A local story

[ex-khobar Andy]

Jamey Noel was Sheriff of Clark County IN (just across the river from Louisville) until an investigation by Indiana State Police led to his arrest last November.

He is accused (and of course he is presumed innocent unless he is found guilty) of using something like $5 million of public funds for his own and his family's enrichment - buying things like luxury cars, clothes etc and having county workers do improvements to his house while they were on the county clock. His wife Misty and daughter Kasey are up on related charges including felony theft and felony tax evasion. (And they are also of course innocent for the time being.)

In addition to his Sheriff duties, Mr Noel also led a local volunteer fire department with a handy credit card which allegedly generously paid Mr Noel's child support, and (for Kasey) clothing, tanning, cosmetics, manicure and pedicure services, food, tickets, trips, alcohol, utilities, vaping products, gas, Netflix and items from Amazon. The state also now alleges Noel spent $132,467.39 in fire department money on Marriott Vacation Club expenses from 2018 to 2023. Investigators also claim Noel paid $68,954.48 in Florida timeshare fees with a fire agency credit card.

Mr Noel's trial is set for later this year. In the meantime he has been locked up for contempt of court for lying during a hearing.

An obviously unrelated fact. Mr Noel was chairman of the Indiana Ninth District Republican Party.

https://www.wdrb.com/news/crime-reports ... 1e570.html

[Burning Petard]

At what point in this saga did the GOP decide the sheriff and his family were not good party leadership? Did he not wear his MAGA hat to court?

snailgate

[liberty]

Liberal judge rules. After all it wasn’t her fault, it was society’s fault for getting her hooked-on meth.

Judge lets methed-up mom walk free after she smothered baby girl (msn.com)


Judge lets methed-up mom walk free after she smothered baby girl

An Indianapolis mother has been found not guilty of neglectfully smothering her child to death - as a judge shockingly said he would have found her guilty of involuntary manslaughter or reckless homicide.

• Dacia Lacey, 32, walked free after a judge ruled that prosecutors brought inappropriate charges against her
• She admitted to smothering her infant daughter while high on methamphetamines in August 2022
• Judge Mark Stoner said he would have found her guilty of reckless homicide or involuntary manslaughter, but it wasn't proven she did it on purpose
An Indianapolis mother has been found not guilty of neglectfully smothering her child to death - as a judge shockingly said he would have found her guilty of involuntary manslaughter or reckless homicide.

Dacia Lacey, 32, walked free after a judge ruled that prosecutors brought inappropriate charges of neglect of a dependent resulting in death, contending they didn't prove she killed her two-month-old daughter Alona on purpose.
Continue reading

[Scooter]

How is that not on the prosecutor for bringing a charge that couldn't be proven, instead of lesser charges on which she would have been convicted?

[BoSoxGal]

Prosecutors shouldn’t be elected, the fact that they are is one of the biggest problems in our criminal justice system. Elected prosecutors have to run on a record of convictions and typically have to advertise that they are tough on crime by the way that they handle cases, nevermind that the overarching ethical obligation of prosecutors is to temper justice with mercy, to seek justice and not merely convictions.

I had the chance for a couple of years to be a prosecutor who didn’t think re-election would be an issue - simply because there was no competition for the job. It allowed me to take the prosecutorial philosophy of tempering justice with mercy and thus serving all my constituents, including the defendants who are typically much more than their criminal act. I think justice was well served under my tenure, but I’m sure there were some citizens who thought I should have crucified defendants more than I did. And of course there were some people who thought I should have meted out justice more favorably to those more fortunate in life - what a bizarre concept that is to my worldview.

Anyway definitely it is a very hard case to make that a drug addicted mother intended to smother her baby to death by co-sleeping. Maybe if she’d already killed a baby that way they could argue she should have foreseen and thus intended the result. But in general a jury and especially a judge making the verdict will have sympathy for the mother’s loss and not wish to believe she intended to kill it absent clear evidence - and there are certainly such cases but this doesn’t sound like one.

Good prosecutors should not feel compelled to charge the most extreme offense without a true belief that the defendant is guilty. The problem I saw in my years in the brethren is that a lot of people who are drawn to prosecution are judgmental and punitive personalities and especially after a little while doing the work they really do see bad character in everyone and guilt as well - it’s a problem that many cops suffer too. When you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

[BoSoxGal]

So I went looking for a source of liberty’s story and found this https://lawandcrime.com/crime/poor-pare ... -meth/amp/

The additional details do seem to establish that the acts were neglectful but not intentional to cause death. For the record my mother smothered my older sister to death at six weeks of age by laying her face down on a sofa while not being high - except on nicotine. It was, presumably, an accident - she said so, anyway, and because she was white and middle class there wasn’t even an investigation of the accidental death. I’m pretty sure that kind of disparity still exists today - if you’re brown you might likely get prosecuted for a crib death and if you’re white you rarely get investigated.

