Wednesday, February 7, 2018

Missouri prosecutor Nicholas Jain addresses some questions about his drunk-driving record, while executing a nifty sidestep on other queries

Nicholas Jain
Missouri prosecutor Nicholas Jain has a drunk-driving conviction in his background, but that does not seem to have impeded his pursuit of a law degree, big time law-related jobs, even a pilot's license. That raises a number of unsettling questions, especially since Jain is in a position of judging the actions of others.

We sought to pose some of these questions to Jain, and it started with the following email:

Mr. Jain:

I publish Legal Schnauzer, a blog about justice issues in Missouri, Alabama, the South, and beyond. I am preparing a post re: the above-styled DUI case in which you were involved. I wanted to give you an opportunity to comment prior to publication. A few questions that you might want to address:

(1) It appears you were accepted to the MU School of Law while on two years' probation for the DUI case. Did you disclose your criminal record and probationary status on your law school application?

(2) To your knowledge, is it normal practice for the MU School of Law to admit a student who is on probation due to a criminal offense?

(3) My research indicates you worked as a law clerk for at least two state agencies, plus a Jefferson City law firm, either while you were on probation or shortly after your probationary period ended. Did you disclose your criminal record and probationary status on your applications for these positions?

(4) I understand you soon intend to run for prosecuting attorney, probably in your home area of Dunklin County, MO. Do you plan to disclose your criminal history to voters and the local press? What does this mark on your record say about your qualifications to serve in a position of such high public trust?

If you wish to comment on this matter for my articles, you are welcome to do so. Also, I would be glad to arrange a time for an interview (in person or by phone) if that would work better for you.

I ask that you make any response by 5 p.m. Thurs. (12/7/17).

Legal Schnauzer has been ranked among the top 50 law blogs in North America. Again, we welcome any comments you care to make prior to publication.


Roger Shuler (publisher and editor)

Carol Shuler (asst. publisher and editor)

(205) 381-5673.

Here is Jain's response:

Dear Mr. Shuler:

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to respond.

1. Yes, I disclosed the case to the University of Missouri School of Law as well as to the Missouri Board of Law Examiners.

2. I do not have sufficient knowledge to answer questions about the law school’s admission policies. I am only aware of my personal experience, and I was admitted without further question. The Director of Admissions or Admissions Committee may be able to provide more information about their policies and practices.

3. I disclosed the case to those employers. In addition, the record was also publicly available on then, as it is now.

4. I take full responsibility for driving while intoxicated in 2011, and I deeply regret that incident. Prosecutors must exercise sound judgment as it relates to each case they handle. As a prosecutor, I hope to have the wisdom and perspective to do what is in the best interests of the people of the county both individually and as a whole.

Thank you,

Nicholas Jain

Interestingly, Jain avoided the question about his political plans in Dunklin County, Missouri. He did, however, raise the issue of prosecutors showing sound judgment. That prompted more questions from us.

(To be continued)


Anonymous said...

Why did you sign CarolsCname to the letter? How often do you do that? It seems especially odd to do it when she has a crimnal case pending with him. Is it your attempt to have some leverage with him? You set a deadline of 12/7 for him to respond. Why did you wait so long to publish your first article about him?

Anonymous said...

I can already hear the DUI excusers coming out of the woodwork -- their little legs making noise like cockroaches -- but this simply can't be excused. A prosecuting attorney hires an APA with a DUI on his record, which led to two years' probation.


legalschnauzer said...

@8:14 --

I didn't sign Carol's name. Does that look like a signature to you?

She assists with the blog, and she wanted her name on there, so it's there.

This is my third article about Jain. Links to the other two are in this post.

Any other "facts" you want to screw up?

Anonymous said...

No, I think YOU wanted her name on there and that she is just a pawn in your sick methods. Why not just allow her to hire an attorney for her defense and you stay out of it? She'd be better off, I'm sure.

Anonymous said...

@8:14 --

Please tell us why you are such an advocate for drunk-driving prosecutors. You don't have anything better to do with your life? You have no shame?

Seems like an odd issue for which to advocate. You've determined that drunk-driving prosecutors need some love? Why don't you advocate for Dr. Larry Nassar? Maybe that will be a good side activity for you. It's no worse than trying to defend Nicholas Jain.

