Expert witness: Missouri lawyer David Shuler lacked the skills and mindset to defend a child sexual-abuse case -- committing malpractice of "staggering" scope

David Shuler

A Missouri attorney had neither the experience, the skill set, nor the temperament to take on the criminal defense in a complex case of alleged child sexual abuse, according to an expert witness in a subsequent legal-malpractice lawsuit. Scott J. Wells, the defendant in the original sex-abuse case wound up with convictions in 2004 -- carrying likely five life sentences as punishment -- although records show four complaining witnesses told wildly inconsistent stories, with at least one caught lying under oath about the alleged presence of scars on Wells' penis.

Wells paid roughly $65,000 to bring Jefferson City lawyer Daniel Dodson into the case, and he managed to bring the result down to misdemeanor Alford pleas to child endangerment, which involved no appearance on a sex-offender registry, no time behind bars, and not even an allegation in the record that Wells actually endangered anyone, much less that he sexually abused anyone.

Dodson became an expert witness in Wells' legal-malpractice lawsuit against his original attorney, David Shuler of Springfield (my brother), and Dodson called Shuler's level of malpractice "staggering." We know from experience that it is rare to hear that kind of brutal critique from one lawyer about another.

So, how poor was David Shuler's performance in the sex-abuse case? Dodson says Shuler simply was not capable of handling the case and put his client in an awful fix. Here is how Dodson put it in a deposition for the legal-malpractice case, with Shuler's lawyer, Scott Bellm, doing the questioning:

Bellm: Okay. At what point did you change your approach from focusing on keeping the sentencing -- or the punishment phase down -- 

Dodson: Yeah. 

Bellm: -- versus a motion for new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel?

Dodson: Well, I already had some pretty good indication from Scott that Shuler just really wasn't -- frankly, just wasn't capable of taking on a case like this and doing it. There's just a certain skill level that comes with it. I mean, this is not a routine burglary, where your client's been caught red-handed or has confessed or something; this is the equivalent of brain surgery, and it wold be like a general practitioner taking someone in to perform brain surgery. I knew that from talking to Scott. 

When I read the deposition, I would see such things as Shuler going in and not really even knowing which complaining witness he was talking to, in terms of the facts. And I think I had also gathered some information that Shuler had some personal issues with a sick child or something. But I was fairly clear in my mind that Scott had not been well represented, after reviewing, you know, some portion of the file. 

Shuler was incapable of handling the case, and he failed to take steps to educate himself about such cases, to make himself at least minimally capable, Dodson says:

Dodson: . . . the closest comparison would be a death-penalty case. I mean, I haven't done a death-penalty case, but if I were to take one on and not get some help from lawyers who have done them before, I think I would be committing malpractice, unless I won. 

Bellm: So it's -- in order to adequately defend Mr. Wells in this case, it would not have been enough for him to use someone with an ordinary skill level, learning experience, training; he would need someone who was, in fact, extraordinary? 

Dodson: No, he would need someone who had taken on the responsibility of learning what you need to learn to do a child sex-abuse case. . . . I'm sure you have noticed that there are several authors I mentioned who write books on how to determine if a child's telling the truth or to give the trier of fact indicators as to whether or not a child's telling the truth. . . .  

Ordinary . . . you can't do a case like this without having to delve into some of the things you need to learn to do this particular type of case. I don't consider that extraordinary. A journeyman criminal defense lawyer who's learned to do child sex cases has looked into these things that Shuler hadn't looked into. 

Bellm: Okay, All right. He needed a different skill level, skill set, training, and learning to be able to adequately defend Scott? 

Dodson: That -- I was noting this in the transcript, and I remember this-- I mean, he was essentially a plea-bargain lawyer. He was an ex-prosecutor who took some criminal cases because he knew a little bit about them. But he hadn't done a jury trial since he had left the prosecutor's office, hadn't tried a felony since he had left the prosecutor's office, and this, frankly, isn't the type of case to cut your teeth on. 

Bellm: Should have referred him? 

Dodson: Yeah, he should have said, "I don't have what it takes to represent you in this case." I -- that's -- it may happen a lot, but it's sad because Scott Wells almost went to prison on this.

Dodson disagreed with Shuler's strategy to waive a jury trial and have the case heard by a judge only. In fact, Bellm states that Shuler's contract with Wells limited the scope of the representation to a non-jury trial. Dodson said he considered that an improper contract because Wells might have been better off before a jury, but the contract took that option off the table.

Bellm: Can we agree that it was not . . . necessarily a breach of the standard of care for him to waive the jury? 

Dodson: I think that's probably true. Yeah, I don't think it was a breach. I think it was probably a bad judgment call in this case, but it was --  

Bellm: Not negligent? 

Dodson: No, I think it was a trial strategy -- a trial strategy borne of not knowing anything about doing these cases and generally having a make-up -- Mr. Shuler's make-up -- he's probably still not tried a jury trial and may never do it. He's not a jury-trial lawyer. 

Bellm: In any event, even if he had not waived jury and they would have had a jury trial. there's no way in the world anybody . . . could ever predict one way or the other what the outcome would have been? 

Dodson: With David Shuler as his lawyer, I can predict what the outcome -- . . .  In this case, I think it was rather obvious that Scott Wells wasn't guilty, and that there were so many holes and so many problems, and then the stuff that came up at trial that wasn't reacted to, I think the case was a winner. 

Members of the Wells family told Dodson that the facts of the case, as presented by the prosecution, were nonsensical:

Dodson: They were always, of course, adamant, you know, Scott -- this is preposterous. Some of the things that came up, I mean, the allegations of what supposedly went on in a tiny little apartment with other people nearby were just, frankly, absurd, and that's one of the many things that didn't get pointed out in trial. And that's part of what they were communicating to me is that, you know, this stuff -- this is obviously not true. trying to help me find a way to get that across that Shuler didn't find. 

Was David Shuler even capable of finding the numerous holes in the prosecution's case -- and exploiting them to benefit his client? Dodson suggests Shuler was way out of his element in trying to defend a felony criminal case. In fact, Dodson said Shuler failed to convince Wells and his family of the serious situation they were facing, and that significantly more money was going to be needed to keep Wells out of prison:

Dodson: And there were a ton of other things, too. I mean research on . . . how to get expert testimony and just -- I mean, ultimately, David Shuler didn't do even half of what was needed to be done to defend this case. He didn't have the expertise to do it. He, frankly, didn't have the demeanor to do it. He didn't have -- there's just a certain mindset, even swagger, that you need to defend someone in a case like this. And he's -- I mean, ultimately, he probably should have realized he shouldn't have taken this  

Bellm: Well, it's certainly not negligence for someone without the -- what you term the appropriate mindset, swagger or so forth to practice law or take a case like this, is it? 

Dodson: Given the results I see in this case, yeah, I think that was a big contributing factor. I think, ultimately, he had no business taking this case. And part of that has to do -- I mean there are some guys who are more -- I mean you're a trial lawyer. This is what you do. . . . Some lawyers are meant to do wills and real estate and are not meant to be trial lawyers. But Shuler wasn't in that position. He didn't try cases to juries for fairly obvious reasons. He wasn't the kind of guy you needed to be sending in front of a jury.

(To be continued)

Missouri resident Scott J. Wells is paying an awful price in federal court for a 2004 state case where his conviction was vacated, with no evidence of child endangerment in plea, and he passed a polygraph test

Polygraph test

A Missouri man has been detained for almost three years on federal child-pornography charges, based largely on his "conviction" in a 2004 state case for child sexual abuse. U.S. prosecutor James Kelleher, in hearings before multiple judges, generally has failed to mention that Scott J. Wells' conviction in the 2004 case was overturned after a complaining witness testified falsely under oath about the presence of scars on Wells' penis -- and after the state court found Wells had received ineffective assistance of counsel from my brother-lawyer, David Shuler.

