Wednesday, February 14, 2018

Missouri prosecutor Nicholas Jain goes silent when confronted with questions about his dubious judgment in bringing case against Carol without probable cause


Nicholas Jain
In answering our questions about his drunk-driving record, Missouri prosecutor Nicholas Jain raised the issue of individuals in his position showing good judgment. Jain is overseeing the case where bogus criminal charges have been brought in Greene County against my wife, Carol. Jain's statement about the integrity of prosecutors immediately raised more questions in my mind, so I posed them to Jain in an email.

I did not expect Jain to respond to these issues, but as a citizen who has been put through hell because of the corrupt acts of individuals in Jain's office, I thought it was important to raise them.

Mr. Jain:

Thanks for your response.

You mention the need for prosecutors to exercise sound judgment as it relates to each case you handle. As the husband of Carol Shuler, against whom you have been bringing a case for roughly 12-16 months, I have to ask this question: What does your handling of that case say about your judgment?

As a basis for that question, I point out this: Jeremy Lynn, the alleged "victim" in the "assault of a law enforcement officer" case, admits in his written statement that he grabbed Carol (inside her own home). In other words, Officer Lynn admits he "knowingly caused physical contact," that Carol Shuler did not. I'm sure you are aware that under RSMo 565.083 and case law, the issue of who knowingly caused/initiated physical contact is the central element to the offense. You've had information for months that shows Jeremy Lynn caused physical contact, and you don't even have probable cause against Carol Shuler, much less solid evidence of any offense. And yet, you have persisted in bringing a case that has no basis in fact or law. What does that say about your judgment? Has it really improved since 2011? (Statements of Jeremy Lynn and other officers are embedded at the end of this post.)

On top of that, Carol has been seeking discovery for months, and you have produced almost nothing -- you haven't even produced information you agreed in open court to produce, or information that you've been ordered by a court to produce. What does that say about your judgment?

Finally, you were present in open court when information about Carol's broken arm -- thanks to Missouri deputies beating her up -- was addressed, so it should be pretty apparent to you that the criminal case against Carol is nothing but a "cover charge," designed to protect rogue cops from being held accountable civilly. But you've gone along with it, so what does that say about your judgment?

In case you haven't seen it -- and on the off chance that you care -- I've attached copies of X-rays of Carol's arm, both pre- and post- trauma surgery. Perhaps you realize that you are helping to cover for the brutal cops who did this? Again, what about your judgment? [Items that were attached to the email are embedded at the end of this post.]

You are welcome to make any further response. But as a citizen and a journalist, I am appalled by the actions of you, Dan Patterson, and Jim Arnott in this case -- plus the officers on the scene, whom you have refused to identify. Do you really care about justice, or is your job about doing the corrupt bidding of those to whom you answer. As a fellow graduate of the University of Missouri (B.J., 1978), I'm sickened that you could go along with the scheme that has been heaped on Carol.


Roger Shuler

As expected, Nicholas Jain did not respond to these questions. After all, that would mean having to confront the notion that the same bad judgment that contributed to his drunk-driving convictions still is present in his taxpayer-funded public position. It also would have meant admitting that he was part of a process that brought a sham case against a citizen -- one where even the "victim's" own words prove no crime was committed.

That, however, did not end our discourse with Mr. Jain. We had other issues to address with him.


(To be continued)








30 comments:

Anonymous said...

I assume you knew Jain was not going to answer questions like that?

legalschnauzer said...

I say that in the post, so yes.

Anonymous said...

Then, why did you ask him?

legalschnauzer said...

Why ask him?

(a) I wanted my questions on the record?

(b) Sometimes people surprise you and answer questions you didn't think they would answer.

(c) You can't practice "journalism by assumption." I didn't think Jain would answer them, but you still need to ask. A reporter might think a subject won't answer the phone, but he still needs to make the call.

Anonymous said...

I don't see how Jain could answer those questions without incriminating himself, assuming it's a crime to knowingly bring a bogus criminal case.

legalschnauzer said...