Anonymous said...

He answered your questions. What do you want him to do, commit hari-kari?

Anonymous said...

Hey, @8:14 -- Do I have this straight? You are concerned about Nicholas Jain's widdle feelings, since he's a prosecutor with a DUI on his record. But you have no concern that thug cops broke Carol Shuler's arm, and Nicholas Jain then helped them bring bogus criminal charges against HER?

Is that where your "moral compass" is set, or do you even have a moral compass? You must be one of the sickest bastards on earth. And you apparently can't even detect the logical incongruity and moral depravity that is revealed in your comment. Sad, sad.

How crappy it must be to be you.

legalschnauzer said...

@10:39 --

Actually, he didn't answer all of my questions. That's clear if you read the post. Beyond that, I'm a reporter, and it's not my business to want him to do anything. But let's not kid ourselves into thinking he answered all of my questions, and he certainly didn't answer my followup questions, which we'll address in an upcoming post.

legalschnauzer said...

@10:27 --

You claim I have "sick methods"? What a joke. Try reading @10:40's comment and look into the mirror at your own "sick methods." I'm not the one advocating for a drunk-driving prosecutor, while expressing zero concerns about Carol Shuler, a victim of police abuse -- against whom Nicholas Jain brought false criminal charges. You're the one doing that, the one with "sick methods" that most regular people could not even comprehend.

Anonymous said...

@8:14 --

What is this "leverage" of which you speak? Are you suggesting that it's a bad thing for a prosecutor to have a DUI on his record, and Mr. Schnauzer's accurate reporting on it might cause a problem for Mr. Jain?

If you acknowledge it's a bad thing for a prosecutor to have a DUI, why are you defending Mr. Jain and attacking Mr. Schnauzer's reporting -- which even you don't suggest is inaccurate in the slightest?

Anonymous said...

@8:14 --

Are you a drunk? Your comment, in which you get simple facts wrong, sounds like you are a drunk.

Is that why you are so sympathetic to Nicholas Jain? Those of us who aren't drunk find it hard to work up much sympathy for Mr. Jain. You don't seem capable of understanding that.

Anonymous said...

It's sort of playing dumb, isn't it, to ignore the fact that he might have gotten wiser through experience, is a way that would actually benefit defendants who may get an opportunity to take responsibility, but receive a fair chance of going forth and sinning no more?

Also, why didn't you, as a journalist, disclose your very personal interest in Jain's position as prosecutor in a case involving your wife? That seems unethical to me.

Anonymous said...

Why would anyone feel the need to defend a prosecutor with a DUI on his record? I just don't get that.

Anonymous said...

Jain seems to be a bit disingenuous with his one answer. He says he disclosed the DUI to certain employers, but then he says it was out there in the public record for anyone to find.

Those are two different things. If he was asked on an application about a criminal record, and he failed to disclose it, that's generally a fireable offense for many employers.

His answer leaves doubt in my mind about whether he disclosed the DUI to potential employers.

legalschnauzer said...

@11:43 --

Excellent point. And of course, the big question: Did Jain disclose the DUI on his application with the Greene County Prosecuting Attorney's Office? Did PA Dan Patterson knowingly hire an applicant with a DUI on his record? If so, why?

It's really that hard to find lawyers in Missouri?

Anonymous said...

I assume some of the Neanderthals who have a problem with your reporting on Nicholas Jain were the same ones who supported the dude in Michigan who tried to attack a party in court.

I assume the Neanderthals can't even see the nuttiness of their positions.

Anonymous said...

It's really that hard to find lawyers in Missouri?

February 7, 2018 at 11:47 AM

It may be that his experience with a DUI conviction, and his successfully completed probation and refrain from re-offense, was seen as a potential strength. His law school career, grades, exam scores, and personal recommendations and interview, or any combination of these things, made him the standout candidate.

But probably Bob Riley had him hired so he could pick on your wife.

legalschnauzer said...

@11:54 --

So it's actually a plus for a prosecutor to have a criminal record, especially a "minor offense" such as a DUI? Who knew?

