Thursday, January 25, 2018

Lies my Missouri public defender told me: With Carol's freedom at stake in bogus "assault" case, Patty Poe cooked up some double whoppers, with cheese (Part 5)


Patty Poe
Trying to quantify the outrageous nature of lies Missouri public defender Patty Poe told Carol and me over the past four or five months is a difficult task. But on a scale of 1-10, the following lie about a key element in the "assault of a law enforcement officer" case against Carol probably ranks at 9.98.

Poe's nutty response grew from emails No. 4 and 5, in which Carol showed that both the Misdemeanor Information (MI) and Probable Cause (PC) Statement in her case were wildly defective, meaning the charges must be dismissed. (All of Carol's emails, plus Poe's responses, are embedded at the end of this post.)

Poe responded with the following drivel to email No. 4 regarding the defective MI:

The information is sufficient as to count I, it states: caused physical contact with Jeremy Lynn, a law enforcement officer without the consent of Jeremy Lynn by pushing him" and those allegations are contained in the probable cause statement. Often probable cause statements contain information that is not relevant or that is uncharged, such as the "barreling head first" is not charged. At trial, I would argue it is irrelevant and therefore should be excluded.

Here is how Poe responds to email No. 5 regarding the off-the-charts defective PC Statement:

Again, the probable cause statement and the information is sufficient to support count I.

In both of these responses, you will note that Poe resorts to one of her standard "literary techniques." She makes zero citations to law that might support her point. Even in the rare instances when she does throw in a citation, it's almost always wildly off target.

Why do the issues here matter? Taken together, the MI and the PC Statement are the charging documents against Carol. Under Missouri law, the MI shall "“[s]tate plainly, concisely, and definitely the essential facts constituting the elements of the offense charged." If done properly, this should fulfill the defendant's Sixth Amendment right "“to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation."

The PC Statement is supposed to provide evidence that supports the MI. Missouri law requires a PC Statement to set forth sufficient facts to "support a finding of probable cause to believe a crime was committed and the accused committed it." In short, a PC Statement is a document of facts, which is supposed to support the MI, which is a document of law.

In Carol's case, both fail miserably. As we have shown, the PC Statement includes numerous false statements, plus multiple omission of facts that point toward Carol being not guilty. Either shortcoming, under Missouri law, is grounds for the charges to be dismissed. But we have not even touched on perhaps the most grave shortcoming of all.

That goes back to Poe's claim that the MI and PC Statement are sufficient. Well, no they aren't -- not even close. That's probably why Poe included no citations to law to support her claim. Carol and I most certainly can cite law to show that both charging documents are deficient.

Our law comes from a case styled State v. Kirby (MO Ct. of App., 2004), which involved a detective named Kirk Rose, who swore in an affidavit about evidence pointing to alleged possession of a controlled substance. The affidavit stated that a "cooperative individual" had informed Rose that the defendant possessed marijuana at his residence.

This is almost identical to what happened in Carol's case. Debi Wade, author of the PC Statement, claims Carol made physical contact with Officer Jeremy Lynn by pushing him after he burst into our duplex apartment for an unlawful eviction on Sept. 9, 2015. Wade admits that she did not witness the alleged pushing incident but was "advised" of it by . . . well, we have no idea. Like the "cooperative individual" in Kirby, this person has no name or identifying characteristics. It could have been another cop, it could have been landlord Trent Cowherd or one of his associates, it could have been one of the thieves that serve on Cowherd's eviction crew (which helped steal almost all of our personal belongings), it could have been a ground squirrel out in the front yard. (The PC Statement and MI are embedded at the end of this post.)

The court in Kirby made it clear that the use of such an unidentified source, with no effort to corroborate the source's account, will not support a finding of probable cause. From the Kirby opinion:

In the present case, although the affidavit included facts which indicated the personal knowledge of the “cooperative individual,” there was no reference to any corroboration of this information by Detective Rose in the affidavit. Detective Rose did testify at the suppression hearing that he took steps to corroborate the information given to him; however, this testimony was not presented to the issuing court in support of the application for the search warrant.

Here, there was no discussion in the application or affidavits of Detective Rose's verification or corroboration of the information provided to him by the “cooperative individual.” Thus, there was no substantial basis for the issuing court's conclusion that probable cause existed to issue the warrant, and the trial court did not err in granting the motion to suppress.

