Tuesday, June 5, 2018

Cop-witnesses tell one lie after another under oath in Carol's "assault" trial, and Missouri Judge Jerry Harmison Jr. does his best to let them get away with it


Debi Wade
How many lies and inconsistent statements can four cop-witnesses tell in one relatively simple misdemeanor trial? Based on our experience in Missouri with the "assault of a law enforcement officer" case against my wife, Carol, the answer is "a lot."

Judge Jerry A. Harmison Jr., however, was looking out for his cop friends. He unlawfully excluded the Probable Cause (PC) Statement, Misdemeanor Information, and written incident reports in the case, depriving Carol of the opportunity to impeach witnesses and show that their credibility was near zero. [See Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 S. Ct. (1974) and State v. Armbruster, 641 S.W. 2d 763 (Mo. banc, 1982).]

And yet, Harmsion stated in his judgment that he found the prosecution witnesses (the four deputies) more "credible" than the defense witnesses (Carol and me). That's because Carol was not allowed to show the cop-witnesses repeatedly lied on the stand -- or, at the least, made statements wildly inconsistent with what they had written earlier.

Let's consider the written statements of Officer Debi Wade, compared to what she testified under oath at trial. Wade wrote the PC Statement, and here are her words from that document:

I was once again able to calm (Carol) down, and I talked her into loading her packed items into the car. She and I placed all of the bags . . . into the back seat and trunk of the car. Just as (Carol) appeared to be getting into the passenger side door to the car, she started screaming that she needed her cat's litter box. I was trying to tell her that I would go back into the residence for it, when she suddenly took off in a dead run toward the front door to the residence. Knowing that Deputy (Scott) Harrison would be exiting that door at any moment, I feared that she would catch him off guard, so I jogged up behind Carol and attempted to tell her that I would get the litter box for her. Just as I caught up to her she suddenly pivoted and barreled into me head first. I was caught off guard, and as my left arm automatically came up to block my face in a reactive manner, I automatically turned my body to my right in an attempt to blade my gun side away from her while I regained my footing. At this time, both Lt. (Christian) Conrad and Deputy Harrison came in from either side to secure Carol's arm and place her in handcuffs. 

Wade's account is pure fantasy; hardly a word of it is true. Consider:

* Wade did not help Carol put items in our car, and neither did any other cop. I was sitting in the passenger side of the car, inches away, and Carol put our stuff in the car herself. Wade was on the front porch of the residence.

* Carol didn't appear to get in the passenger seat, she did get in the passenger seat briefly -- just as I testified at trial. We looked at each other, not saying a word, but I could tell Carol had a "light bulb moment" go off over her head. She didn't tell me what it was, but I learned later that she had realized we didn't have Baxter's litter box.

* I've known Carol for more than 30 years, and I've never seen her take off on a dead run for anything, and she did not do that in this instance. She walked at a normal pace down the sidewalk toward the front porch, where she encountered Wade and Harrison. They apparently refused to let Carol retrieve the litter box, even though Carol and I both had been told we could get our personal belongings. As Carol discussed the matter with Wade and Harrison, an unknown cop in a blue shirt grabbed her from behind, slammed her butt-first to the ground, and then violently yanked on both arms, in an upward and backward position, causing a comminuted fracture in the left arm and severe bruising in the right arm.

What's the main point of Wade's written account? Wade says she came up from behind, without Carol knowing she was there, and Carol turned around, into her. In other words, it was an accident -- and not a crime. Wade says she was "caught off guard' when Carol turned around. Well, it only stands to reason that Carol was "caught off guard" when she turned to find Wade in her face. Again, Wade's own words show this was an accident, not a crime -- and prosecutors must have agreed because they did not bring this charge against Carol. (Probable Cause Statement and Misdemeanor Information are embedded at the end of this post.)

Jerry Harmison Jr.
But what happened when Wade testified at trial? She took any accident component out of it. From the Harmison "judgment":

Carol Shuler got upset a second time and started yelling "just shoot me." Carol Shuler then charged Wade like a bull since she wanted in the residence but the doors were being locked.