@9:15 --

Exactly. I assume it would be the state equivalent of obstruction of justice -- interfering with governmental operations, or something to that effect.

Anonymous said...

Prosecutors can't be honest, with themselves or the public. It's not in their nature.

Anonymous said...

Jain is in cover-up mode. Once prosecutors or cops start arresting people (or charging people) without probable cause, they are never going to admit their mistakes. They just won't do it. Jain is typical of a very warped breed.

Anonymous said...

What's going on with that case where the drunk-driving prosecutor brought drunk-driving charges against someone else.

legalschnauzer said...

@9:48 --

I'm working on at least one post about that. Just a reminder: Jain, a drunk driver, did not just bring drunk-driving charges against someone else. He appealed drunk-driving charges that a trial court had dismissed for lack of probable cause.

In other words, he's a drunk driver who plays the hard ass against others charged with that offense.

Anonymous said...

I'm glad to see you confront Jain about the Jeremy Lynn statement where he admits he grabbed Carol, not the other way around. How ridiculous is that? The so-called "victim" admits Carol committed no offense. Jain needs to be confronted with that because he's probably too fat, drunk, and lazy to figure it out on his own.

legalschnauzer said...

@9:54 --

Yes, and this is important to keep in mind: Lynn's statement was in his investigative report; it was not in the Probable Cause Statement. There was not a single statement from Jeremy Lynn in the PC Statement that pointed to the slightest whiff of probable cause against Carol. And there was no named accuser wither. NO PROBABLE CAUSE. It's a fact.

Anonymous said...

Shit's getting deep(er) now - I'm perched at the edge of my chair - I can't WAIT to see which of these fiascos you are investigating blows up first. Dig, Schnauzer, dig. Bring all those buried bones up to the surface. I Love It!!

President
Legal Schnauzer Fan Club
Birmingham, AL Chapter

Anonymous said...

You are becoming very boring by refusing to approve relevant comments. I guess that's the intent.

Anonymous said...

I assume you still have douche-bag commenters trying to claim it doesn't matter that Lynn admits he grabbed Carol first -- that he initiated contact with her, not the other way around -- meaning she is innocent, no probable cause.

legalschnauzer said...

@11:25 --

It's always been my policy to reject comments that clearly are deceitful, misinformed, dishonest, etc. Some slip through occasionally because it takes a while to determine they are frauds -- or I think it is worthwhile to let them through and tear them apart with citations to actual facts and law.

But it's nothing new for me to reject comments from con artists. Of course, you can always try putting your real name and contact information on your comment -- and making citations to real law -- and you'll see your comment has a much better chance of getting through. But we both know you will not do that, right? That's because you are a troll.

If you are bored here, feel free to exit, stage left. You won't be missed.

legalschnauzer said...

@11:46 --

Oh, yes, such commenters appear almost daily. Here is my interpretation of this phenomenon: Certain people in SW Missouri (and Alabama) stand to lose big time if Carol's cases (the pending state criminal matter and the coming federal civil matter) are handled according to the facts and the law. So they come here, trying to establish an alternate version of the law and reality. That's not going to fly on this blog, but they come anyway because they are desperate to cover their asses.

Missouri law, both statutory and case law, could not be more clear about these "contact" issues. I've reported on them extensively here:


https://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2017/11/missouri-case-law-shows-our-clown.html


These commenters are selfish, greedy, deceitful bastards, and they greatly overrate their ability to conduct a fraud on me. Not gonna happen, but they try because they are desperate. They are used to getting away with their corrupt acts, but they see their con acts don't work with Carol and me -- or our readers.

legalschnauzer said...

Here is key case law on the "contact" issue. Certain troll commenters never will grasp this because it doesn't fit their agenda. But here is the real law for readers who approach this with a sense of objectivity:


"A case styled State v. Raymond, (Mo: Court of Appeals, Eastern Dist., 2004) shines light on this issue? The Raymond case involved a Missouri prosecuting attorney (Steven E. Raymond), who conducted a meeting with a corporal for the Missouri State Highway Patrol (Donnie Schmitz) and a trooper (Corey Craig).