Kelleher also fails to mention that Wells' plea to misdemeanor child-endangerment charges in 2004 was an Alford plea, a legal maneuver in which the prosecution and accused reach a compromise, avoiding a trial, with the defendant able to maintain his innocence. In the Wells case, there is no evidence in the record -- not even an allegation -- that he actually endangered a child.

On top of all that, Wells also took a polygraph test, at the insistence of Daniel Dodson, the Jefferson City attorney who took over the earlier case in an effort to clean up the mess David Shuler had created. Wells passed the polygraph test, which was administered by John Harvill, a highly regarded polygrapher from Springfield, MO.

That Wells passed a Harvill-administered polygraph was a key factor in getting the 2004 conviction overturned, Dodson said in a depostion for Wells' legal-malpractice lawsuit against David Shuler. We certainly have seen no sign that Kelleher has mentioned the positive polygraph outcome in arguments before federal judges, an indication the prosecutor is more interested in keeping Wells locked up, lawfully or unlawfully, rather than ensuring justice is done. Kelleher's actions also could point to fraud on the court, which might render rulings in the child-porn case void.

John Harvill

The law surrounding polygraphs is complex and somewhat unsettled. In general, it is difficult to get polygraph results admitted as evidence in court, but it can happen under "back-door" circumstances, when one party or another opens an evidentiary window that allows admission of the polygraph results. Here is testimony regarding polygraphs from Daniel Dodson in a deposition for Wells legal-malpractice case against David Shuler. Scott Bellm, Shuler's attorney is doing the questioning: (Two volumes of the Dodson deposition are embedded at the end of this post.)

Dodson: One of my quarrels with [Shuler], even though I may be unorthodox in this way, polygraphs are the most incredible tool in cases like this. Even a prosecutor who is entrenched and won't dismiss based on them has the wind taken out of his sails when that comes up. 

And I think Shuler mentioned it and says he mentioned it several times, but he didn't bring it home to Scott, which wasn't that hard to do, that this needs to be done, this is something that is an essential tool for getting the prosecutor to back away a little bit, especially when you have so much more to work with to say these things did not happen.

The discussion eventually turns to the law surrounding polygraphs:

Bellm: Now, with the polygraph, is it your testimony that you believe you would have been able to get the results of that polygraph into evidence at trial? 

Dodson: No. The law is heavily against me on that. I -- the purpose of a polygraphing a case like this is mostly in dealing with the prosecutor, mostly in taking -- and in this case, I think, as always, cases like this [in Greene County] start out with Jill Patterson, who believes every allegation she's ever heard from any young child and is very gung-ho about it, and the Defendant is evil and so on. But it's a -- she won't admit it, and Kelleher didn't admit it, but it's a stomach punch to a prosecutor to see a John Harvill polygraph that says, hey, this guy's telling the truth. Because they know that is as reliable as a polygraph is going to get. 

They know that John can provide a stack of about 30 letters from different law enforcement agencies who have relied on his polygraphs over the years. And I do hold out some possibility, as I said in the hearing, that, you know, at some point, someone's going to establish enough reliability to a polygraph to get it admitted. And in this case, with John's credentials, I felt like I had a shot. But keep in mind also that in a judge-tried case, the mere offering of it has the fact of it before a trier of fact. And that may be a little "back door," but it's certainly useful. 

Dodson was asked to  describe steps he took in Scott Wells' defense that David Shuler did not take -- and part of that involved the polygraph:

Bellm: Anything else that you did in general terms that David did not do? 

Dodson: Well, a big part of it was bringing home to Scott Wells his situation and the seriousness, convincing him of what he needed to be convinced of, that he needed to take a polygraph, convincing him and his family that it was going to take a lot more money to keep Scott out of prison, and yeah, doing the client-control things that you have to do in a serious situation like this. 

And there were a ton of other things, too. I mean, research on, you know, ho to get expert testimony in and just -- I mean, ultimately David Shuler didn't do even half of what needed to be done to defend this case. 

How did David Shuler's failure to get a polygraph test hurt his client? Dodson points to one glaring example where Shuler called a female police officer (Nina Sala-Gault) to the stand -- apparently because she had interviewed Wells and the complaining witnesses, and she raised the polygraph issue -- but Shuler had no results with which to counter:

Dodson: Given -- the funny thing is despite my questions about his strategic choices on trying it to a judge, the -- he had put himself in a position to win it - or he would have been in a position to win it in front of Judge Burrell if he had been effective. If he had gotten Scott to take a polygraph and pass it, then when the cop [Sala-Gault] he called to the stand, which was a strategic blunder, but when she interjected the part that [Wells] had refused to take a polygraph, that opened the door, and he would have been able to get in that polygraph evidence legitimately, and it would have been part of the record. But he hadn't done the appropriate thing in getting the polygraph and might not have thought to use it if he had it.

(Note: It's not clear from the record, but it appears Sala-Gault -- or someone else on the police/prosecutor side -- tried to get Wells to take a police-administered polygraph test, and Wells refused. Our research indicates criminal-defense lawyers generally would call that a wise decision. Dodson, on the other hand, was talking about having a test conducted by an independent polygrapher, such as John Harvill. Wells agreed to take the Harvill test, and he passed it.)


How does an attorney effectively use polygraph evidence? Dodson provides insights -- and points out that Shuler not only failed to have his client take a polygraph, be he called a witness who raised the issue on the stand:

Bellm: And I want to back up just for a second. You said something earlier. You're aware that the officer volunteered on the stand at trial the issue relative to [Wells'] failure to take a polygraph test? 

Dodson: Oh, and I'm aware she did it on direct examination, which calls into question why in the world he ever called her. . . .  

Bellm: Okay. Is it your testimony that he should have gotten the polygraph rest for the reason that she -- he could have anticipated that she might volunteer something like that and have the test waiting in the wings to rebut that testimony? 

Dodson: My contention -- of course, he couldn't have anticipated that. My contention is he should have gotten the polygraph test for the reasons I have stated, that it is an irreplaceable strategic tool, if done properly. Some people who are telling the truth don't pass polygraph tests. If it's done properly and discreetly, no one knows about it, so there's not any potential harm to it. [Shuler] should have gotten the polygraph for different reasons and been in a position to do it -- because even though [the officer] was his witness, she was certainly of the level of a hostile witness, and I think Judge Burrell would have ruled that opened the door.

A lawyer, Dodson says, does not discuss the possibility of a polygraph test with prosecutors ahead of time:

Bellm: Are you aware of in this particular case whether that offer was ever made? 

Dodson: What offer is that? 

Bellm: To have him take a polygraph test. 

Dodson: Oh, if he takes a polygraph? I can tell you strategically you don't ever want to discuss that offer. You want to get the polygraph test, and if it's a good polygraph test, you want to hold it under the prosecutor's nose and say, "By the way, my client didn't do this; does that change your outlook? You certainly would not discuss ahead of time that your client was going to take a polygraph.

Bellm: You believe the favorable polygraph results had anything to do with the plea that you were ultimately offered? 

Dodson: Absolutely.

In Dodson's view, proper use of the polygraph results could have led to dismissal of the charges against Scott Wells -- and to this day, in the federal child-porn case, Wells has his 2004 conviction (even though it was overturned) and the resulting Alford plea being used against him:

Bellm: Well, if [Shuler] would have talked Scott into obtaining the polygraph test, what you're telling me is -- if he would have talked him into it and Scott would have passed at that time, then that would have been a bargaining tool to be used with the prosecutor to secure a better plea bargain, right? 

