Monday, June 25, 2018

After last week's sentencing, Carol's punishment amounts to "nothing," which is appropriate since the cop "victim" admitted she did not commit the offense


Jerry Harmison Jr.
After fighting a bogus "assault of a law enforcement officer charge" for roughly 17 months, my wife, Carol, has been found guilty of an offense that even the "victim" admits she did not commit. But that is not the nuttiest outcome of State of Missouri v. Carol T. Shuler (1631-CR07731). Not even close.

Judge Jerry A. Harmison Jr. sentenced Carol last week to . . . well, nothing. I'm not kidding. She stands with no lawful punishment against her, and the "sentence" involves provisions that cannot be imposed on her -- under both Missouri law and findings of the U.S. Supreme Court.

As we've covered Carol's case, month after month, we've shown the Missouri "justice" system -- including judges, public defenders, prosecutors, and sheriff' officials -- is an abominable sewer of incompetence and corruption. Nothing tops that off quite like Harmison's sentencing, which would be laughable if it did not involve serious issues of liberty, constitutional violations, Carol's broken arm (courtesy of cops), and an unjust "guilty" finding that, in theory, could hang over Carol's life like a cloud the rest of her days.

That, however, will not happen -- by law -- because a of peculiar provision of Missouri law -- one Judge Harmison apparently has no clue about how to administer. Please follow us for an explanation of the nuttiest outcome we've seen in any legal case, anywhere.

We showed last week that Harmison's punishment, in essence, was a $10 fine. But that's where the zaniness only begins. Let's start by looking at the judge's sentencing notation on the docket at case.net.:

STATE BY APA BERGEON. DEFENDANT IN PERSON FOR SENTENCING HEARING. COURT CONSIDERS DEFENDANT'S SIX POST-TRIAL MOTIONS AND DENIES ALL SIX POST-TRIAL MOTIONS. SENTENCE ON COUNT I: SIS, 2 YEARS UNSUPERVISED PROBATION. DEFENDANT MUST CONTINUE COUNSELING AT BURRELL MENTAL HEALTH DURING PROBATION WHILE RESIDING IN MISSOURI. $10.00 CVCF, SOE TO 29 DAYS. COURT COSTS WAIVED. JAH/mks

What do we learn here?

(1) Carol filed six post-trial motions -- showing there was insufficient evidence for a conviction; the probable cause statement was insufficient for a warrant, much less a prosecution; and cop-witnesses admitted they had no lawful grounds to be on our property, which means their search and seizure violated the Fourth Amendment, and all evidence obtained unlawfully had to be suppressed. (Motion for Acquittal is embedded at the end of this post.) In fact, Harmison had a duty under the law to hear Carol's Motion to Suppress, but there is no indication he even looked at it. The result? Carol was found guilty on illegally obtained "evidence," and even without that reality, there was no evidence to show she assaulted anyone.

X-ray of comminuted fracture
in Carol Shuler's left arm,
courtesy of Missouri cops.
(2) Harmison claimed he read all of Carol's motions, but he clearly did not grasp them, did no legal research to confirm that her findings were correct, and never checked the transcript to find the state's cop-witnesses had, in fact, admitted Carol did not commit the offense (as described under Missouri statute and case law), and they had no lawful grounds to be on our property, much less breaking into our home.

(3) As for punishment, the court imposed:

a. An SIS (Suspended Imposition of Sentence), involving two years of unsupervised probation;

b. She must continue counseling at Burrell Behavioral Health as long as she is residing in Missouri. She's been attending counseling sessions for months at Burrell, long before her encounter with Officer Jeremy Lynn and other thugs from the Greene County Sheriff's Office (GCSO), So, this really is no punishment at all;

c. Pay $10 to the Missouri Crime Victim Compensation Fund (CVCF), which Harmison said cannot be waived. Language in Missouri Sec. 25.9 (Sentence and Judgment) indicates those costs can be waived, so I suspect Harmison either is lying or ill-informed on that point.

d. Court costs were waived.

The Greene County Prosecutor's Office filed charges against Carol in September 2016 -- with her arrest on the last day of January 2017 -- which means they spent 21 months worth of taxpayer funds on an "offense" even the "victim" admits Carol did not commit. The sum punishment -- $10 to a Crime Victim Compensation Fund, and even that probably should have been waived.

Remember that line in the second paragraph above where we said Carol's punishment amounted to "nothing"? Well, we're not joking. And we invite you to join us on a Magical Mystery Tour that will prove our courts are screwed up beyond comprehension -- and not just in Alabama.


