A GOOD VERDICT

If it only took the jury 90 minutes to aquit, it begs the question of why the accused was tried in the first place. Was the prosecutor ignorant, corrupt or a Soros-funded social justice warrior?

The sad part is a politically motivated charge by a biased prosecutor costs the innocent resources they could use elsewhere, like their kids’s education or even food on the table.

I agree. If this wasn’t a close case (and the verdict suggests that), hopefully somebody will challenge the prosecutor in the next election.

And let’s not overlook the expert testimony of the always humble Mas Ayoob

Well done! If Roy were still around, I would forward him a link to this – at 5:30 a.m. He would respond by 5:40 a.m.

What was the case name?
Some of us would like to read the details.

Thanks for your very kind words. it was a pleasure working with you on this homicide case. Your advice and testimony contributed greatly to the just verdict. I look forward to when we can get together again!

Just read the article in “The Electric” regarding this case and it was a wild one. Father, son, fiancée, pregnancy. Glad they weren’t my neighbors.

Over a decade ago, I took a MAG-40 class with Mas in Arkansas. His knowledge of all things legal and self-defense was incredible; not to mention that he outshot us all with a stock Glock 30 and cheap Winchester white box 230 hardball. When he said that he would assist his MAG-40 graduates should a legitimate self-defense legal situation arise, I was overwhelmed! Can you imagine being in the cauldron of a self-defense jury trial but knowing that Mas Ayoob was available to offer his help? Folks, train with Mas.

Full disclosure, I work in MT OPD in a different region and know the folks who got this verdict. Here’s my take on some of the reasons why the prosecutors in Montana put people through hell for a year or more on weak cases, especially in emotional cases such as homicides with strong self-defense claims. In my region, our team got a NG verdict on a similar, but less provocative, self-defense homicide a few months ago after the client spent a year and a half in jail.

Many of the dynamics are equally applicable in all jurisdictions, such as prosecutors who don’t have the judgment and guts necessary to decline prosecution in the face of public outcry, letting law enforcement drive charging decisions, the involvement of people who might trigger biases, whether due to race, economic class, mental health, or addiction issues, and oppressive bail amounts and sentencing ranges that EVERY SINGLE DAY force people to plead out when even when they have strong defenses and are actually innocent. What would make prosecutors and police question their snap judgments about a case when so many people they arrest and prosecute end up saying they’re guilty? I think people who follow this blog probably are familiar with those general dynamics. So I’ll just share what I think there are some of the massive contributing factors that are specific to Montana that I think is why innocent people get absolutely screwed here. This is just a hypothesis based on my own experience, without any hard data to back it up so far. But I’m curious to hear other thoughts and whether people have had success in systemic changes to these issues in other jurisdictions.

The first is a lack of a high-quality process for reviewing probable cause at the beginning of felony prosecutions. Montana statutes provide for three methods for PC reviews that allow prosecutors to move cases to district courts, which have adjudication jurisdiction for all felonies in MT, but the courts have interpreted those statutes to mean that the State gets to select the procedure to use. So, of course, they choose the one that is the least robust and therefore the quickest, cheapest and easiest for them. That is, they file an affidavit of probable cause. In most counties, it is authored by a prosecutor with zero personal knowledge of any of the facts, is just a cut-and-paste job of initial police reports which, especially in major crimes, are themselves simply regurgitations of second- and third-hand accounts. There are two other options that would take more time and effort, namely a grand jury and an adversarial preliminary hearing. In over twelve years as a public defender here, and having interned with the MT Innocence Project both summers in law school, I have never heard of a grand jury being empaneled. I have heard of preliminary hearings almost happening, but those have all been flukes when prosecutors missed deadlines for filing their affidavits, and every single time I’m aware of, the justices of the peace have simply continued the hearing to give the State more time to file. I think the judiciary’s interpretation of those statutes is based on quality statutory construction, but it’s just terrible policy, unless you’re an officer who doesn’t want to be bothered with testifying or a prosecutor who doesn’t want to do anything to deeply analyze a case, beyond a cut-and-paste affidavit, prior to trial prep. In short, there is a vast underestimation of the harm of prosecution, even when it results in a late dismissal or a NG verdict, and extreme focus on perceived judicial-economy interests.

Second, in all the law enforcement agencies here I have looked into, detective duty is simply a rotation rather than a promotion. Officers don’t start on that rotation, so the ones who are on detective rotation usually have some more experience and training than some of those on other duties, such as patrol, court security, SRO, etc., but the quality of the investigative work can be surprisingly dismal. Not always, of course. But there are even nightmarishly stupid mistakes coming out of what is supposed to be the big dogs, namely the DOJ’s Division of Criminal Investigation. We had a case, also a self-defense homicide (also a relatively quick not-guilty, but only after client went through about 2 years of absolute hell) in a rural area where a DCI agent was dispatched from a relatively populated city, advised client of Miranda rights, then when he clearly requested an attorney, the DCI agent pushed forward, saying they were in too rural of an area to find an attorney for him. It’s the kind of shit that makes professional law enforcement cringe.

Third, unlike many other jurisdictions, MT has no clearly defined procedure allowing a judge to review, and potentially dismiss, cases based on strong self-defense claims. There is some precedent where the MT Sup. Ct. has upheld trial courts’ dismissals based on other affirmative defenses, so I think there’s room to extend that and put it into routine practice without legislation.

At least it was Montana, and not New York or California.