Dodson: In this case, to secure a dismissal. 

(To be continued)

Missouri attorney David Shuler is Exhibit A that a lawyer can claim experience in a certain practice area and still not provide remotely competent service

David Shuler

If an attorney claims in advertising or on his Web site, that he is competent in criminal defense, does that mean he really is? Not necessarily, says an expert witness in a Missouri legal-malpractice case.

According to court documents, David Shuler (my brother), of Springfield, MO, represented himself as a criminal-defense lawyer and signed up Scott J. Wells as a client in a complex child sexual-abuse case, with Wells paying $15,000 for Shuler's services, (plus some expenses added on). What did Wells get for his money and trouble? He was convicted -- even though a complaining witness was found to have lied under oath, with other witnesses telling wildly contradictory stories -- and faced more than five life sentences. Daniel Dodson, of Jefferson City, took over the case and got the convictions overturned, based largely on a court's finding that Shuler had provided ineffective assistance of counsel.

Dodson served as an expert witness in Wells' legal-malpractice case and testified at length about the lousy lawyering job Shuler had done. The record also shows that Shuler acted with a complete lack of class; Wells sent a letter asking for a refund of his money, and Shuler refused -- even though documents show he essentially admitted that he screwed up the case.

Bottom line: Just because a lawyer claims to be competent in a certain area of the law, it doesn't mean that really is the case. And David Shuler is Exhibit A on that point. Here is testimony from Daniel Dodson in a deposition for the legal-malpractice case. Shuler's lawyer, Scott Bellm, is doing the questioning:

Bellm: The first allegation [of legal malpractice] is that he did not prepare for trial, he being Mr. Shuler, did not prepare for trial or effectively assist the Plaintiff in defending himself by adequately investigating the charges and the defenses to those charges by fully and adequately interviewing witnesses against and for the accused. Let's just top with that. 

Dodson: Yeah. As I said in the transcript -- and I read through it, but I don't remember them all -- there were numerous things in the reports that were critical to bring out in terms of inconsistencies and in terms of reasons not to believe these girls that were there for [Shuler] that he did not bring out. 

There were additional witnesses, neighbors, credibility witnesses, character witnesses for Scott Wells, neighbors who would say these little girls were untruthful, they had a reputation for being untruthful around the neighborhood, that he didn't explore.

How did David Shuler fall outside the standard of care for attorneys defending a case of alleged child sexual abuse? A key factor, Dodson says, was the failure to hire an expert witness:

Bellm: We talked about he experts briefly. You say he should have endorsed who -- to be within the standard of care . . . ? 

Dodson: I think it was -- he needed to at least explore hiring an expert witness to have these recorded statements (from complaining witnesses) analyzed, just as I eventually did. 

In this particular case, I don't really think there's room for a determination to not use an expert witness, given the statements, what was in them, the prior inconsistent statements, the later inconsistent statements, the inconsistencies all throughout. I don't think there was room within the standard of care for cases like this to not, at least look into and probably hire an expert witness. 

Bellm: And if he talked to Scott about doing that, and Scott didn't want to spend the money to do it . . . ? 

Dodson: [That] needed to be in the initial conversation. "Mr. Wells, these cases require that I look into hiring an expert witness. And if I do, it's going to be several thousand dollars. And you're going to need to be in a position to come up with that money or you're going to have to give me a deposit of that money so I have it available, because otherwise, I can't represent you properly.

Dodson addressed the issue of whether Wells was entitled to a refund of the more than $15,000 he paid David Shuler, plus other possible remedies:

Bellm: Did you ever tell him or advise him to try to get get his money back from David Shuler? 

Dodson: I'm sure I told him that I think, yes, based on the finding of ineffective assistance, that Shuler would probably be wise to give you your money back. . . .  

Bellm: Did you ever advise him to report David to the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel? 

Dodson: I don't believe I did. I don't -- the Chief Disciplinary Counsel and the criminal justice system are both over-rated in their ability to deal with problems, I think.

Dodson also was asked about possible damages for Scott Wells in the legal-malpractice case:

Bellm: . . . we were talking about the damages in this case. And I guess what I'm trying to find out, Mr. Dodson, is we can do the math and know what it cost Mr. Wells to hire you to finish his case. And I also understand that you're not going to give any testimony about his medical condition or medical bills or anything like that. 

Dodson: Right. 

Bellm: From an economic standpoint as to what his issues are, as occasioned by David Shuler's alleged negligent handling of his case, do you have any opinions about that? 

Dodson: Yes, I do. 

Bellm: Okay. 

Dodson: First of all, as I have said, because of the penis evidence, I think David Shuler, even David Shuler, despite all his mistakes, was in position to win it. And so the difference would be between $15,000 and the $60,000 or $65,000 that they eventually spent with me, $45,000 to $50,000. . . .  

Bellm: So the economic damages in this care are around $50,000? 

Dodson: I would say, yeah. From a legal standpoint, yeah. 

Bellm: Well, you would agree that he's certainly not entitled to get back the $15,000 he spent on -- with David Shuler and then the money he spent on you? I mean, he was going to spend something on this case? 

Dodson: Not as pure economic damages. 

Bellm: Sure. 

Dodson: I don't know if punitives are available in cases like this or not or -- or what his medical are. But in terms of the pure additional legal costs, yeah, $50,000 would be about right. Unless, I don't remember what the bondsman costs were. 

Based on Dodson's testimony, David Shuler was looking at being liable for what might be called "direct damages" of at least $50,000, plus possible medical damages (Scott Well has a benign brain tumor, is blind in one eye, and relies on assistive devices to be mobile.), damages for emotional distress, and punitive damages that could have increased the number substantially.

Also, the testimony does not address the expenses Wells incurred for being placed in the position of bringing a legal-malpractice case -- and it makes no mention of whether David Shuler carried malpractice insurance, and without it, the damages likely would have come straight out of his pocket.

As for Shuler's apparent admission that he butchered the Wells case, it can be found on page 38, Vol. 1, of the Dodson deposition. (Both volumes are embedded at the end of the post.)

Bellm: During that meeting [at Shuler's office], did he say anything to you that could be construed as an admission that his representation fell short? 

Dodson: Yeah, to some degree. Yeah, it was like, yeah, I probably should have done this differently. Yeah, I felt like he was more forthcoming in our meeting at his office than he was at trial, in terms of, yeah, maybe if I had this to do over again, I would do it differently, maybe I didn't really think this through, things to that effect. . . .

(To be continued)

Court records show Scott Wells' Alford plea in 2004 case was a compromise, to allegations that were not even made against him -- and he passed a polygraph test that pointed to his truthfulness in that matter

Scott J. Wells

U.S. prosecutor James Kelleher has stated in court several times that Missouri resident Scott J. Wells should be detained on child-pornography charges because he was convicted in 2004 on state child sexual-abuse charges and later "pleaded guilty" to a reduced charge of child endangerment, which makes Wells subject to detention as a violent person, a "danger to society."

Kelleher most recently made such a statement at a hearing where U.S. District Judge Doug Harpool allowed Wells to withdraw a guilty plea on the child-porn charges and rid himself of attorney Brady Musgrave, who pressured him into the plea. Harpool set a trial date for March 2020 and kept Wells in detention -- where he has been for almost three years -- apparently based on Kelleher's open-court statements.