The article I linked goes on to say that police excoriated this same judge for giving a light sentence to a defendant who killed a police officer - but details that the defendant was seriously mentally ill at the time of the crime which was apparently undisputed. So we have a conflict between two ways of seeing the world - those who think we should crucify even seriously mentally ill defendants, and those who think justice should be tempered by mercy for a seriously mentally ill defendant who lacks the same capacity to form intent as someone absent similar mental defect.

[Burning Petard]

As GB Shaw pointed out, death penalty for parking violations would reduce the parking problems. Snailgate.

[MajGenl.Meade]

But then again . . .

She initially told officers that it was a freak accident, but she eventually broke down in a police interview five months later and said she smothered Alona because she wouldn’t stop crying.

Lacey’s initial claims to detectives prior to her confession were disputed by her five-year-old daughter, who said, “Mom was mad, hit the baby with a pillow and put the pillow on her face.”

Lacey’s father’s fiancée, who cared for the five-year-old after her little sister’s death, also testified to hearing the little girl’s disturbing recollection of events.

“She said ‘my mommy got really mad at her because she wouldn’t stop crying,'” the woman said in court. “‘And she held a pillow on her face and hit her with it.’ And I’m like, ‘What? Like, what did you just say?'”

However, Judge Stoner said the child’s testimony was unreliable because she “is only capable of hearing emotions, repeating some things without understanding things.”

On the other other hand

“This is a case that happens when you’re a bad parent. There are some things you can never do. You can never have sole possession of your children and go out and use drugs,” he continued, adding that he was freeing her “reluctantly” and that “not everything that’s a mistake or everything that is wrong is criminal.”

[ex-khobar Andy]

I haven't been following this case - but didn't we have a situation in the last few years in which a father who had left his child in a car - child died of heatstroke - was tried for murder although there was no evidence (IIRC) that there was no intent? May be different laws in different states.

[BoSoxGal]

I haven't been following this case - but didn't we have a situation in the last few years in which a father who had left his child in a car - child died of heatstroke - was tried for murder although there was no evidence (IIRC) that there was no intent? May be different laws in different states.

Hot car child deaths are an interesting phenomenon to study across jurisdictions. Most upper middle class families who have this experience are not prosecuted, most poor families and families of color are.

There are exceptions and the one you’re thinking of I think is the middle class guy in the south who was texting other women and teenaged girls on the job and had done an internet search on hot car deaths and the prosecution decided on that basis to crucify him and he was convicted primarily for being a sex pervert and cheating husband, no evidence of intent to kill his kid and all the evidence did seem to support that he was a loving dad.

The conviction for murder was overturned on appeal and the state decided not to retry him on the murder - he’s still in prison until 2026 on other charges related to his son’s death.

https://www.atlantanewsfirst.com/2022/0 ... verturned/

https://www.11alive.com/article/news/lo ... 17404c5268

Death of a Child is a documentary on Prime that covers a handful of hot car death stories and the families who dealt with the aftermath including the responsible parent who left the kid in the car. It’s a good film and instructs on the neuroscience behind why loving parents/guardians who are responsible people can nevertheless forget their kid in a car all day - our brains work in mysterious ways.

[Scooter]

Our prosecutors are not elected, and yet still have a tendency to grossly overcharge in cases involving the death or injury of police. One case that was only resolved days ago involved a family in a SUV in an underground parking garage who were swarmed by a group of plainclothes police who the family claims never identified themselves (police claim they did). Driver ran over one of the officers, who was killed. Police chief claims the driver deliberately ran down the officer, the Crown brings first degree murder charges. Police chief, mayor and provincial premier all publicly condemn the judge who released the driver on bail, and clearly express their view that the driver is guilty. Fast forward almost three years, the other officers present all claim the deceased officer was standing in front of the vehicle when he was run down. Forensic experts for both the prosecution and the defence testify that this was impossible, the most likely scenario was that the officer was sideswiped by the vehicle while in the driver's blind spot, and fell such that he was then run over when the driver pulled forward. The Crown's case completely fell apart before the defence had called any witnesses, and the jury ended up acquitting even of manslaughter. The judge who had granted the driver bail did so in part because she noted that the Crown's case for murder was incredibly weak, a sentiment repeated by the trial judge in her charge to the jury. If the politicians and the police had had their way, an innocent man would have wasted three years of his life behind bars awaiting trial.

There was plenty of blame to go around here - to the police on the scene for their unnecessarily aggressive approach to the vehicle, as well as for the blatantly perjured testimony they gave at trial. To the former police chief and politicians who peddled their farcical claims of a deliberate act, to the Crown for bringing charges they must have known were not tenable, and for suborning what they must have known to be perjured testimony. And to the current police chief who had the gall to proclaim that this wasn't the verdict they would have wanted (i.e. an innocent man should have gone to prison on the basis of the perjured testimony of his officers).