Wade's statement under oath at trial was wildly inconsistent with what she wrote (also under oath) in her PC Statement. Before, Wade came up from behind Carol, and Carol accidentally turned around into her. On her second crack at it, Wade says she was in front of Carol, who intentionally charged her "like a bull."

What's going on here? First, it's important to note that none of this actually happened. Second, by law, Debi Wade should not have been allowed to testify about alleged conduct with which Carol was not charged. (See State v. Bernard, 849 S.W.2d 10 (Mo. Sup. Ct., 1993.)

The reality? Both of Wade's accounts are products of her fertile imagination. Carol and I both stated at trial that she and Debi Wade never made contact with each other, and that is the truth. But even if you believe there is some truthfulness in Wade's account, it simply does not hold up.

Wade changes her story completely -- meaning she either lied under oath at trial or submitted a false police report (an affidavit, where "false statements are punishable by law"). Either of those is a crime.

And Wade hardly was the only cop-witness at Carol's trial to make statements that were wildly inconsistent with what they stated before.


(To be continued)








28 comments:

Anonymous said...

Inconsistent statements can be a big part of any criminal trial -- for prosecution and defense. Here, Wade's stories don't match at all, which destroys her credibility.

Anonymous said...

If you are going to lie on the stand, you need to take the time to coordinate your lies. These thugs aren't good cops, and they are even worse liars.

Anonymous said...

They are trying to make Carol out to be a retired roller derby queen. That's goofy, as is their story about Carol breaking her own arm by flailing in back seat of patrol car.

Liar . . . liar . . .

Anonymous said...

The cops felt free to lie probably because they figured (or knew) the judge would protect them. If they knew it, that goes to collusion.

Anonymous said...

The judge already has protected the thugs once. He kept the probable cause statement and incident reports our of evidence so that Carol could not use them to impeach the witnesses and blow their credibility to smithereens.

Judge is a fraud!

legalschnauzer said...

There's a reason the judge feels such a strong kinship for the prosecution and the thug-cop witnesses. I will be revealing that shortly.

Anonymous said...

Perjury can be hard to prove, but when the witnesses have made a previous written statement and then say something different on the stand . . . that makes it a whole lot easier.

Anonymous said...

The judges, the prosecutor, the sheriff, the witnesses, the public defender, and probably the presiding judge planned this well in advance -- probably after they viewed dash cam footage and saw how bad the incident really was.

Anonymous said...

So much for the idea that adding a woman to a male-dominated workplace will add a touch of dignity and integrity. Wade sounds like she fits right in with the "good ole boys."

legalschnauzer said...

@10:53 --

Oh, she does. Of the four cop witnesses, she might have been the biggest liar of all.

Anonymous said...

If the cops are such "men of integrity," why do they keep trying to block your Facebook page whenever you write a post about their lies and corruption?

legalschnauzer said...

Because they have no defense for what they've done?

Anonymous said...

@11:13 --



Because they are pussies?

Anonymous said...

Pathetic that big, "tough" cops, with all of their weapons, have to resort to trolling a journalist's Facebook page.


Yes, they are pussies, and they are stupid as hell.

Anonymous said...

The cop baboons are wasting their time by attacking your Facebook page. You've built up a major readership over 11 years, and many of us come here via bookmarks or typing "Legal Schnauzer" into Google. Works every time. You have a large base of loyal readers who don't wait for Facebook notices to read your posts.

We know how to find your work, and cop baboons can't stop it. Ha, ha!

Anonymous said...

I hope you send the whole file to the Supreme Court of Missouri every motion that you filed before and after her Attorney quit. So much for ”the right to a fair trial”. Everyone conspired to make Carol loose, and for them to cover up the cops brutality. When they dropped the charge stopping Carol from having a Jury. From what I see, it can only be a conspiracy. When the FBI gets away with not turning over documents to congress it has asked for it flows all the way down hill. Our country has gone to shit.