That raises this question: Are Kelleher's statements accurate and complete? The answer: not exactly. Kelleher tends to leave out key facts: (1) Wells' conviction in the 2004 state case was overturned because a court found his attorney (David Shuler, my brother) provided ineffective assistance of counsel and a complaining witness was found to have lied under oath about the presence of scars on Wells' penis; (2) Wells did not plead guilty to the child-endangerment charges, which are misdemeanors, and there is nothing in the record to indicate he acted violently toward anyone. Also, we can find nothing in the record where Kelleher cites statutory authority that a plea to state child-endangerment charges makes one "violent," as a matter of law, in a later federal matter. The key issue here is that Wells entered an Alford plea in the 2004 case, which we have described as follows:

Wells agreed to an Alford plea of child endangerment to dispense with the first case. Trial Judge Don Burrell probably could have dismissed the whole case once a complaining witness was found to have lied about penis scars. But Burrell chose to overturn the conviction and give the state a chance to re-try, meaning Wells faced the prospect of going before a pro-prosecution jury in conservative Southwest Missouri.

With an Alford plea, a criminal defendant does not admit to the unlawful act and asserts his innocence. In essence, it is a type of plea that allows the prosecution to save face for bringing a weak case and allows the defendant to avoid the uncertainty of a jury trial. Nothing in the record even hints that Scott Wells actually endangered a child. Federal prosecutors now are trying to hold that case against Wells, even though he ultimately won it.

Notice the section above that is highlighted in yellow. It shows that, under an Alford plea, an accused does not admit to the unlawful act and asserts his innocence; in other words, it is not a guilty plea. That Kelleher consistently has misstated the nature of Wells' plea in the 2004 case raises this question: Do Kelleher's statements, made by an officer of the court in official proceedings, amount to fraud on the court, possibly rendering subsequent rulings void? Our research indicates the answer is yes.

Daniel Dodson

The public rarely hears about an Alford plea, and even lawyers and judges don't seem to fully understand what it means. The best explanation we've found comes from a deposition of Jefferson City, MO, attorney Daniel Dodson, who served as an expert witness in Scott Wells' legal-malpractice lawsuit against David Shuler. A transcript of the deposition -- with Shuler's attorney, Scott Bellm, providing the questioning -- is embedded in two volumes at the end of this post. Here is a key section about the Alford plea, where Dodson says there was no factual basis to support child endangerment charges against Wells (from page 158, vol. 2):

Bellm: What was the basis that the prosecutor gave to the judge, the factual basis for the charges? 

Dodson: You don't have to on a misdemeanor. 

Bellm: And so none was given? 

Dodson: No, I mean, there was none there. 

Bellm: Well,, tell me, since maybe --  

Dodson: I don't remember what the charge was called, but it had to do with abuse of a child or physical abuse, spanking, something -- you know, there were never any allegations of the sort.

So, Scott Wells pleaded to allegations that were not even made against him. That probably sounds crazy to the general public, but it's how an Alford plea works. It's all about the prosecution saving face, and the defendant avoiding the risks of a jury trial, which involves the very real possibility of being convicted on a much more serious offense (with five life sentences as punishment, in this case) that he did not commit. Here is more from the Dodson deposition:

Bellm: . . . do you recall what you said (in court) at the time? 

Dodson: Sure. It's like, Judge, I want the record to be clear here that my client was accused of these things, that there were all kinds of holes [in the prosecution's case], that he's passed a polygraph test, that he had poor counsel, that he should have been acquitted at trial, that there was this penis evidence . . .  

Like . . . , I want you to know that the only reason we're pleading to this is because our defense has been compromised by the mistakes that were made before, and that there have not even been the slightest allegations that he's charged with in these charges that he's pleading guilty to, and that this is an Alford plea in the purest sense, in that there's never been anything offered by anybody to indicate that Scott Wells did what he's accused of, that he's pleading guilty to here today. This is purely a compromise because of the position his previous counsel (David Shuler) put us in. And that he maintains that he is not guilty of anything whatsoever. 

I mean, yeah, I laid it on thick, I can tell you. . . .

Notice the green highlighted area above that references a polygraph test that Scott Wells took, and passed, in the 2004 case. Dodson arranged for that test to be taken after David Shuler had made no effort to seek the services of either a polygrapher or any other kind of expert. Further notice, also in green, that even Dodson mistakenly says his client was "pleading guilty" to child endangerment. As a matter of law, someone making an Alford plea does not admit to anything, and in fact, maintains his innocence.

A polygraph test presents a number of complicated legal issues, but Dodson says in his deposition that it was critical to turning around the 2004 case against Scott Wells. We are guessing that the results also could be used to help get the current federal charges dismissed -- if Wells ever could find an attorney to actually represent him aggressively and competently.

More on the polygraph issue in an upcoming post.


(To be continued)

Even in my post-eviction, followup visit, medical records show I made no mention of having a firearm or threatening to use one against law enforcement

Burrell Behavioral Health

Two Missouri mental-health workers claim in a 911 call that I threatened to shoot any sheriff's deputies who attempted to evict Carol and me in September 2015. Specifically, the 911 callers claim I made such a statement during an appointment with my health-care provider on 8/4/15, roughly five weeks before our scheduled eviction. Medical records from that visit make no mention of such a threat from me. Medical records from my followup visit on 11/13/15 make no mention of such a threat, either.

What were Joshua Davis and "Whispering" Kathryn Mays, both of Burrell Behavioral Health at the time, thinking when they placed a 911 call that: (a) Violated my medical confidentiality; (b) Was patently false, according to their own patient records; and (c) Was based on information from my brother-lawyer David Shuler, with whom Burrell had no permission from us to communicate -- and Davis and Mays admit that in their 911 call?

I don't have an answer to that question, but it raises all kinds of concerns about privacy, public safety, and the intersection between mental-health care and law enforcement. It's especially important because deputies at the scene of our eviction repeatedly cited the 911 call (which they claimed I had made) as the reason they arrived with 6-8 officers, multiple assault weapons, and more handguns than we could count. Without the 911 call (which, of course, actually came from Davis and Mays), the officer who broke Carol's arm likely would not have been on the scene.

Here is a question that remains at the forefront of my mind: Why did Davis and Mays concoct a fairy tale in their 911 call that differs radically from the notes of my health-care provider, psychiatric nurse Matt Charles? (Video of 911 call is embedded at the end of this post.) We've already shown that Charles' notes from the 9/4/15 appointment don't say anything about me threatening to shoot anyone. Now we know that Charles' notes from my followup visit, on 11/13/15, make no mention of a threat either. The following is from medical records re: my November visit:

Patient has not been present in the clinic since early August. He reports that since that time, he and his wife were evicted from their home. He states, "They broke Carol's arm during the eviction." He states that she was severely injured and required emergency surgery to correct this. He states, "She will be lucky to get 75% of her function back."

Evidently, Greene County Sheriff's Office was present during the eviction, and he claims that the Sheriff's Deputy assaulted her when she tried to go back into the home to remove property. Since this eviction, the patient's brother has petitioned for legal guardianship of Roger. Roger is frustrated regarding this, stating, "There is no basis for it."

He states that he and Carol have been living in a pay-by-the-week hotel, stating, "I like it better than the place we lived at before." He reports his mood has been good; despite all these issues, he has been sleeping well. He denies suicidal or homicidal thoughts. He denies anxiety or panic. He continues to be fixated on being harassed by the legal system and police and denies other hallucinations."

Any mention in that of a gun or my intent to use one? Nope.

As noted in a previous post, I generally believe Matt Charles presents a fair assessment of my visits, but the medical-records process apparently is far from perfect -- and his notes sometimes include items that aren't accurate, that I don't agree with, or sound just plain goofy. For example, Charles states: "He continues to be fixated on being harassed by the legal system and police and denies other hallucinations."