[liberty]

But then again . . .

She initially told officers that it was a freak accident, but she eventually broke down in a police interview five months later and said she smothered Alona because she wouldn’t stop crying.

Lacey’s initial claims to detectives prior to her confession were disputed by her five-year-old daughter, who said, “Mom was mad, hit the baby with a pillow and put the pillow on her face.”

Lacey’s father’s fiancée, who cared for the five-year-old after her little sister’s death, also testified to hearing the little girl’s disturbing recollection of events.

“She said ‘my mommy got really mad at her because she wouldn’t stop crying,'” the woman said in court. “‘And she held a pillow on her face and hit her with it.’ And I’m like, ‘What? Like, what did you just say?'”

However, Judge Stoner said the child’s testimony was unreliable because she “is only capable of hearing emotions, repeating some things without understanding things.”

On the other other hand

“This is a case that happens when you’re a bad parent. There are some things you can never do. You can never have sole possession of your children and go out and use drugs,” he continued, adding that he was freeing her “reluctantly” and that “not everything that’s a mistake or everything that is wrong is criminal.”

I don't know about this story, but I think it is true that people confess to crimes they did not commit for the same reason people fail lie detector tests when they committed no crime. People feel guilt for things that are not crimes. Some people feel guilty for surviving when their friends died. With that said, I think that a non-recovering drug addict is not qualified to be a parent.

[Jarlaxle]

And people reach the point (often after hours-or days-with no sleep) they will say ANYTHING just to get the police to stop.

[BoSoxGal]

Our prosecutors are not elected, and yet still have a tendency to grossly overcharge in cases involving the death or injury of police. One case that was only resolved days ago involved a family in a SUV in an underground parking garage who were swarmed by a group of plainclothes police who the family claims never identified themselves (police claim they did). Driver ran over one of the officers, who was killed. Police chief claims the driver deliberately ran down the officer, the Crown brings first degree murder charges. Police chief, mayor and provincial premier all publicly condemn the judge who released the driver on bail, and clearly express their view that the driver is guilty. Fast forward almost three years, the other officers present all claim the deceased officer was standing in front of the vehicle when he was run down. Forensic experts for both the prosecution and the defence testify that this was impossible, the most likely scenario was that the officer was sideswiped by the vehicle while in the driver's blind spot, and fell such that he was then run over when the driver pulled forward. The Crown's case completely fell apart before the defence had called any witnesses, and the jury ended up acquitting even of manslaughter. The judge who had granted the driver bail did so in part because she noted that the Crown's case for murder was incredibly weak, a sentiment repeated by the trial judge in her charge to the jury. If the politicians and the police had had their way, an innocent man would have wasted three years of his life behind bars awaiting trial.

There was plenty of blame to go around here - to the police on the scene for their unnecessarily aggressive approach to the vehicle, as well as for the blatantly perjured testimony they gave at trial. To the former police chief and politicians who peddled their farcical claims of a deliberate act, to the Crown for bringing charges they must have known were not tenable, and for suborning what they must have known to be perjured testimony. And to the current police chief who had the gall to proclaim that this wasn't the verdict they would have wanted (i.e. an innocent man should have gone to prison on the basis of the perjured testimony of his officers).

Prosecutors can’t make good cases without police cooperation which means they have to walk a fine line in terms of how they handle police involved cases.

Police want perpetrators of crimes against them to be crucified never mind the facts, and they want their own excessive uses of force overlooked never mind the facts or results, including dead citizens. That’s why so very few cases of alleged police brutality result in charges of any kind, and why only a very tiny percentage of those result in convictions. Police have a stranglehold on the public mind in multiple ways and they are reluctant to convict with a few notable exceptions.

That’s why there should be both independent police and prosecutors to police the police and prosecutors. There are some jurisdictions which have conviction integrity units and which aggressively pursue police misconduct but they are the minority.

[Big RR]

[Some people feel guilty for surviving when their friends died. With that said, I think that a non-recovering drug addict is not qualified to be a parent.

In most jurisdictions, this is the case; drug addicted parents are given some time to get treatment and recover, or they lose custody of their kids, but the sad fact is that we do not have the resources to care for those kids removed from their custody. The younger ones might be adopted, but the rest languish in a foster care system that is ill-equipped to care for them. Some foster care situations are fine, but most are less than that, and some are no better than what the kids were removed from; the best possible outcome in most cases in the parent (usually the mother in a one parent household) avails him/herself of the treatment opportunities and turns themself around, but this is far from a given. Nearly all jurisdictions need more treatment options and more alternatives for care for minors removed from their parents--otherwise the cycles often repeat.