(To be continued)


20 comments:

Anonymous said...

Not sure what this judge is up to. Seems the simplest thing would have been to find Carol not guilty, which she clearly was, based on the judge's own order. Can't figure out why he's going through all of this rigmarole.

Anonymous said...

The judge seems to be treating Carol very unfairly and unlawfully on the judgment, but then treats her with great leniency on sentencing. What gives?

legalschnauzer said...

@7:45 --

It seems that way to me, too. It's almost like Harmison is trying to outfox himself. This is an incredibly simple case, so if Harmison just does his job and finds Carol "not guilty," which is the correct decision, he doesn't have to worry about the sentencing business.

Anonymous said...

To give Carol two years of probation when a burglar gets only one makes me thing this judge is just pulling stuff out of his ass.

Anonymous said...

whether the judge read Carol's motions is irrelevant, especially if he already has his mind made up.

Anonymous said...

Didn't you quote Missouri law where the second judge, Harmison, was required to rehear Carol's pre-trial motions, even though the first judge, Palmietto, had already heard them?

legalschnauzer said...

10:22 --

Yes, the case is State v. Pippenger, 741 S.W.2d 710 (Mo. App. W.D. 1987, which holds the previous judge's findings on pre-trial motions are interlocutory (non-final) and are not binding or conclusive on the matter at hand. According to Pippenger, it is "incumbent" on Harmison to hear the motions, so he had a duty to rehear those motions, and he refused to do it. Carol argued that about as strenuously as it could be argued.

legalschnauzer said...

Meant to quote the key passage from Pippenger. Here it is:


In the instant case, the application of this doctrine fails because requirement number (2) above has not been met, that is, there is no judgment on the merits. The Supreme Court in State v. Howell, 524 S.W.2d 11, 19 (Mo. banc 1975), held that the trial court ruling on "a motion to suppress evidence prior to trial is, in a sense, interloctory in nature." The court continued, "[t]he real damage is not done until the evidence is introduced in the trial of a case for consideration by a jury. Thus, a trial court can receive additional evidence and change its ruling prior to admitting the objected-to items in evidence before a jury." Id. This court has stated that the trial court's decision on interlocutory motions is not conclusive or binding on future proceedings. Noll v. Noll, 286 S.W.2d 58, 60-61 (Mo.App.1956); State v. Beaver, 697 S.W.2d 573, 574 (Mo.App.1985); see also Cook v. State, 281 Md. 665, 381 A.2d 671, 674 (1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 839, 99 S.Ct. 126, 58 L.Ed.2d 136 (1978). It is, therefore, incumbent for the trial court in the instant case to hear the evidence and rule thereon and not rely upon what some other trial court may have done before in another cause.

legalschnauzer said...

Here is more from Pippenger, where appellate court ordered a second judge to conduct hearing on motion to suppress:


There is no doubt that evidence must be heard on a motion to suppress. State v. Rainbolt, 676 S.W.2d 527, 528 (Mo.App. 1984); State v. Nichols, 628 S.W.2d 732, 736 (Mo.App.1982). It is a statutory requirement that the trial court "shall receive evidence on any issue of fact necessary to the decision of the motion." § 542.296.6 RSMo 1986. The trial court thus erred in failing to hold an evidentiary hearing on the second charge.

Additionally, we note that prosecutors enjoy a discretionary right to dismiss a case at anytime. The prosecutor may refile the charges as he sees fit so long as double jeopardy has not attached. State v. Lawson, 630 S.W.2d 185, 189 (Mo. App.1982). In order for jeopardy to attach a trial must have begun. According to Crist v. Bretz, 437 U.S. 28, 35-6, 98 S.Ct. 2156, 2161, 57 L.Ed.2d 24 (1978), the jury must be empaneled and sworn before jeopardy attaches. There has yet to be a trial on the merits of this case and defendant is not in jeopardy at this time.

The case is remanded for the trial court to conduct a proper evidentiary hearing on the defendant's motion to suppress.

Anonymous said...

Gotta love it when your tax dollars are put to such good use, keeping the world safe from Carol Shuler.

Anonymous said...

Carol's case is easily worth $1,000,000. Why not go to a good lawyer in town and get him or her to offer $500,000 plus dismissal of the charges against her, now?

Anonymous said...