A literal reading of that statement, at least to my eyes, says Charles considers my statements about being "harassed by the legal system and police" are "hallucinations." Of course, it's a matter of public record that we were unlawfully evicted and cops broke Carol's arm. Charles could have checked the record or viewed X-rays of Carol's injuries, including all the hardware required to piece her arm back together -- and I think that would have answered any questions he had about "hallucinations."

In reality, I suspect Charles did not mean that sentence to come off the way it literally is written. While some points in his notes are unclear, it's very clear that I never claimed to have a gun or threatened to use one. That makes you wonder why two of Charles' co-workers called 911 with a tall tale that ran wildly contrary to notes in my medical records.

Goofy 911 call in Missouri focuses mostly on a threat I never made and a gun I never had -- and that's because my lawyer-brother, David Shuler, made it all up

A 911 call that started with an allegation that I had threatened to shoot any law-enforcement officer who tried to evict Carol and me, quickly changed to an admission that I had said no such words -- and ended with the revelation that my lawyer-brother David Shuler instigated the call and made the whole "threat story" up.

The call, from Burrell Behavioral Heath case manager Joshua Davis, starts veering off the tracks with the claim that I had a gun. (Video/audio of 911 call is embedded at the end of this post.) Other than a BB gun I received as a Christmas gift at about age 12, I had never owned a gun in my life, up to the time of the call. Kathryn Mays, who had been assigned as my social worker, can be heard whispering to Davis throughout the call, and much of the misinformation apparently comes from her.

In fact, Davis does not seem to know what he's doing, or why he's even placing a 911 call for a matter he admits up front is a "non-emergency." The 911 dispatcher, a young woman named Maggie, seems to be saying, "Why are you calling me, and what on earth do you want us to do about it?" She really would have been dumbfounded if she had known almost everything she was told was false.

The call includes moments that are downright comical. Davis tries to explain that he is calling because Burrell has a "duty to warn."

That prompts Maggie to say, "I'm not sure what 'warrant' you're talking about."

"I said 'duty to warn.'" Davis explains.

"Oh . . . OK," says Maggie, in a tone that suggests she still has no idea why he's calling.

Does Burrell actually have a "duty to warn" under Missouri state law? If so, I haven't been able to find it. There is this little item called medical confidentiality in many jurisdictions, and Burrell didn't seem to have a problem trampling mine -- going so far as to make up things I didn't say. Here's how the call begins:

Josh: I work with case management, and we have a client with Burrell who threatened to shoot anyone if they came to evict him from his house.

Maggie: Is he being evicted?

Josh: Yes, there has been an eviction notice posted at the house. Part of our duty to warn, according to one of my supervisors, is that I need to let the Greene County Sheriff's Office know, in case they send somebody out there, that he has threatened to shoot anyone . . . or not . . . well he's threatened to protect his home, I believe is his words. And he has a gun.

Notice that in the span of a minute or so, I've gone from threatening to shoot anyone who comes to evict to threatening to "protect my home." These people apparently don't realize there are a lot of steps you can take to "protect your home" that don't involve shooting anyone -- including legal steps, in court, that are supposed to ensure you are not unlawfully evicted. Do the people at Burrell think it's unlawful to protect your home against intruders? Apparently they do. Did any of them think to ask, "Is this threatened eviction unlawful, as Roger says?" Apparently not.

Trust me when I say it's otherworldly to hear people talking about you on a 911 call -- about a threat you never made and a gun you never had.

It gets even more bizarre when Maggie asks Davis if I have any tattoos. Me, a tattoo? I wouldn't be caught dead with one. But you can tell Maggie is making the assumption that I'm a criminal, so I must be covered in tattoos. Then, there is this:

Maggie: He has a gun, you said. Any other weapons that you know of?

Josh: None, that we know of.

Maggie: Would he be under the influence of anything? (Oh great, I'm a criminal AND a druggie.)

Josh: He takes medication for his mental illness that we work with him, but no other drugs . . . (Hey, you forgot my crystal meth. I love me some crystal meth!)

Maggie: What kind of mental illness does he have?

Josh: PTSD and major depression. (You aren't going to mention I was thrown in jail five months for blogging in Alabama? That doesn't qualify as trauma? And depression is considered mental illness? Hell, 7/8 of the country must be mentally ill then.)

Maggie: Is he a veteran?

Josh: No ma'am.

Maggie: Do you think he is at home, at that location, now.

Josh: Yes, most likely.

Remember, all of this hullabaloo -- on what is supposed to be a phone line for emergencies -- largely is about a threat I did not make and a gun I did not have. So who was at the heart of all this baloney? We will address that in an upcoming post.


(To be continued)

Audio of 911 call reveals my lawyer-brother David Shuler concocted story about "threats" toward cops, and Burrell Health spoke to him against our wishes

Burrell Behavioral Health

A 911 call that I supposedly made, threatening to shoot any sheriff's deputy who tried to evict Carol and me, actually came from an administrator at Burrell Behavioral Health -- a guy I never had met. The call was based on statements from my lawyer-brother David Shuler and not on anything I said.

In other words, my brother put his words in my mouth, made the whole "threat" story up, and caused a bevy of cops to barge into our home with assault rifles and handguns -- damned near getting Carol and me killed. And yet, the words I've repeatedly heard about David's efforts are that "he's just trying to help."

A copy of the 911 call, obtained in discovery for the bogus "assault" case against Carol, shows David has a strange way of helping. (A video of the 911 call is embedded at the end of this post.) And get this: We had cancelled any releases allowing David (or any other family member) to speak with Burrell personnel -- and we did that after catching him in an earlier lie.

In other words, Burrell had no lawful grounds to talk to David, and case manager Joshua Davis admits that on the 911 call. Burrell spoke with David anyway, violating our directive and probably violating state and federal law, and apparently placed a wildly defamatory 911 call at his insistence.

Joshua Davis is the primary voice from Burrell heard on the 911 call, although Kathryn Mays, a social worker who had been assigned to my case, can be heard whispering to him through the phone line. I've never met Joshua Davis and spoke with him briefly via phone one time. So, where did he get this misinformation about me? It apparently all came from David, my brother.

Did anyone at Burrell bother to check with me, to see if David's story was remotely accurate, if I had spoken with him about cops and evictions and guns? No, they did not ask me a thing about communications with David, and no, I did not talk with him about any of those subjects.

We had canceled our releases for David and other family members after Katherine Mays told me that David had called her, saying I'd asked him to do so. I told her that was a flat-out lie, and we immediately withdrew permission for Burrell to speak with him.

Did Burrell trample my patient rights by speaking with someone I had withdrawn permission for them to speak with -- and then placing a 911 call filled with false information, at my brother's insistence? It sure looks that way to me -- and it's all on the 911 call.

At 4:11 on the video below, Joshua Davis (with Kathryn Mays whispering information in his ear) had the following conversation with a 911 dispatcher named Maggie:

Maggie: When was the last time you talked with him (me)?

Josh: My caseworker is sitting here with me, she talked with him on 8/4/15 . . .

Maggie: That's when he said this?

Josh (w/ helpful whispers from Kathryn Mays): He said that, and he's also made threats to relatives, I believe, and they called and wanted to let us know and that would have been Aug. 6-7.

Maggie: The relatives called you?

Josh: Yes. We couldn't really speak to them because we don't have any releases, but we did make a hotline call to the Department of Mental Health.

Maggie: What hotline was it?

Josh: The Department of Health and Senior Services.

Maggie: I do have some contacts, if you would like that after they [cops] talk to him . . .