And they are so stupid they can’t understand why people don’t like them.

Just maybe everyone will refuse service to all cops and lawyers starting with healthcare . If they come into the emergency room choking on something the doctor should look into thier eyes and tell them looks like you need a lawyer and refuse service to them. It maybe the only way we can take our courts back for the people.

Judge = Master pimp in a black robe ,

Lawyer = Pimp in a suit

Police = Pimps Ho

Snitch = Ho’s Bitch

Anonymous said...

@1:05 -- Please don't insult baboons by comparing them to cops.

Anonymous said...

You already have evidence that the Alabama Bar is interfering in your court cases, and I'm guessing the Missouri Bar is doing the same thing, probably in collusion with the sleazy Alabama crowd. I suspect your brother is in the middle of all of it, which means he needs a good spanking, or worse.

Hope you get to the bottom of all this crap.

Anonymous said...

Every time I learn about new sleaze connected to Carol's case, one question comes to mind:

Who appointed Judge Jerry Harmison? Why, it was Gov. Eric Greitens, Mr. Sleaze himself.

Enough said.

Anonymous said...

No matter what the cops say, you cannot inflict a comminuted fracture of the arm by yourself, especially while handcuffed and seat-belted. A little Google research will tell you that. So, they aren't going to be able to get around that. They broke her arm, and they know it.

legalschnauzer said...

In their statements at trial, the cops make much out of Carol carrying items out of our apartment, etc. Well, her arm wasn't broken then. Her encounter with Jeremy Lynn came at the front door, at the beginning of the eviction, and it had nothing to do with her arm being broken. The broken arm came at the very end of the eviction, when an unknown cop slammed her to the ground and yanked violently on both limbs while she was seated.

The cops said she never cried out or complained of being injured, although she testified that she told one cop, Scott Harrison, that her arm "hurt really bad." I didn't hear her cry out either, but it's possible that shock has that kind of effect on the body. The medical records show she was treated with oxygen, so there were concerns about her being in shock or going into shock.

Anonymous said...

Greitens lied over and over until he got backed into a corner and then he couldn't lie anymore -- so he resigned. His appointee, Harmison is headed down the same path.

Anonymous said...

Debi Wade sure is a fine example of womanhood -- NOT!


What a disgrace.

Anonymous said...

The PC statement is inadmissible because it’s hearsay (i.e., an out of court statement being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted). Same for the offense reports. The Misdemeanor Information is inadmissible because the charging document is not evidence of a crime; additionally, I fail to see how it would in any way be beneficial to your case.

YOU’RE WELCOME. It has become obvious no one else was willing to fill you in on this...

Anonymous said...

Your statements regarding Governor Greitens “appointing” Judge Harmison are wildly misleading. Greene County selects its associate and circuit court judges using the Missouri Plan (aptly named due to the fact it was first implemented by Missouri), which allows the governor very limited say. Your quid pro quo allegations make no sense.

EDUCATE YOURSELF: https://www.courts.mo.gov/page.jsp?id=297

legalschnauzer said...

@7:51 --

I made no quid pro quo allegations. Further, are you claiming Greitens did not appoint Harmison? Maybe you're the one who needs education.

legalschnauzer said...

@7:32 --

Can you make a citation to law to support your claim? I doubt it, but I'll see what you come up with. Neither the prosecutor, nor the judge said a word about hearsay, and the PC Statement's author was right there in court, so you don't know much about hearsay. The MI was evidence that Carol was not charged with an offense where the judge unlawfully allowed testimony.

It would be beneficial to Carol's case because it goes to credibility -- the cops said one thing in their written statements and said something else on the stand, under oath. It's called "reasonable doubt," "inconsistent statements," and "impeachment of witnesses."

If you don't get that, you aren't smart enough to be reading this blog.

legalschnauzer said...

@1:30 --

Very well stated -- and funny, too.