"Raymond expressed his displeasure with the way Schmitz and Craig had handled money seized in a pending case. Both Raymond and Schmitz sat for the discussion, and when Raymond instructed Craig to sit, the trooper stated that he would prefer to stand. The two officers denied they had mishandled evidence, saying they had followed Patrol procedures. Here's what happened next:

"At one point, Defendant walked over to the door of the office and shut it. He then pointed to Craig and requested that he sit down. Craig again stated that he preferred to stand. With a raised voice, Defendant directed Craig to sit down. Craig, startled, stated that he preferred to stand. Defendant demanded, "Sit your a—down in that chair." Craig did not sit.

Defendant became enraged, opened the door to the office, and told Craig to "get his a—out of my office." Defendant, standing between the door and Craig, advanced towards Craig, a few steps away, yelling at him to get out of the office. Defendant then thumped Craig on the chest with the palms of his hands, knocking Craig off balance, grabbed Craig by his coat lapels, and threw Craig out the door a few feet away. Craig fell to the floor, bumping the secretary's desk in the process, and then he jumped up. The incident happened quickly, within two to three seconds.

"Schmitz intervened and told Craig to leave. Craig told Defendant that he had assaulted a law enforcement officer and Defendant responded that Craig was trespassing. Schmitz again told Craig to leave, and he did."


Here is more:


"Raymond was charged by information with assault of a law enforcement officer in the third degree, a Class A misdemeanor in violation of Section 565.083. That's the same charge Carol faces. Specifically, the information charged that Raymond "knowingly caused physical contact with C.W. Craig, a law enforcement officer, without the consent of C.W. Craig, by pushing and grabbing him." The case proceeded to a jury trial, where Raymond was found guilty.

"On appeal, justices had to sort out the following: Raymond "thumped" Craig on the chest and grabbed his coat lapels. Craig subsequently put Raymond in a brief headlock. So who "caused physical contact"? The appellate court didn't seem to struggle much with that question.

"The record indicates the jury found that Raymond caused contact with Craig, and Craig's momentary headlock had no impact on the reasonableness of Raymond's actions. The appeals court upheld the jury's findings. Both parties made contact with the other, but the one who "initiated contact" was charged with a crime and convicted. The party who applied a headlock after being touched was not charged."

legalschnauzer said...

Here is more relevant Missouri law:


"A case styled State v. Armstrong, 968 SW 2d 154 (Mo. Court of Appeals, 1998) . . . involved a man who was convicted of third-degree assault on a law enforcement officer, the same charge facing Carol, and was sentenced to 30 days in the county jail.

"The defendant (Armstrong) asserted on appeal that evidence was insufficient to convict because two witnesses gave varying accounts of how the contact occurred. The appellate court upheld the conviction, stating:

"There was evidence indicating that the victim of the assault had arrested or was attempting to arrest Appellant when Appellant launched himself backwards into the deputy, knocking him off his feet and into a ditch. It is certainly reasonable to infer that the officer did not give his consent to being knocked down, as well as consent to other physical contact upon himself.

"We do not view the State's two witnesses as being in direct contradiction, AS ONE WAS NOT SURE HOW THE CONTACT WAS INITIATED, BUT THE OTHER WITNESS WAS.

"The court found that one witness was certain that Armstrong had "initiated" contact, and that was sufficient to uphold the conviction. The statute uses the term "caused contact," and the appellate court used the term "initiated contact," indicating the two mean the same thing and are interchangeable."

Anonymous said...

@11:25 --

If your comments are unsupported by legit citations to law, they aren't relevant. If you don't ID yourself and give readers an opportunity to judge the qualifications of this person trying to trash LS's research, you aren't relevant either.

Just because you claim something is relevant, that doesn't mean it is.

Anonymous said...

@11:25 --

You wouldn't know relevance if it bit you in the ass. Your only interest is in trying to counter LS's research, and you can't do it because you've yet to ever make a citation to law.