Josh: Do you have any other questions?

Maggie: Do you have Roger's phone number?

Josh: (205) 381-5673.

Did anyone from the Greene County Sheriff's Office bother to call me or stop by our apartment after this call? Nope, they just came barging into our home on eviction day, even though the eviction had been stayed by our notice of appeal and there was no final court order, approving the eviction.

What about Kathryn Mays' claim, during her whispering session, that I threatened to shoot officers during a visit with my caregiver, Matt Charles, on Aug. 4, 2015? I have Matt Charles' notes from that session, and he never includes a word about me threatening to shoot anyone. Earlier in the 911 call, even Joshua Davis admits I never made such a statement.

That apparently all came from David Shuler, and I never discussed any such subject with him.


(To be continued)

Statements from U.S. prosecutor James Kelleher and judge David Rush indicate Scott J. Wells has been detained due to state conviction that was overturned

David P. Rush

Court documents show Missouri resident Scott J. Wells has been detained for more than two years on child-pornography charges because of  statements from a prosecutor and the judge that range from incomplete to deceptive to downright false.

Could the statements, made by officers of the court in official proceedings, amount to fraud on the court, possibly rendering subsequent rulings void? Our research indicates the answer is yes.

In fact, it appears Wells has been held largely based on his 2004 conviction in a child sexual-abuse case. That conviction, however, was overturned due to the court's finding that my brother, David Shuler, provided ineffective assistance of counsel as Wells' defense attorney. How flimsy were those state charges against Wells, and what impact have they had on the pending federal case? From a post dated January 30, 2019:

Chief prosecutor James J. Kelleher apparently pushed for detention (in the federal case) based on the child sexual abuse case where the conviction against Wells was overturned. Let that sink in for a moment: A U.S. citizen has been behind bars for almost two years largely because of an earlier case where a conviction was overturned after a complaining witness was found to have lied under oath about Wells having scars on his penis. Kelleher was the state prosecutor in the child sexual abuse case, so perhaps he wants to punish Wells for beating weak charges the first time around

The 2004 state case ended when Wells entered an Alford plea to child endangerment. Here is how we described that outcome in an earlier post:

Wells agreed to an Alford plea of child endangerment to dispense with the first case. Trial Judge Don Burrell probably could have dismissed the whole case once a complaining witness was found to have lied about penis scars. But Burrell chose to overturn the conviction and give the state a chance to re-try, meaning Wells faced the prospect of going before a pro-prosecution jury in conservative Southwest Missouri.

With an Alford plea, a criminal defendant does not admit to the unlawful act and asserts his innocence. In essence, it is a type of plea that allows the prosecution to save face for bringing a weak case, and it allows the defendant to avoid the uncertainty of a jury trial. Nothing in the record even hints that Scott Wells actually endangered a child. Federal prosecutors now are trying to hold that case against Wells, even though he ultimately won it.

We know the highlighted section in yellow above was on target because we now have transcripts of two key hearings in the federal case. (Both transcripts are embedded at the end of this post.) The first proceeding in question involved a probable-cause and detention hearing on March 31, 2017.The second proceeding involved a status conference on February 6, 2019, focusing primarily on the exit of Shane Cantin, Wels' second court-appointed attorney in the case.

Together, the transcripts show Kelleher pushed for detention, and Judge David P. Rush granted it, based on the state case that ended in 2004. Neither officer of the court mentions during oral argument that Wells' conviction in that case was overturned -- and no document related to his Alford plea indicates he actually endangered a child. If anything, children (in the general age range of 10-12) endangered Wells by lying under oath in court. Let's consider prosecutor Kelleher's statements from the transcript of the probable cause/detention hearing:

The complaint obviously sets forth the facts supporting Mr. Wells' most recent involvement with child exploitation. There is also reference to the fact that back in 2004, he was convicted of sexual misconduct, statutory sodomy, incest, and child molestation in Circuit Court of Greene County. I am, of course, aware of that conviction, as I was the prosecutor who handled that -- that trial. It's frankly unbelievable that he is back before this court after being given the break that he was in relation to that case. The fact that he admitted that child pornography popped up on his computer is, obviously, ludicrous. The evidence in this case is overwhelming. The defendant's pleas to child endangerment, as well as the most recent conduct, clearly mark him as a danger to society. And consequently, Your Honor, I respectfully suggest to the Court that pretrial detention in this matter is appropriate.

There you have it: Kelleher clearly bases his call for detention on a 2004 conviction that was overturned -- and Kelleher conveniently fails to mention that to the court. Kelleher also fails to mention that Wells' plea to child endangerment was an Alford plea, with no indication in the court record that Wells actually endangered anyone.

U.S. public defender David Mercer, Wells' court-appointed attorney at the time, made no written argument to Kelleher's motion, but he did offer this pearl in oral argument: "Your Honor, on the issue of probable cause, we have nothing to add." So, Mercer is admitting there is probable cause to arrest Wells and search his home, even though the criminal complaint alleges Wells uploaded two separate computer files at the exact same time (down to the second), which cannot physically be done. In short, there is no probable cause in this case, but Scott Wells' own lawyer admitted there was more than two years ago. That's the kind of "defense" you get with a court-appointed lawyer.

Mercer obviously did not read the criminal complaint closely, and neither have Kelleher nor Rush. As for Rush, he was anxious to rubber stamp anything Kelleher wanted. From the judge:

I will find probable cause and order the matter held for Grand Jury or other appropriate proceedings. With regard to the detention portion, I concur . . . that he's not a flight risk. And I also concur . . . and intend to find, by clear and convincing evidence, that he is a danger to the community, and I will issue a written order with that finding and the reasons in support of that.

Rush's detention order (embedded at the end of this post) is based almost entirely on the 2004 case, where Wells was charged with sex offenses involving children -- and Rush makes no mention that the conviction was overturned, and Wells was the victim of under-age accusers who lied under oath and a defense attorney (David Shuler), who the court found provided ineffective assistance of counsel. In other words, Rush's "clear and convincing evidence" means you can be held behind bars for more than two years because the government charges you with something, even though they failed to prove you actually did it.

Scott J. Wells

As for the February 6, 2019, status conference, that dealt with Wells' pro se motion to have Shane Cantin removed as his court-appointed lawyer -- plus Cantin's own motion to withdraw. That prompted a soliloquy from Rush, portraying Cantin as a paragon of legal virtue. From the transcript:

Mr. Wells, I would first tell you, you don't get to fire an attorney you didn't hire. And I'm going to make some inquiries of you as to what your complaints are, and we'll attempt to address some of those complaints. I would also tell you Mr. Cantin is . . . probably one of the finest criminal defense attorneys in southwest Missouri. If you were to hire him, I don't know that you could afford him. That's how good he is. And I'm going to take up your request, and in the end, I'm likely to appoint you new counsel. You won't get anybody . . . better than him. He is well respected by the Court. He's well respected by the judges in the Western District of Missouri . . . . This court has found very few defendants that have had difficulty getting along with him. . . . So I would say be careful what you ask for because you're not going to find a finer criminal defense attorney in this area.

That Rush considers Cantin to be an excellent attorney -- and that Cantin generally is respected by judges and other defendants -- says nothing about his performance in defending Scott Wells. The transcript makes clear that Rush's real concern is that Cantin's letter to Wells (while the accused was detained at the CCA in Leavenworth, Kansas) became public. Cantin's letter, stated his own client had no defense to the charges against him and he surely would be convicted -- . shockingly, Wells and his family took offense to that letter and sought to have Cantin removed from the case.

