In a glaring show of hypocrisy, Missouri prosecutor Nicholas Jain -- with a DUI conviction on his own record -- brings drunk-driving charges against others

Nicholas Jain

A Missouri prosecutor who has a drunk-driving conviction on his record is handling a DUI case that is set for trial in late March after the state court of appeals overturned a trial-court finding that suppressed evidence due to lack of probable cause.

All of this has strong connections to the bogus "assault of a law enforcement officer (LEO)" charges against my wife, Carol. The drunk-driving prosecutor, Nicholas Jain, has pressed the case against Carol, even though it clearly has lacked probable cause from the get-go. The trial judge in the Greene County DUI case is Margaret Holden Palmietto, who also is presiding over Carol's case.

Most important, however, is this: The DUI case, taken in light with Carol's case, reveals Nicholas Jain to be a monstrous hypocrite and a glaringly corrupt prosecutor. What's next in Missouri? Will the state start hiring rapists to prosecute rape cases? Maybe it can hire child molesters to prosecute child molestation cases? Given that Nicholas Jain is a drunk driver prosecuting drunk-driving case . . . well, it seems reasonable to expect the state to hire criminals to prosecute the crimes they have committed themselves.

The pending DUI case is styled State of Missouri v. Charles Hollis Roux. The Web site for Greene County Prosecuting Attorney Dan Patterson shows Jain as handling "general crimes." You might think Patterson would have enough sense not to have a drunk driver handling DUI cases. But you would be wrong. "General crimes" apparently includes DUI cases, and God only know how many Jain has handled.

This all hits close to home here at Legal Schnauzer because of the probable-cause issue. Anyone can read the Probable Cause Statement and Misdemeanor Information -- the two charging documents in Carol's case -- and see Carol has been arrested twice without anything even close to probable cause. (Both documents are embedded at the end of this post.)

Carol has been forced to fight baseless charges for more than a year, even though the PC Statement includes no information from a named accuser. The only allegation against Carol -- that she supposedly pushed an officer who was engaging in an unlawful eviction at our apartment -- comes from an unnamed "adviser." That is sub-hearsay and is wildly inadmissible, under both Missouri and federal law..

The so-called "victim" of the push, Officer Jeremy Lynn, makes no statement in the PC Statement -- he provides zero evidence. He does admit in his incident report that he grabbed Carol -- initiating contact with her, not the other way around -- meaning Carol, as a matter of law in Missouri, is innocent. But Nicholas Jain doesn't seem to let the facts and law get in the way of pursuing dubious cases. (Lynn's incident report, which is not part of the PC Statement, is embedded at the end of this post.)

For now, the main issue in Carol's case is probable cause -- and anyone can read the PC Statement and see that Jeremy Lynn presents zero evidence of any misconduct on Carol's part.

State of Missouri v. Charles Hollis Roux also indicates Jain is pushing a DUI -- the very offense for which Jain served two years on probation -- which involves shaky probable cause. In fact, Judge Palmietto found at the trial level that all evidence was due to be dismissed for lack of probable cause. Did Patterson and Jain have the decency to take their lumps and move on to something else -- especially given their raging hypocrisy on the DUI issue?

Hell, no. They may be softies when it comes to drunk drivers in the Greene County prosecutor's office, but they play hard ass with everyday folks facing DUI charges. Here is the Missouri Court of Appeals' summary of its reversal of Judge Palmietto in the Roux case:

Charles Hollis Roux (“Defendant”) was charged with driving while intoxicated and thereafter filed a motion to suppress all the evidence in the case. The trial court granted that motion, and the State appeals pursuant to § 547.200.1(3) 1 raising two points of alleged error. In its first point, the State argues the trial court's decision was not supported by substantial evidence, and, in its second point, the State argues the trial court erred in refusing to admit the result of the portable breath test. The State's second point has merit, so we are compelled to reverse and remand the case. Moreover, as the admission of the test result will add additional relevant evidence for the trial court to consider on remand, we need not address the State's first point.

So, the trial-court judge -- the one who handled the Roux case from the outset -- found results of the portable breath test should not have been admitted. According to case.net, the case has been reset for a bench trial in Greene County on March 26, 2018.

Did the appellate court get it right? Well, we still are conducting research on that. But the trial court clearly found lack of probable cause -- and Patterson and Jain decided to play the hard ass when a regular citizen faces DUI charges.

That, of course, likely serves the political ambitions of the prosecutor and his flunky. But they probably don't want the public to know about their hypocrisy -- that they get all soft and gooey when it comes to a drunk driver working as a prosecutor.


(To be continued)