Two points:

(1) Why are you so interested in countering LS's work? Answer: Because he's goring your ox, and you're nervous as shit about it.

(2) Why have you failed over and over to counter LS's work? Answer: Because his legal research is correct -- and you know it, so there is no point in you making citations to law that don't exist.

You are one of the lowest life forms on a earth -- lower than a cockroach. You, sir, are a troll.

Anonymous said...

@11:25--

What do you see when you see those X-rays of Carol Shuler's broken arm -- if you are capable of seeing them at all? Do they bother you? You don't seriously dispute that Missouri thug/cops dd that? I assume you've read the cop narrative enough to know that even they acknowledge whatever Jeremy Lynn/Carol Shuler encounter took place at the beginning of the eviction, it had nothing to do with Carol's broken arm, which happened at the end of the eviction, roughly 30 minutes later. No named accuser says Carol was pushing on the door or even tried to do anything re: Jeremy Lynn, other than get away from him.

Near the end of the PC Statement, Officer Debi Wade fingers Lt Conrad and Deputy Harrison as the two thugs who came in from either side to "secure" Carol's arm. That's cop talk for they "broke" her arm -- or at least one of them did. I assume even you don't buy the bullshit about Carol breaking her own arm in the back seat of a squad car. If so, why would you buy anything they say. You know they are liars. You've admitted as much in various comments.

As for Lynn himself -- in a statement that had nothing to do with the Probable Cause Statement -- acknowledges he initiated contact with Carol, the key issue under Missouri law. Lynn then proceeds to claim Carol both PULLED AWAY from him and TRIED to push him. This statement, of course, is nonsensical -- you can't pull away and TRY to push back, at the same time. Can't be done. On top of that, Lynn only says Carol TRIED to push back. He doesn't say she did; he never says she made any contact with him at all.

So, you have an author of the PC Statement who admits she saw no contact between Carol and Officer Lynn -- plus an unnamed individual who claims he (she?) did see contact, but he has no name. Even you have to know this sub hearsay, and it's disallowed under Missouri law because there is no verification or corroboration.

Every argument you've made for months is pure bullshit. And you keep making the same arguments, which you falsely claim to be "relevant."

You are one desperate dude.

Anonymous said...

@11:25 . . . Try educating yourself for a change. You'll find life works better that way, when you know what you are talking about. LS spelled all this out for you, clear as a bell, in a post about three weeks ago:

https://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2018/01/lies-my-missouri-public-defender-told_25.html

The key case law is State v. Kirby (MO Ct. of Apps., 2004):

"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."

Anonymous said...

@11:25 . . . I know actually reading the statutory and case law LS has presented poses a challenge for you. It means you will have to remove your lips from Nicholas Jain's fat, drunken ass for a few minutes. But give it a try. Learning stuff can actually be quite rewarding, more rewarding than pressing your lips against Jain's fat, drunken ass all the time.

legalschnauzer said...

Memo to @5:34 --

You're pathetic. That's the classic excuse cowards give all the time, and they never present any evidence of me "dumpster diving" somebody. You aren't fooling anybody with that BS. You're a troll because you feel threatened by my reporting. You are fundamentally dishonest, which is why your comments will never see the light of day here, so you might as well take up another hobby.

I, for one, don't give a crap who you are or what you think.

Anonymous said...

But you should.

legalschnauzer said...

Why?

Anonymous said...

he hasn't gone silent. he's done with you. he's an assistant da with a bright professional future and you are a 10 time loser who cant afford the rent on a flea bag motel. he initially responded because he's a decent guy. He will no longer respond because he is fully aware of who and what you are.

legalschnauzer said...

@8:47 --

Just had to run your comment to show what a doofus you (and your trolling brethren) are.

Yep, being a fat, corrupt drunk sure is the highway to a bright future.

FYI, Jain isn't "done with me" either, as you will see in an upcoming post. So, you can't get anything right. No wonder you don't sign your name to the garbage you spew.

Anonymous said...

So, getting a DUI is the key to having a bright professional future. Gee, who knew?