As for Wells' complaints regarding Cantin's "defense," they generally come under three headings:

(1) Cantin had done nothing to get Wells' removed from detention or even moved from the facility in Leavenworth;

(2) Cantin had done virtually nothing on discovery -- going over the government's evidence with his client, taking depositions, etc.

(3) Cantin had not sought expert witnesses, which often are critical in the defense of child-porn cases.

Here is how Rush addressed Wells' concerns. From the transcript:

Court: If you're wanting copies of the alleged child pornography, that is not allowed, so tell me what has not been provided to you? 

Wells: I just have been informed, I mean, by other people that I should have got at least a copy of the discovery. I have been informed at different times that things have happened. I just had a lot of questions about it. . . . 

Court: Again, you're in federal court, and you don't have a right to depositions. So, there's nothing Mr. Cantin can do. If your complaint is he hasn't taken depositions, he's not allowed to. Your last two are contacting experts or filing motions as to bond. Your attorney is not required to file what he determines to be frivolous or non-meritorious motions. You have no right to an attorney who will docilely do as told. He is to apply his legal knowledge and experience and training. And filing frivolous or non-meritorious motions . . . doesn't rise to the level of him not providing you adequate representation . . .
And so, I don't know what motions . . . I guess it's to bond. I mean, he can file a motion for reconsideration of bond, but if he believes . . . it will not be granted, he's not required to do everything you tell him to do.

Did Rush speak the absolute truth to Scott Wells? Not exactly. Here are places where the judge went  off the tracks:

* Rush's claim that depositions are not allowed in federal criminal cases is plainly false. A quick look at Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure makes that clear. Why would Rush lie to a party about this issue? I don't know, but it's troubling.

* Rush's claim that Wells is not entitled to a "copy" of alleged child pornography is, at best, deceitful. First, it's not clear Wells asked for a copy of any child pornography, and such a copy -- if taken outside a secure government location -- would, in fact, be improper under the law. However, Wells absolutely is entitled to review every piece of evidence -- including images of child pornography -- that the government intends to use against him, per 18 U.S.C. § 3509(m), as outlined at this article.

* There is no evidence in the record that Wells asked his attorney to file a frivolous or non-meritorious motion. As we have shown in multiple posts, any of the following motions -- to dismiss for a deficient criminal complaint, to dismiss for a deficient indictment, to overturn detention for lack of probable cause, to suppress evidence as gathered in violation of the Fourth Amendment -- all would be meritorious. If Cantin and Rush are not aware of that, they haven't read the case file.

As for Cantin, even he seems to indicate he didn't do all that much on Wells' case. From the transcript:

Cantin: Well, when we still had the trial set several months away. I made a trip to CCA and took all the discovery with me and met with him for a couple of hours there at that time. Since he came back down here for . . . this docket, we had several weeks in which to prepare for a one-count indictment, and I've spent five or six hours at the Greene County Jail attempting to go through discovery and review electronic information and answer all his questions and get ready for trial.

Note that Cantin says he took discovery with him to the CCA in Leavenworth, but he doesn't say he reviewed it with Wells. Also, Cantin says he "attempted" to go through discovery at the Greene County (MO) Jail, but does not say he actually accomplished that. Since the law would not allow Cantin to take images of alleged child pornography outside a secure prosecution site, that likely means he never reviewed image evidence with his client at all.

That suggests Scott Wells' concerns about discovery are legitimate. That Judge Rush and Prosecutor Kelleher twisted the truth, or eliminated key details, in open-court statements suggests Scott Wells is being railroaded.

Video surfaces that shows cops killing a Texas man -- much as Missouri thugs beat up my wife, Carol -- and three years later, the Dallas community is learning the ugly truth about what happened to Tony Timpa

A Dallas man called 911 in August 2016, and instead of receiving help, he wound up dead.

Newly obtained records and video footage (see above) show police officers killed Tony Timpa and engaged in an extensive effort to cover it up, according to an investigative report from The Dallas Morning News. Write reporters Cary Aspinwall and Dave Boucher:

Timpa called 911 on Aug. 10, 2016, from the parking lot of a Dallas porn store, saying he was afraid and needed help. He told a dispatcher he suffered from schizophrenia and depression and was off his prescription medication. The News first reported Timpa’s death in a 2017 investigation that showed Dallas police refused to say how a man who had called 911 for help ended up dead.

The newly obtained video and records, part of a lawsuit filed by Timpa’s family in federal court alleging excessive force, contradict key claims Dallas police have made in defending the officers’ actions.

Police incident reports recounting the officers’ version of events claim Timpa’s behavior that night was aggressive and combative. The video shows Timpa writhing at times and clearly struggling to breathe, asking the officers to stop pinning him down.

On a custodial death report submitted to the state in 2016, the department answered "no" to questions about whether Timpa resisted arrest, threatened or fought officers.

Police had previously claimed to use only enough force necessary to block Timpa from rolling into a busy section of Mockingbird Lane. In the first minute, Timpa rolls around near the curb. But the video shows a police car clearly blocks traffic about a minute later near the bus bench where the officers had pinned him. Several officers continue pressing his restrained body into the ground.

This all has horrible resonance here at Legal Schnauzer, given that deputies in Greene County, Missouri, conducted an unlawful eviction against my wife, Carol, and me -- apparently at the behest of landlord Trent Cowherd, his lawyer Craig Lowther, and my lawyer brother David Shuler. A team of 6-8 officers, dressed mostly in SWAT gear, broke into our home (even though there was no final order of eviction), with deputy Scott Harrison pointing an assault rifle at my head, and officer Jeremy Lynn slamming Carol's head against a wall. An unknown officer we call "Mr. Blue Shirt" slammed Carol butt-first to the ground and yanked so viciously on both arms, in an up and backward motion, that it broke her arm just above the elbow.

The comminuted fracture required about eight hours of trauma surgery, with the procedure involving a number of complications that put Carol's life at risk. Sheriff Jim Arnott was on the scene and claimed (after Carol's arm had been broken) that she assaulted a law enforcement officer. Judge Jerry Harmison, in a joke of a bench trial, allowed four officers to lie, disassemble, and even commit clear perjury -- with Harmison finding Carol guilty and punishing her with what amounted to a $10 fine. Cops went so far as to claim Carol broke her own arm by flailing about in the back of a patrol car, while handcuffed and seat-belted.

How bad was the brutality used against Tony Timpa in Dallas? Aspinwall and Boucher set the scene, based on body-cam footage. (See video at the top of this post.):

Tony Timpa wailed and pleaded for help more than 30 times as Dallas police officers pinned his shoulders, knees and neck to the ground.

“You’re gonna kill me! You’re gonna kill me! You’re gonna kill me!”

After Timpa fell unconscious, the officers who had him in handcuffs assumed he was asleep and didn’t confirm that he was breathing or feel for a pulse.

As precious minutes passed, the officers laughed and joked about waking Timpa up for school and making him waffles for breakfast.

Body camera footage obtained Tuesday by The Dallas Morning News shows first responders waited at least four minutes after Timpa became unresponsive to begin CPR. His nose was buried in the grass while officers claimed to hear him snoring -- apparently unaware that the unarmed man was drawing his last breaths.

If that passage makes you sick to your stomach, you are not alone. We know firsthand about police brutality, excessive force, and cops' twisted efforts to cover them up. And the video from Dallas reveals a truth that only gets uglier. Here's more from the Dallas Morning News:

He had already been handcuffed by a private security guard before police arrived. He never threatens to hurt or kill the police.

The footage also shows the officers mocking Timpa as he struggled to live. Shortly after one officer ridicules Timpa’s repeated cries for help, an officer notes that he appears to be “out cold.”

