Thursday, September 7, 2017

Missouri deputy Jeremy Lynn admits he caused physical contact with my wife, Carol -- not the other way around -- meaning she is innocent of assault

Deputy Jeremy Lynn
The Missouri deputy my wife, Carol, allegedly assaulted during an eviction in September 2015 admits in his incident report that he initiated contact with Carol, not the other way around. Officer Jeremy Lynn, in his own words, reveals that Carol did not commit "Assault of a Law Enforcement Officer, Third Degree." as described by Missouri law.

This is significant for several reasons:

(1) The charge involving Jeremy Lynn is the only one remaining against Carol, but since Lynn admits Carol did not cause physical contact with him, the charge must be dropped and the case closed.

(2) Lynn's statement suggests Officer Debi Wade provided false information in her Probable Cause (PC) Statement when she claimed an unknown individual "advised" her that Carol pushed Lynn repeatedly. Lynn himself does not say Carol pushed him, repeatedly or at all, so one or more officers on the scene appear to be lying.

(3) As often happens when fabrications are in play, the liars can't keep their stories straight. Debi Wade claims Carol pushed Jeremy Lynn; Lynn says that did not happen. Oops!

It's undisputed there was contact between Carol and Jeremy Lynn. Carol says she was thrown face-first against a wall (possibly hard enough to cause a concussion) when Lynn burst through the front door of our rented duplex apartment. Lynn grabbed her arms from behind and someone (probably Lynn) slammed her head against the wall several more times while she was being placed in handcuffs.

Here is the key question under Missouri law: Did Carol "knowingly cause physical contact" with Jeremy Lynn?

Specifics can be found under Count 1 of the Misdemeanor Information (MI) filed against Carol by Greene County Prosecuting Attorney Dan Patterson. (The MI and related documents are embedded at the end of this post.) Count 1 reads, in relevant part:

The Prosecuting Attorney of the County of Greene, State of Missouri, charges that the defendant, in violation of Section 565.083, RSMo, committed the class A misdemeanor of assault of a law enforcement officer in the third degree . . . in that on September 9, 2015, in the County of Greene, State of Missouri, the defendant knowingly caused physical contact with Jeremy Lynn, a law enforcement officer, without the consent of Jeremy Lynn, by pushing him.

Did that really happen? Let's consider a key section of Officer Lynn's statement from the incident report. (The report and related documents are embedded at the end of this post.) Lynn describes using a key to open the door and seeing me sitting calmly in a chair. He then states the following:

There was a female, however, that had been trying to force the door closed and she was standing just behind the door and trying again to force it closed. She was very aggressive and fighting against the door. She was grabbed by her arms and restrained to stop her from harming one of us or herself. During this process she was pulling her arms away from me and tried to push me back with her arms and body. She was told to calm down repeatedly and ignored those commands. She was eventually handcuffed and taken outside.

What do we learn here?

(1) Lynn says he grabbed Carol by the arms -- he caused physical contact with her.

(2) Lynn says Carol was trying to pull away from him; she didn't "get physical" with him or "push him repeatedly," as Debi Wade claims. Lynn grabbed Carol, and she tried to pull away.

(3) Lynn then claims Carol "tried to push [him] back with arms and body." This is pure nonsense. Lynn already has stated Carol pulled away, and now he's claiming she "tried" to push him. How can one pull and push at the same time? Those are contradictory terms, and indicate Lynn's whole statement is rubbish.

For the record, Lynn claims Carol "tried" to push him, but he never says that she did push him. Under the law, the "push" issue is irrelevant. Missouri law clearly frames the question: Who caused contact with whom, against whose will?

Jeremy Lynn admits that he grabbed Carol, that he caused physical contact, not the other way around.

It could not be more clear that this is a baseless charge. Jeremy Lynn, the supposed "victim," essentially admits that. So, why does Carol still have this joke of a criminal case hanging over her head? Why does she still have a court appearance on Sept. 20? Why did PA Dan Patterson bring these charges in the first place?

We will address those and other questions in upcoming posts. But for now, we know this for sure: Carol Tovich Shuler did not "assault" a law enforcement officer. The officer in question, Jeremy Lynn, admits she didn't/


Anonymous said...

One word: unreal

Anonymous said...

Does anyone read, or proof-read, these charging documents before they are filed? Good grief!

Anonymous said...

Sounds like the cop assaulted Carol, not the other way around -- especially if it's proven he had no lawful grounds be entering her home.

Anonymous said...

Little help! I'm having trouble finding the Jeremy Lynn statement in the documents at the bottom of your post.

legalschnauzer said...