Aboard the Eliza Battle the crew was assembled for a round table discussion. Meanwhile in Savannah Ga. The General was putting the move on Miss Short Shorts. Jimmy whispered to Coach," We need to compare her ring finger to her index finger." Coach replied," Let Mr Cool handle this." Coach raised his glass to take a sip of hooch, but hooch ain't for sipping and he took a big swallow. He strutted to the Petite Blonde and blurted, "Are you Da Man." She replied, "Are you crazy." The Petite Blonde handed The General her hotel room key and told him to pack his gear and come to her room to play some war games, but first lose your friends. Back on the Eliza Battle Bob Vancey handed the Captain the latest coded message from Mike." May 2016 Sessions at bow-Mark 14 torpedo traveling on a arc course misses the Victoria- Fur Coat Salad 44 chow then we bleed the monkey, never talk with dd monkey when the organ grinder in the room. Look forward to Loachapola Syrup Sopin. Mary Mac asked why Mike was using Military jargon in his clues. The Captain replied that it left easy clues for Military people. For instance, there is a book written about VMA Aw 224 where the XO of the Squadron states that Captain Wilson Flying VMA AW 533's A-6B NL 522 dropped a 2000 lb bomb from 4 miles high into a walled compound. This event never happened, making this a coded message. The Captain continued that Mike has given us plan L.S. code named SOPIN- Sessions out Pruitt In. The coded messages explain how it will be accomplished. Mary Mac asked the Captain to solve the Monkey clue. The Captain replied that "dd" meant that it was 2 clues. First: the Eliza Battle had invited the Victoria crew to come help bleed the monkey in June 2016 and The General had begun to talk to his whiskey about the prosecutor from Ga. while Hart was in the room. Second: The clue contains a quote by Churchill. The Captain continued that one of Roger's reader responded to a May17 ,2018 Eliza Battle Tale with a Churchill quote that was in the introduction of a book that was released on May 15,2018. The title of this book is a significant clue.

legalschnauzer said...

@12:03 --

Two questions/points:

(1) Can you recommend an SFD lawyer who is willing to take on the Greene County law enforcement/judicial/landlord/lawyer power structure? We've been looking for a while, and the search is heating up.

(2) I think your figures are way off target. I've studied this subject pretty thoroughly, and I gather you haven't.

Anonymous said...

@12:03 --

If Carol's case is easily worth $1 million -- and I think that is way low -- why would you get a lawyer to offer $500,000?

Anonymous said...

My impression is that Harmison wanted to sweep Carol's case under the rug, ASAP. Makes me think he has concerns about Greitens scandal and maybe does not want attention drawn to himself.

legalschnauzer said...

@2:42 --

Interesting you should mention Greitens. There is a big story today in the STL paper about the Greitens scandal:


https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/greitens-committed-impeachable-offenses-nonprofit-was-a-criminal-enterprise-from/article_67387a27-9158-5eb9-9404-42ec5a82d6cb.html#tracking-source=home-top-story

legalschnauzer said...

Missouri legislator calls Greitens nonprofit a "criminal enterprise." Details:



The chairman of the Missouri House committee that had investigated former Gov. Eric Greitens sent out a scathing letter Monday calling Greitens' dark-money group a "criminal enterprise" and said the committee had more than enough evidence to move forward with impeachment.

Rep. Jay Barnes, R-Jefferson City, said the committee possessed evidence that Greitens committed "multiple acts constituting crimes, misconduct, and acts of moral turpitude warranting the filing of articles of impeachment."

Anonymous said...

I think it's extremely likely that Harmison is involved in the Greitens scandal, and the judge's sphincter is tight as a result.

legalschnauzer said...

Just a note: Trolls attacked my Facebook account early this afternoon, so I take that as a sign that, indeed, certain sphincters are tight -- especially those belonging to Harmison and certain members of the prosecutor, sheriff, and public defender offices.

Anonymous said...

More from Mr. Barnes, the legislator, who is pushing for further action on the Greitens scandal:


Barnes' letter also says the committee had gathered "sufficient documentary evidence" to believe the Greitens and his campaign improperly obtained a donor list from The Mission Continues, a charity Greitens founded, "and then lied about it on a report submitted to the Missouri Ethics Commission."

"Based on the documents in our possession, I believe Eric Greitens faced a near certain criminal conviction in the now dismissed case on tampering with computer evidence," Barnes wrote.

Barnes claims in the letter that the committee also had evidence that Greitens engaged in criminal fraud by obtaining a grant from the John Templeton Foundation and Washington University that was used in part "for political purposes not authorized by the grant."