They joke that he’s merely asleep and try to wake him: “It’s time for school. Wake up!”

One officer mimics a teen saying: “I don’t want to go to school! Five more minutes, Mom!”

They joke about buying him new shoes for the first day of school and making him a special breakfast, laughing loudly.

After it's too late, the officers actually show some signs of concern about what happened:

Timpa died within 20 minutes of police arriving, and at least 15 minutes before an ambulance eventually transported his body to Parkland hospital.

As the officers and paramedics struggle to load Timpa’s lifeless body onto the gurney, they begin to panic, seeing his glassy, open eyes and blades of grass stuck to his mouth.

One of the officers asks: “He didn’t just die down there, did he?”

An autopsy ruled Timpa’s cause of death was a homicide, sudden cardiac death due to "the toxic effects of cocaine and the stress associated with physical restraint."

The city of Dallas and Dallas County officials had fought since September 2016 to prevent public release of the records, arguing it could interfere with an ongoing criminal investigation. Officials then said the records could not be released because a criminal case against three of the police officers never made it to trial.

In my mind, there is no difference between the Dallas thugs and the bastards who beat up Carol in Missouri. The main difference in the two cases is that Timpa died and Carol lived -- barely. At least Timpa didn't have to go through the indignity of being falsely accused of a crime and being convicted based on cops lying over and over under oath.

Documents from the Scott J. Wells child-pornography case in the Missouri Ozarks unmask our federal courts in all of their goofy, crooked, and clown-car glory

Scott J. Wells

How clownish was the process that caused Missouri resident Scott J. Wells to be detained for more than two years on federal child-pornography charges, even though the government's own narrative shows it would have been physically impossible for Wells to commit the alleged offenses? The process is spelled out in three documents (all embedded at the end of this post) -- and they show the proceedings would have had to improve considerably to be a dumpster fire.

Perhaps the nuttiness best shines through in the middle document below -- a "Minute Sheet" prepared by U.S. Magistrate David P. Rush for a combined preliminary/detention hearing. Get a load of Rush's words under the "Preliminary Hearing" heading:

Court takes notice of the court file, which includes a signed affidavit in support of the complaint. No evidence presented with regard to probable cause. Court finds probable cause and orders the matter held for grand jury or other proceeding.

If you did a double take upon reading that, you aren't alone. A federal judge actually writes that the prosecution presented no evidence regarding probable cause, but he found probable cause anyway. Those are your taxpayer dollars at work, folks.

It doesn't get any better from there. All three documents contain gross deception, falsehoods, and nonsense. Consider the first document embedded below -- United States Motion for Pretrial Detention and for a Hearing Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3142(e) and (f). In item 6(b), the document states:

In relation to the weight of the evidence supporting the charges in the Complaint, Facebook initiated SyberTip 16099575 on December 21, 2016, and CyberTip 16533142 on January 15, 2017, regarding a user uploading and sending a file containing child pornography. Law enforcement traced the account back to the defendant  and executed a search and seizure warrant at the defendant's residence. A forensic preview examination on the defendant's laptop computer revealed 60 images of child pornography.

The government conveniently leaves out several critical points:

(1) The Facebook CyberTips did not involve just one image file; it involved two -- and the feds' criminal complaint states that Wells uploaded both at the same exact same time, down to the second. That, of course, is physically impossible to do. That means there was no probable cause to search Wells' residence, and anything obtained there was the fruit of an unlawful search.

David P. Rush

(2) The feds' criminal complaint provides zero evidence that Wells knowingly possessed the 60 images referenced above.

(3) The feds provide no evidence that anyone in the images was a minor (under age 18). In fact, the complaint does not mention the age of anyone.

The government resorts to more deceit in item 6(c):

In relation to the history and characteristics of the defendant, the defendant is unemployed and lives at home with his mother and father, who are in their 70s. On August 19, 2004, Wells was convicted of sexual misconduct, statutory sodomy, incest, and child molestation in the Circuit Court of Greene County, Missouri, case number 31302CF5509. On November 17, 2004, the Circuit Court granted Wells' motion for a new trial due to ineffective assistance of counsel, and vacated Wells' convictions. On July 5, 2006, Wells pleaded to four counts of endangering the welfare of a child.

What does the government conveniently leave out?

(1) Wells' convictions were not overturned just because of ineffective assistance of counsel (by my brother, Missouri attorney David Shuler). It also involved at least one accusing witness being caught in a clear lie under oath.

(2) Judge Don Burrell could have, and probably should have, dismissed the child molestation case against Wells altogether. But he threw the state a bone and granted a new trial, with Wells entering an Alford plea to endangering the welfare of a child. An Alford plea, by definition, generally means that the defendant did not actually commit the offense in question, but is pleading to dispense with the matter and avoid the dangers of trial for both sides. We've seen nothing in the record that remotely suggests Scott Wells actually endangered the welfare of a child.

(3) As for Wells' employment status, the government fails to mention -- and the public defender probably did not even mention it -- that he is virtually blind in one eye and must use a walker to remain upright and mobile due to a benign brain tumor he's had since childhood. Yep, sure sounds like a danger to society.

Let's return to the second document embedded below -- Judge Rush's Minute Sheet. Under "Detention Hearing," it states:

The Court takes note of its own file , including the Pretrial Services Report prepared by the USPPTS Officer. The Government has filed a Motion for Detention Hearing (Doc. 2) Arguments made regarding Defendant's custody. The Court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that the Defendant is a danger to the community. Accordingly, the Court finds an adequate basis for detention and will issue a written order.

Rush finds "clear and convincing evidence" that Wells is "a danger to the community"? How? It certainly is not in the government's Motion for a Detention Hearing. And the criminal complaint describes an offense Wells could not have committed if he wanted to. On top of that, Rush finds in the same Minute Sheet that he has no evidence of probable cause before him. Yet, he magically determines that Wells is a danger to the community. I almost want to guffaw upon reading this garbage.

As for the third document embedded below -- Rush's order regarding detention -- consider these
words:

The factors to be considered by the Court in determining whether the defendant should be detained pending trial are enumerated in section 3142(g). The Court has already noted that this case involves a minor victim. The evidence at the hearing established that the weight of the evidence against the defendant is overwhelming.

The evidence is "overwhelming"? This is the same judge who stated in his own Minute Sheet that the hearing involved no evidence with regard to probable cause. This guy can't keep his story straight. On top of that, Rush notes the allegations involve a "minor victim." The criminal complaint, however, does not list the age for any alleged victim. Without evidence that the victim was under 18 years of age, there is no proof the offense involved a minor.

It seems clear Rush did not read the criminal complaint closely -- if he bothered to read it at all. The judge's actions in the case should be enough to shock the conscience, but I've seen this tired act from numerous judges before. They rely on a somnolent mainstream press to make sure that documents like this usually never make the light of day.

At a pretrial conference last week, Wells' third court-appointed lawyer, Brady Musgrave gave no indication that he intended to seek dismissal of the charges based on a criminal complaint and indictment that both are deficient. He also showed no signs of filing a pretrial motion to suppress evidence that was the product of an unlawful search not based on probable cause.

It all suggests to me that Rush, chief prosecutor James J. Kelleher, and all three of Wells' court-appointed attorneys (David Mercer, Shane Cantin, and Brady Musgrave), are conspiring to cheat Scott Wells and trample his constitutional rights. If my guess is on target, this is criminal behavior (obstruction of justice, misprision of a felony, deprivation of rights under color of law) and should result in an investigation that would send several law-degree types to prison for quite a stint -- if we had a justice system that was remotely functional.