@9:40 --

It's in the third embedded document (the last one), which has the header "Greene County Sheriff's Office." It begins at the bottom of page 6, the header saying "Author: G239 Lynn, J." His actual narrative begins at the top of page 7, and the section I quoted in the post is the third paragraph.

That eight-page document contains the investigative narratives of four officers, and they are in the following order:

Debi Wade (She wrote the Probable Cause Statement)
Scott Harrison
Jeremy Lynn
Christian Conrad

Anonymous said...

Two words: holy shit!

Anonymous said...

Hey, Missourians,

These are your tax dollars at work. Doesn't that make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Left Hand, meet Mr. Right Hand.

It's obvious the two of you have never met before.

Anonymous said...

It looks like they filed charges that Carol assaulted Jeremy Lynn, without asking Jeremy Lynn about it.

legalschnauzer said...

@10:48 --

That's exactly what happened. To make it even crazier, they didn't have to ask him. All they had to do was read his investigative report -- but they didn't do that either.

Beevis said...

So there this one time we got a deal on a half barrel of beer. It was in the alley behind one of those fraternities. They guy said he'd get us a deal because it had only been warm a few days after they passed out and didn't finish drinking it. So it was 12.99 for that Hustler magazine or $11.00 for the beer. You used to be able to look at Hustler for free! Heh heh. Just ripoff that plastic bag. Heh heh eh heh heh! So when we were drinking the beer we got drunk and then Butthead blew chunks all over. Heh heh. You could see the tater tots and cheese strings! Heh heh eh eh heh! Before Butthead passed out and started inhaling his puke he told me that there was a rumor of lost brothers and sisters of his. Heh heh. How does that happen? Lost tits? Heh heh. Why not just find them? Heh heh. You could search in the dark. By feel. Heh heh! By feel- get it? Eh heh heh! So now I'm reading this blog and I'm going to tell Butthead to look in Springfield if he want's to find his lost brothers and sisters. Heh heh. Eh heh heh. I'm smart about stuff like that and science fair projects. Model rockets. Heh heh. Butthead can't hardly even read. Heh heh eh heh heh. So I'll tell Butthead it looks like his lost family could be in Springfield. Either brothers or sisters. Or cousins. Heh heh. They sure look like they could be related to someone. Heh heh. Hustler magazine! Heh heh Eh HEH HEH!

legalschnauzer said...


You said "puke." Heh heh.

Anonymous said...

Jeremy Lynn: "She was grabbed by her arms and restrained to stop her from harming one of us or herself."

I'd say that puts the kibosh on any accusation that Carol assaulted Officer Lynn.

Anonymous said...

The feds need to investigate this. That this prosecutor brought these charges -- when the "victim" admits it didn't happen -- is a joke.

legalschnauzer said...

@2:58 --

As we reported two days ago, St. Louis prosecutors right now are in trouble for helping cover up police misconduct.

Brian said...

The criminal statue you linked to 565.083 might not be applicable any more. You linked to the 2005 revised statue, but when you look at the 2016 revised statues, 565.083 is listed as being repealed by 2014 S.B. 491. Might be something to look into.

legalschnauzer said...


Thanks for the heads-up. I've replaced the 2005 version with the 2016 version at the link, and the two are substantively the same. The newer version contains some repeated language re: utility workers, highway workers, etc., but the heart of the statute is the same -- as you can see from the language used in Count I of the Misdemeanor Information.

e.a.f. said...

obviously the state must be swimming in money to conduct court cases of this nature or the police officers want to go to court to earn more in over time pay. whatever it is, one would expect a prosecutor might read the file and decide this case was not worth going forward on. Not enough facts???? oh, well must be swimming in money to pursue these types of cases or very, very desperate.

legalschnauzer said...

e.a.f. --

Funny you should mention that. Greene County, MO, for some time, has had a serious jail overcrowding problem, to the point that the city has sued the county/sheriff over it, and there are plans to "built" a temporary jail in a parking lot. Sounds to me like it's going to be a glorified tent or "manufactured building" to house inmates. That's how bad their financial situation is, but they are trying to make Carol and inmate. With that as background, it points to your other motivating factor -- desperation. Here are URLs to a couple of stories about it:

Anonymous said...

Is there a button to click on to stop the banjo music?

It seems to be on all the Springfield and Cleverly posts.

legalschnauzer said...

@8:28 --

You mean like the banjo music from "Deliverance"? Hah! That's pretty ingrained in these parts, so I'm not sure I have the power to make it stop. They call it "Ozark Hillbilly Country" for a reason. The posts probably are bringing this scene to mind:

Brian said...