Why stop there? Let's hire rapists, murderers, and child molesters as prosecutors. Let's release all of the felons from prison and help them become prosecutors. That works for you?

Good Lord, and you wonder why you aren't taken seriously.

Anonymous said...

@11:54 --

You have reached a new, laughable low in your apologies for Nicholas Jain. And yet, you never seem to express the slightest concern about Carol Shuler's broken arm or the false criminal charges brought against her.

Are you capable of grasping how depraved that makes you sound?

Anonymous said...

I think the DUI in Jain's background is a valid area for reporting, but the more important issue in my view is his role in bringing false charges against Carol. It's bad to have a DUI in your personal life. But to knowingly bring false charges as a prosecutor is a gross violation of the public trust. Jain should land in prison for that; it's clearly obstruction of justice or the state equivalent.

Anonymous said...

I wonder if Jain handles DUI cases. Wouldn't that be rich? How would you like to stand accused of DUI, only to learn the prosecutor is a convicted drunk driver?

Jeepers, these people are nuts.

Anonymous said...

@11:54 --

You are fine with hiring rapists and child molesters as prosecutors? That seems to be the logical extension of your position.

Anonymous said...

It looks like he does handle DWIs and argued for it to be easier for the police to arrest someone for it.

legalschnauzer said...

@2:00 --

Man, I wish I could hire you as a researcher. This is very important information you have provided. The case is styled State of Missouri v. Charles Hollis Roux, and Jain was representing the state (the appellant in this instance). Here are the basics of the 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."

In other words, Jain was playing the hard ass in a drunk driving case, even though he himself is a convicted drunk driver. Sweet, isn't it?

Thanks for sharing your research. This is going to be a major component of the Nicholas Jain story.

legalschnauzer said...

Readers might want to check out the comment at 11:38 above, where someone with a few loose shingles suggests Nicholas Jain might actually be a better, more sensitive prosecutor because of his experience with a DUI.

You might find it interesting to read that and then check out the State v. Roux case, where Jain plays the hard ass with a citizen accused of DUI. Proves our "Mr. Apologist" commenter is full of feces, which has been apparent for quite some time. But the Roux case really blows it out in the open.

Nicholas Jain is a fat, corrupt, sorry piece of sewage -- no matter how some folks try to make excuses for him.

Anonymous said...

LS --

You must have some folks scared shitless, both in Missouri and Alabama. Look at these doofuses who get their panties bunched over your UAB employment case from years ago. The law, as outlined in Snook, is indisputable that summary judgment can't be considered without discovery. First-year law students know that. It can't be disputed that Acker cheated you -- and he cheats a lot of people because he's a racist old prune from the Dixiecrat era. And yet, these people are desperate to create a set of "facts and law" that have no basis in reality.

Then, you've got the same deal with the DUI prosecutor in Missouri. Some commenters are so nuts that they claim it's good to hire a prosecutor with a criminal record. Sheesh!

You've been a thorn for some low-life bastards in both states, but I sense they are so riled now that they can't get even basic facts right, can't make even the slightest valid argument.

I think that's because their sphincters are wound tight as a jar. It's probably irritating for you to have to read some of this shit, but I think it's a hoot to see these thugs in such a state of disarray. On a serious note, I'm concerned for your safety, and that of your wife. These people are crazed, and that troubles me.

Anonymous said...

I'm particularly amazed at these clowns who try to interpret what the HR woman at UAB said about your case. Anyone with 3rd grade reading skills can see that every explanation she offered for your termination involved your blog. And she specifically mentioned the blog's content about the Siegelman case.

It can't be disputed, but these crazed commenters try to dispute it anyway. That's truly a sign of mental illness.

That's part of the classic trolling mindset. These people can't win in the reality-based world, so you try to create an alternative universe. Trump does this almost every day, so it's particularly glaring with entitled white folks, who expect to get their way. It's a Fox News thing, too.

Trump is going to crash and burn, along with Sessions -- and I suspect your clown commenters feel the walls closing in on them, too.

Anonymous said...

Congrats, Schnauzer! You've got sphincters tightening all over the South and the Midwest, to the point that is seems to be cutting off oxygen to troll brains.