Are there any signs of verification or corroboration in Debi Wade's PC Statement? Nope, not even close. That means Patty Poe, when claiming the charging documents were sufficient, was full of horse feces.










14 comments:

Anonymous said...

Why do you keep calling Poe "my" attorney?

Anonymous said...

I'd like to read a series called "Lies Roger Schumer Tells."

legalschnauzer said...

@7:54 --

I don't call Poe my attorney. The headline is written in Carol's voice, from her perspective. That's a common writing technique, and most people figure that out pretty quickly. Of course, some people aren't smart enough to pick up on it.

legalschnauzer said...

Memo to @8:33 --

Are you in the Jack Daniels again?

Who in the hell is "bebe ts"? That's a wild one, even for you.

I knew the Missouri law on hearsay, cited in the post, would cause you consternation, but I didn't think it would drive you completely over the edge.

You can't even write a simple declarative sentence.

legalschnauzer said...

For those interested in the actual Missouri law on hearsay in a probable cause statement, here it is, from State v. Kirby


Our law comes from a case styled State v. Kirby (MO Ct. of App., 2004), which involved a detective named Kirk Rose, who swore in an affidavit about evidence pointing to alleged possession of a controlled substance. The affidavit stated that a "cooperative individual" had informed Rose that the defendant possessed marijuana at his residence. . . .

The court in Kirby made it clear that the use of such an unidentified source, with no effort to corroborate the source's account, will not support a finding of probable cause. From the Kirby opinion:

In the present case, although the affidavit included facts which indicated the personal knowledge of the “cooperative individual,” there was no reference to any corroboration of this information by Detective Rose in the affidavit. Detective Rose did testify at the suppression hearing that he took steps to corroborate the information given to him; however, this testimony was not presented to the issuing court in support of the application for the search warrant.

Here, there was no discussion in the application or affidavits of Detective Rose's verification or corroboration of the information provided to him by the “cooperative individual.” Thus, there was no substantial basis for the issuing court's conclusion that probable cause existed to issue the warrant, and the trial court did not err in granting the motion to suppress.

legalschnauzer said...

Patty Poe lied about this issue over and over. What do we learn from State v. Kirby:

(1) There was no probable cause to arrest Carol;

(2) Statement from unnamed individual, with no verification or corroboration, will be suppressed, wiping out the state's case.

Patty Poe had every reason to know the finding in State v. Kirby. I found it, so there is no reason she couldn't find it. Instead, she lied about it again and again.

She's a detestable human being and a worthless lawyer.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Apologist is still apologizing for the cops and Poe. Shameless and pathetic. He's like Ms. Apologist who shows up to defend the Ashley Madison creeps.

Anonymous said...

This is a classic case of false arrest and false imprisonment. When you incarcerate someone without probable cause, that's what you've got.

legalschnauzer said...

@3:37 --

You nailed it. Those claims will be part of our civil-rights lawsuit.

Anonymous said...

Here's what the public needs to understand about this. Not only does the state not have a case against Carol now, they never had a case against her -- no grounds for arrest, much less for prosecution.

If you care about justice even in the slightest, this is a sickening case. The magistrate who signed off on this needs to be tarred and feathered.

Anonymous said...

This isn't a close call. You can read the probable cause statement and there is no reference to any corroborating evidence. Zero. No way Carol ever should have been arrested.

Anonymous said...

Just another sign that we are becoming a third world country. This is the kind of crap you might expect to happen in Paraguay.

Thomas S. Bean said...


All too common.

Something like this was used against me by two different defense attorneys when the source used against me was never identified by the cops or prosecutors who also failed to mention how "civilian vigilantes track vehicles without warrants" and the police state team does not comply with Discovery. Judges do not police their courtrooms...they too move paper as fast as they can through the system that most defendants cannot afford.

You must sue for all attorney's fees, and should be tracking and noting all your time thinking about the case, blogging, and researching, and drafting emails (you are representing yourself at this point). Those are Attorneys fees worth 300$ an hour. Those fees are part of the civil suit negotiation ("...I'll meet you in the middle for 25K for attorneys fees..."). You will have to sue the Public Defendors if the supervisor will not appoint another lawyer (and, it would be wise for the supervisor to personally handle this case to avoid civil suit litigation and the embarassment...no?).

