Tuesday, April 10, 2018

Nicholas Jain, Missouri's notorious drunk-driving prosecutor, has left his position in Greene County and apparently plans a run for public office in the Bootheel


Nicholas Jain
Nicholas Jain, the drunk-driving Missouri prosecutor who pursues others on the same DUI charges for which he has been convicted, has left the Greene County Prosecuting Attorney's Office.

A source told us late last year that Jain planned to leave his PA job and run for public office, likely in Dunklin County and his hometown of Kennett. That process apparently already is taking shape. According to his LinkedIn page, Jain left his Greene County position in January and moved to Kennett, where he is listed as self-employed.

Along with his boss, Prosecuting Attorney Dan Patterson, Jain showed quite a knack for bringing criminal charges without probable cause. He did it in the "assault on a law enforcement officer" case involving my wife, Carol, and our unlawful eviction in September 2015. He did it again in a DUI case involving Springfield resident Charles Hollis Roux. In fact, trial judge Margaret Palmietto granted the defense's motion to suppress in the Roux matter, tossing the case for lack of probable cause.

Jain and Patterson appealed, and the Missouri Court of Appeals went against its own precedent to overrule Palmietto and force Roux to trial on April 26. He pleaded guilty to two minor vehicle-related infractions, and Palmietto took the DUI matter under advisement.

As the Roux case headed for trial, the prosecutor on the case was listed as Aaron Vinson Wynn. Defense lawyers were Dee Wampler and Scott B. Pierson, of Springfield.

What about Jain's political ambitions? We will keep an eye on that. It seems he's counting on news of his drunk-driving conviction not reaching Kennett in the Missouri Bootheel, the southeast corner of the state, not far from Memphis. Perhaps he believes voters in his home area will be uber forgiving of a native son, supporting a drunk driver for public office because of his . . . well, his glaring brilliance as an attorney. Perhaps Dunklin County citizens just like the idea of facing criminal charges that have no basis in probable cause. Jain has lots of experience with that.

Maybe Jain is right; postmodern voters -- the people who elect folks like Luther Strange, "Luv Guv" Bentley, and Jeff Sessions in Alabama, and who put Donald Trump in the White House (with an assist from Vladimir Putin) -- cannot be explained. But we plan to keep an eye on Jain's activities.

21 comments:

Anonymous said...

Not sure I follow you on the no probable cause. If the Court of Appeals overturned the lower court, then Jain was correct. ???

Anonymous said...

Jain will overcome the DUI conviction with his dazzling personality.

legalschnauzer said...

@8:28 --

You will follow if you have an open mind and read the six posts I've written on the Roux case. You can find all six at the URL below. Perhaps you are a newbie here, but we've shown in dozens of posts over the years that many appellate courts -- state and federal -- are as corrupt and incompetent as their trial-court brethren. In this instance, the trial court got it right and was overturned, likely because the appellate justices did not want to risk being seen as soft on drunk driving. Here are three key reasons there was no probable cause:

(1) Roux, in the officer's own words, was not driving erratically. He was stopped due to a tail light that wasn't on;

(2) Roux did not stumble or show any signs of being off balance upon getting out of his vehicle. He also showed no signs of slurred speech;

(3) The arresting officer admitted he had no idea when his PBT has last been calibrated, or if it was properly calibrated. The officer admitted the machines show presence of alcohol, but often show nothing regarding impairment.

One of our mottos at Legal Schnauzer: Never assume an appellate court got it right just because it reversed a trial court. In this case, the appellate court got it wrong. And it shows Nicholas Jain is loose with taxpayer dollars, wasting funds on baseless appeals.


https://legalschnauzer.blogspot.com/2018/04/nicholas-jain-missouris-notorious-drunk.html

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the education, LS. I learned a whole lot about DUI cases that I didn't know.

Anonymous said...

Jain should dominate the fat people vote in his run for prosecuting attorney.

Anonymous said...

But would the appellate court have been wrong if you'd agreed with it?

Anonymous said...

Having a record of wasting taxpayer dollars on baseless appeals should play well with voters in the Bootheel.

legalschnauzer said...

