far, it has not been turned over by the state. I think that is called stonewalling. We might have to seek a subpoena on that and a number of other items that should be produced.

Anonymous said...

@9:49 here --

Thanks for the answer, LS. Typical of a bunch of corrupt cops. Will be interesting to see how much they stonewall on the cams. The more they stonewall, the more likely they are lying.

legalschnauzer said...

@12:28 --

Oh, they are lying, and I will be proving that in a series of upcoming posts. But yes, if they dig in their heels on turning over audio/video -- and they already are doing that -- it should be a sign to rational people that the audio/video tells a story they want cover up.

Anonymous said...

Your spouse made the bigtime....http://criminalfaces.com/arrests/carol-t-shuler_40557196.html

Be on the lookout for her mugshot to be tweeted a few tens of thousands of times.

legalschnauzer said...

@9:04 --

That is fantastic news. Thanks so much for sharing. The more this is tweeted the more likely it is to enhance Carol's damages in a civil case for defamation, false arrest, false imprisonment, etc. Please help ensure that it is tweeted to the max.

Anonymous said...

You wouldn't have a defamation case. It's all public record, but go ahead and file a suit. I'm sure it would end up like all your others.

legalschnauzer said...

@9:23 --

I'll tell you what. You forward all the links to tweets on this, and we'll see how many folks are stupid enough to trust your knowledge of defamation law.

Anonymous said...

Hey, 9:04 --

How does it feel to have a blow torch applied to your ass? How does it feel to be humiliated? What a jerk-off.

Anonymous said...

In legal matters, I'd take my dog's advice over your any day of the week. In any of the multitude of legal matters in which you've been involved have you ever come on top? That's a rhetorical question as I already know the answer. Of course, you'll blame that on some conspiracy theory in which Alabama's elite are trembling in their shoes at your journalistic prowess (writing that made me laugh) and have responded by putting a target on your back, when in fact they don't care. No one does, which is why most comments - anonymous and otherwise -are written by you. Keep on keepin' on Schnauzer. You're a lunatic and a loser...at least in the eyes of the law. And good luck to Carol. She's going to need it when it comes time to pay the state its due.

Oh yeah, and when you respond telling me to give you a call, please pick up the phone. I tried you three times and you never answer, which leads me to believe that in addition to be nuts, a loser and an utter poseur, you're a coward.

legalschnauzer said...

@10:55 --

I'm not surprised to learn that your dog is smarter than you. If you have a gerbil, he's probably smarter than you, too.

Yes, I have won in legal matters, which you would know if you actually could read. Ask your dog to read the appropriate post to you.

BTW, tell me your phone number, and I will check our caller ID for that, to see when you called. Also, leave the number here, and I will call you tomorrow. Look forward to it.

Anonymous said...

@9:04 reminds me of the boxer who was showboating and got his teeth kicked in -- like this guy:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtZkhNWtPOo

e.a.f. said...

Good Luck Carol. I'll be thinking of you!