I've dealt with these idiots, and they are a selfish joke who must be brought to court to account for themselves in public so that others can see and respect the problem of joker jack ass, lying, scheming, colluding idiots pretending to be officers of the court.

Cops like to use "cooperating source" of info, to avoid admitting that their secret vigilante squad gathers info illegally using: warrantless breakins, eavesdropping in home, wiretapping, vehicle tracking devices, and other classified "sources, methods, tactics, technology".

Cops do this so they can pretend that they complied with Discovery, when in fact, any charging document that forces the defendant to investigate all pertinent facts essential to analyzing the crime charged (elements of a crime) is itself defective.

Charging documents must have exactitude: all witnesses must be identifiable with personal pronouns so you can subpoena that witness against you.

Looks like this is a case of "jamming the TI up into the courts" to draw your attention, waste resources, and harass you in addition to the medical costs and suffering from knowledge that in the future, any slob cop pig can break into your home on a slim or deficient legal pretext.

The prosecutor almost admits such when he has made a prior courtroom statement that "he's taking all jail time" off his agenda. He wants a guilty plea and fine and a coerced admission of guilt while promoting a felony assault and home invasion that was rationalized as an eviction???????

Judge should have thrown the case out, after the prosecutor said all jail time is no longer necessary.

Thomas S. Bean said...

Next step with the bogus joker public defendor is to ask her boss for another lawyer....and you could with hold the state bar ethics complaint naming Poe. You might enjoy reading the Canons of Ethics, to see what lawyers are supposed to do.

I've been through this twice with jokers working for the cops-prosecutors who all seemed to be ex parted from some secret "cooperating source of info" that perhaps, committed felonies to gather info that is impossible to confront or dispute (DOJ's secret Community Watch Group Program).

Had to send a Judicial complaint when a Judge made a sloppy admission on the record concerning a fact that wasn't in evidence, wasn't pled, and was irrelevent to all legal issues and factual issues: Judges, if ex parted, must notify Defense counsel to rebut, or seek recusal.

That didn't stop the SD State Bar Judicial Qualifications Committee from round filing my complaint. When I asked for a transcript of that board's meeting under Open Record's laws...I was stuck listening to a Judge blow smoke up my ass about how "the board met and found no grounds for a censorship, rebuke, or public suspension, or warning to the Judge who was clearly ex parted by his former law partner (Judges are supposed to recuse themselves when their is the mere appearance of impropriety or unfairness). The Judge leading the Judicial Qualifications Bd, had no interest or policy in providing me with a tape or a transcript. I doubt, there was a meeting of the board. You would think an intrepid reporter would have wanted to actually do real journalism by making a phone call...but...hey...this is red state South Dakota, where cops sexually assault three old boys when they stick a catheter down the kid's urethra to check for marijuana in the kid's blood stream (War on Drugs goes nuts in SD).

When dealing with State Bar Disciplinary Boards....remember...these are quasi judicial boards with wide discretion to abuse so that punishments are usually political and arbitrary with no consistent application of the rules for all lawyers. SD NAZI puke GOP slob, Bill Janklow was found guilty of a felony. State Bar Rules assert that felonies result in disbarment. Janklow got his license to practise law back from The SD Supreme Court...who he appointed when he was Governor of red state South Dakota. None of those Judges recused themselves from deciding in his favor, despite the obvious taint.

You do need another lawyer.

I would talk to the supervisor of the Public Defendor's Office.

You surely cannot rely upon Poe, and you shouldn't have to represent yourself. I see a lawsuit against the Public Defendors Office...and I would remind the supervisor of Poe, that Sixth Amendment Rights require the appointment of another lawyer who is willing to follow the canons of ethics (which require zealous defense of clients' rights not acts by lawyers that are subjectively beneficial to the lawyer who does not want to litigate, research, file motions, argue motions, and appeal erroneous rulings by judges).

Public Defendors are plea bargaining joker scum.

Always have been.

Rarely do you find one who works.

Most get paid to open a file and close a file once a day.

They mitigate at least 200 different clients a year. And they get paid about 56, 000$ to be slime ball paper pushing jokers working with their cop buddies.

I always assume that Public Defendors are cop snitches, or spies...violating atty-client confidentiality with the usual cavalier attitude that is egosyntonic to all bureaucratic slobs.