I love seeing spoiled little white boys get their britches soiled. Love it, absolutely love it.

Anonymous said...

It's amazing how some of these commenters from the clown car sound just like Trump. They are little, entitled white-boy bitches. So much fun to watch them squirm.

They know Mueller is going to bring their fat boy down. And they probably know that is going to unleash a load of hell on them.

Party time is almost over, boys. Get ready to take it right up the ass. Hah, hah!

Anonymous said...

Perhaps some of these UAB blowhards realize you can reopen your case with the discovery of new evidence, and they are nervous about that. In other words, the people who screwed you over at UAB still could wind up in deep shit. These commenters aren't very bright, but they might be bright enough to know that case might not be over. Acker and the people who pulled his strings still could wind up in federal prison.

Anonymous said...

As a resident of Dunklin County I can answer question #4 for you. No, it appears he does not intend to reveal his DUI to voters - at least he hasn't yet. He has however dragged a man whose charges were dropped into into his public attempt to smear his opponent in this Facebook post:

For those who don't do Facebook, the lengthy post reads:

Prosecutors should be open and responsive to the citizens they serve, and proud of the way they resolve the cases they handle. I will be proud of the way I prosecute cases, and I will want the public to know the end result of those cases. I am committed to seeking the truth as prosecutor, and during this election.

Four weeks ago, after repeatedly hearing questions while campaigning all over the county, I asked current prosecutor, Jeff McCormick, for information on cases that his office dismissed, specifically those that were moved out of this county before being dismissed. He wrote “I will have someone research those items and will get back to you with an estimate of the time and cost to provide the information along with an estimate for copies.” I am still waiting.

While waiting, I found one defendant, Kaleum Reid, whose cases, which included felony drug and weapons charges, were transferred out of Dunklin County and immediately dismissed. The attorney who got these dismissals for Defendant Kaleum Reid was, at that time, also representing prosecuting attorney Jeff McCormick in a civil matter.

Prosecutors must avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Moving cases out of this county and dismissing them accomplishes nothing except keeping the dismissal from being reported in the local newspaper. And, when a prosecutor agrees to do this for an attorney who is actively representing both the defendant and the prosecutor at the same time, it raises even more questions.

From what I’ve been able to piece together, over the course of two days in August 2017, the Malden Police Department investigated and submitted three reports to the prosecutor’s office, each of which resulted in felony charges being filed. One case was based on an eyewitness report that Kaleum Reid brandished a weapon in a threatening manner during an altercation, and the prosecutor charged Reid with felony unlawful use of a weapon. Early the next morning, an eyewitness reported seeing Kaleum Reid pointing a gun out of the window of his car then hearing six to seven shots after she ducked down to hide. The victim hid on her living room floor until daylight after the defendant shot into her home. Based on that report, the prosecutor charged Reid with another charge of felony unlawful use of a weapon. Later that same day, police executed a search warrant at Kaleum Reid’s house where they found what preliminary tests indicated to be cocaine. The prosecutor charged Reid with felony possession of a controlled substance.

On August 30, 2017, a private attorney entered his appearance in the two weapons cases. He then entered his appearance in the drug case on September 14, 2017.

On October 12, 2017, Kaleum Reid’s private defense attorney filed a petition in an unrelated civil matter as private attorney for Jeff McCormick.

According to the Delta Dunklin Democrat’s Dunklin County case reports, on October 25, 2017, venue was changed to New Madrid County for all three cases against Kaleum Reid.

Around November 2, 2017, Jeff McCormick dismissed all three cases against his attorney’s other client, Kaleum Reid, previously held on more than $100k in cash bonds on three separate felony charges, was released to return to the streets.

There could be some legitimate reason for these cases to be dismissed, but did that reason not exist the week before when the cases were in Dunklin County? And, why was no special “independent” prosecutor requested when both prosecutor and defendant with three separate felony charges were current clients of the same private attorney?

legalschnauzer said...

Thanks for sharing. Feel free to share my Jain/DUI posts with Mr. McCormick. Perhaps he will find them useful. The media in SE Missouri will be made aware of Jain and his DUI. We'll see what they do with it.

Hope you will stay in touch. The primary is in early August?