@10:51 --

That's your "brilliant comeback" when you are too lazy and stupid to do the research? Figures.

Your motto must be: "An empty mind will set you free."

Anonymous said...

@10:51 --

One of the most stupid comments of all time. It's not a matter of agreement. I've followed all the posts LS has written on the Roux case, and they include links to the Missouri precedent and to the appellate ruling in Roux. They show the appellate court got it wrong, and it's easy to grasp if you can read. You apparently can't read or are too lazy to read.

Anonymous said...

@10:51 --

If you think Mr. Schnauzer is wrong, why don't you prove it. Oh wait, that would take some effort on your part.

Never mind.

Anonymous said...

Do you know if a breath test was performed later at the jail in the Roux case or if it was offered and refused. I haven't seen any mention of it one way or another anywhere. That seems to be standard practice by most departments. Even your nephew was given a proper breath test before being released.

Anonymous said...

When you say that there was no probable cause, you ignore that the officer stated that he smelled alcohol. Now there may be precedent that smelling alcohol is not sufficient for probable cause but precedent is not law. Precedent is not meant to be a controlling factor in future decisions but a persuasive factor.

You also leave out that Roux answered that he had been drinking alcohol when the officer asked him after smelling alcohol but before he administered the PBT. Which was the probable cause that lead to the PBT? The smell of alcohol? Or the admission of drinking alcohol?

If the judge has dismissed the original case because the officer did not have enough evidence to arrest for DWI/DUI, I would agree with you, but the case being dismissed over probable cause was the wrong decision.

legalschnauzer said...

@3:51 --

From all the documents I've read, the only PBT test administered was at the scene. I've seen no mention of a breath test at the jail.

legalschnauzer said...

@4:57 --

You've not done enough to prove your laziness and stupidity, so you want to try some more? Well, here it goes.

(1) You have no clue about the meaning of precedent. The full term is often used as "binding precedent," which means the court is bound to follow it. You also might look up the term "stare decisis." It's kind of important in American law, but I'm sure you know that.

(2) I've reported in my earlier posts about smell of alcohol and the admission of drinking alcohol. Try looking that up, and why -- under Missouri law -- those factors are not probable cause of impairment.

(3) I've reported on the trial judge's decision -- using her exact words from the public record -- and cited all kinds of case law (binding case law) that supports her finding. She suppressed evidence because there was no probable cause for arrest, without evidence of impairment.

I've reported all of this, but you are too lazy and stupid to educate yourself. You can lead a stupid to person to water, but you can't make him drink.

Anonymous said...

Pitiful effort, 5:37. And LS toasted your buns.

Anonymous said...

Ever notice that when the white boy bitches are challenged to prove LS wrong, they can' do it? They usually don't even try, and when they do try, they don't come close. No wonder they're trolls. That's the only "talent" they have.

Anonymous said...

Hey, 4:57, you want to put more of your legal "knowledge" on display? Can't wait to see more of your "brilliance."

Anonymous said...

4:57 made a coherent and reasonable post, then Roger immediately starts posting insults. I tell you, this is exactly why I keep coming to this blog. This and other behavior is some of the most ridiculous to be seen on the internet. I rarely leave here disappointed.

legalschnauzer said...

@11:19 --

Yes, 4:57 made a comment that was coherent, reasonable, and wrong on every point. I pointed out exactly how he was wrong, and since he had already proven to be a smart-ass, I gave him a dose of his own medicine. He got exactly what he deserved, and you are just as empty-headed as he is, it appears.

You and the other guy -- unless you are one and the same -- are just dumb asses, who have no genuine interest in legal issues. That's probably because your limited brain power can't handle such topics. My readers and I can only feel sorry for the likes of you, folks who seem to revel in stupidity.

legalschnauzer said...

Here's a challenge, 11:19. See if you can point out a single thing that is correct, under the law, in 4:57's comment. See if you can find any point he makes that I haven't already addressed in this or earlier posts.

Give it a shot, if it's not too much effort for you.

legalschnauzer said...

You still have no life in Charlottesville or its environs, I see. Nothing better than to be a troll. Pitiful.