Is 565.083 law or was it repealed in 2014? Might they have charged Carol with an outdated statue?

legalschnauzer said...


You ask a very interesting question Sec. 565.083 now has an asterisk at the top, and here is what the section says:

"*This section was repealed by S.B. 491, 2014, effective 1-01-17. Due to the delayed repeal date, the version of this section in effect until 12-31-16 is printed here."

Charges weren't brought against Carol until 9/8/16 -- the day the 1-year statute of limitations ran out. But she was not arrested until 1/30/17, when it appears the statute had been repealed and was no longer effective.

I need to do some research on this, but I see the point you are making -- and it is a very good one. Thank you for bringing this to my attention.

This is just a guess at the moment, but I wonder if someone raised concerns about constitutionality of this statute, and it was phased out for that reason. I will check on this, but it certainly appears the statute was repealed as of 1/1/17. Is it possible for someone to be prosecuted under a statute that no longer exists? I intend to find out.

Anonymous said...

This is so crystal clear their wrong doing, and for a moment of shallowness, duputy lynn looks like a dunce.

legalschnauzer said...

@9:17 --

You are right on. They aren't very good at covering their tracks, are they? And you are perfectly welcome to have a moment of shallowness around here. I have them all the time.

If you think Lynn looks like a dunce, the sheriff himself (Jim Arnott) is about the same. Not sure Arnott looks like a dunce, but I've tried talking with him, and he comes across as a mental midget.

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately it's not so cut and dried as you would like Sometimes I think you have some autistic-spectrum issues with language and meaning, with hyper-selectivity and hyperliterality that misses meaning.

A normal person understands that "tried to push me away with hands and body" means pushing that didn't succeed in pushing the officer away but still inclued pushing and fighting.

Carol merely pushing against the door against the officer trying to enter could be construed as interfering with his duties, and using the door as a kind of instrument to resist.

Carol's actions will not put her in jail, even if construed in the worst possible light. Her contact, such as it was, was very minor, did not result in injury to the officer, and while it did make her own and your situation more dangerous, took place with her having the belief that the officer really had no right to enter. She is fragile and was injured herself.

The worst that will happen is a technical finding of guilt with an opportunity to have the charges dismissed altogether. The best is that the judge will agree with you there was no right to enter and she had a right to resist.

That said, it is not a confession that Carol did not struggle physically against the officer for the officer to say attempte repeatedly to shut the door on him and that he had to grab her, or that because she didn't (while trying) push him away; in context its clear she did attempt to escape him with physical efforts even if she tried and didn't succeed.

legalschnauzer said...

@1:20 --

Your comment is laughable, and you probably don't even understand why. So I'll spell it out for you:

* Carol was charged with a specific crime under Missouri law -- "assault on a law enforcement officer." They key component of that statute, as cited in the post, is a question of who "caused contact" with the other person. It has nothing to do with pushing on a door, or pulling away once you've been grabbed. It's about who caused contact with whom. And Officer Lynn admits he grabbed Carol, initiating contact with her.

* The offense has nothing to do with "interfering with a cop's duties" or "using the door as an instrument to resist." Carol isn't charged with interfering or resisting anything.

* Carol was correct that the officer had no lawful grounds to enter. We've published documents showing the Missouri Court of Appeals already had our Notice of Appeal, putting a stay on the eviction. No serious individual can dispute that. Of course, you might not be a serious person.

* If the judge is serious about the law, she will have to agree that the cop had no grounds to enter, and Carol had a right to resist his entry under Missouri's Castle Doctrine law. The primary issue is that Lynn "caused contact" with Carol, not the other way around. If there was an assault here -- and there was, since Lynn had no grounds to be on the property -- Lynn committed it, not to mention the thug who broke Carol's arm.

* You don't seem to understand that defendants are charged with specific crimes, not general claims of "Oh, she pushed this or tried to escape that." The issue in this statute is, "Who caused contact with whom?" Lynn confesses that he caused contact with Carol; you admit Lynn caused contact with Carol. Closed case.

The alleged "victim," Jeremy Lynn, admits Carol did not assault him, under Missouri law. As for you, I'd suggest you actually try reading the law and the relevant documents before commenting on issues you clearly don't grasp.

Anonymous said...

@1:20 --

Not cut and dried? The cop admits Carol didn't assault him. If anything, he assaulted her. Can't get much more cut and dried than that.

Anonymous said...

Hey 1:20 . . . How do you know Carol is "fragile"? Are you saying her fragility caused her arm to break, not brute force from a corrupt cop?

Do you practice "blaming the victim" much?

If I come and rob your house tonight, it would be your fault because you left a door unlocked? Is that how it works?