News Now Patrick's Motion to Dismiss / Response from State

[RogueRivered]

It's funny how the District Attorney's Response to Patrick's motion goes into great detail about how he is required to ID, but the cases it cites are from Georgia and Nevada, two Stop and ID states. Oklahoma is not a stop and ID state, however. They are so desperate to convict him that they have to resort to trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes.

 

[ed2276]

It's funny how the District Attorney's Response to Patrick's motion goes into great detail about how he is required to ID, but the cases it cites are from Georgia and Nevada, two Stop and ID states. Oklahoma is not a stop and ID state, however. They are so desperate to convict him that they have to resort to trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes.

The reason that the cases cited are from other circuits is made clear on page 3, paragraph 2 of the DA's response. There has not been any Oklahoma case that specifically addresses the fact pattern of this case. The DA cites to other circuits where states have similar language as the Oklahoma statute and where decisions have come out in closely related fact patterns as persuasive authority that an Oklahoma jury could reasonably find Patty did violate Oklahoma law. Therefore, Patty's case should go to an Oklahoma jury to consider whether Patty violated the Oklahoma statute.

 

[observer]

The State acknowledges that this is not a slam dunk issue and is something that the "trier of fact" (whether a jury or judge) will need to decide. It will be decided on whom best presents their case with facts, case law, and statute in a logical manner.

 

[RogueRivered]

My point is that they are using cases that they claim have a fact pattern and statutory language similar to Patrick's case. However, the simple fact that those other states require the person stopped to identify, and then applied the delaying an officer statute when the person did not identify, completely invalidates those cases as applied to Oklahoma. He did NOT have to identify, so saying he is guilty of delaying an officer because he would not identify is RIDICULOUS on its face.

 

[observer]

Assuming your position is correct, how can Oklahoma correct any deficiencies in the law without taking it to court and having a tried of fact make a determination? It has always been my understanding that the courts were in place to fill in the gaps as no legislation can be wrote to cover every possible possibility.

I am not studied on the laws of Oklahoma but I feel confident that the acknowledgement by the DA that this is not a slam dunk issue and is something that the "trier of fact" (whether a jury or judge) will need to decide is the proper procedure to address the issue and any deficiencies in the law.

 

[RogueRivered]

Assuming your position is correct, how can Oklahoma correct any deficiencies in the law without taking it to court and having a tried of fact make a determination? It has always been my understanding that the courts were in place to fill in the gaps as no legislation can be wrote to cover every possible possibility.

I am not studied on the laws of Oklahoma but I feel confident that the acknowledgement by the DA that this is not a slam dunk issue and is something that the "trier of fact" (whether a jury or judge) will need to decide is the proper procedure to address the issue and any deficiencies in the law.

I have read that the job of a DA is not to WIN cases, but to serve justice. That motion the DA filed didn't list much law, if any, on the side of Patrick. It was only against Patrick, and although, as I've said, those cases from Stop and ID states shouldn't apply to a non-Stop and ID state,, it gives you a hint of their frame of mind. Convict, if at all possible!

I don't believe there is any deficiency in law that needs to be addressed, only a deficiency in the charges brought against Patrick and in the actions of the officer that arrested him.

 

[observer]

I have read that the job of a DA is not to WIN cases, but to serve justice. That motion the DA filed didn't list much law, if any, on the side of Patrick. It was only against Patrick, and although, as I've said, those cases from Stop and ID states shouldn't apply to a non-Stop and ID state,, it gives you a hint of their frame of mind. Convict, if at all possible!

I don't believe there is any deficiency in law that needs to be addressed, only a deficiency in the charges brought against Patrick and in the actions of the officer that arrested him.

At this point I will agree that we disagree on many issues.

1. In theory the entire legal system is designed to serve justice, but every DA needs to Win cases or they will loss their job. Weather the elected DA or a deputy working at the pleasure of the elected DA, the public wants convictions and will replace those that fail to achieve them.

2. It is the responsibility of the attorney for and/or the defendant to present law and legal theory to defend against the charges being brought forth by the DA. If there is law or legal theory in the pleadings from the DA it is to support the charges or explain why the law or legal theory is not applicable in the case being discussed.

3. Obviously you do not see any deficiency in law, but if there were none, why proceed to trial? I do not know if Patrick is guilty or not of the charges, but I do see issues that need to be decided by a trier of fact, whether judge or jury, based on the pleadings submitted to the court.

4. Not only has the motion to dismiss been uploaded, the entire case is available on this site under the "Resource" tab. These are public records and are shared to help understand and monitor the proceedings. It is the intention in making these type of documents available easier for interested parties to follow the case as well as have healthy discussion regarding them, recognizing that there will be differences in opinion as to the meaning and direction intended for each document.

 

[RogueRivered]

At this point I will agree that we disagree on many issues.

1. In theory the entire legal system is designed to serve justice, but every DA needs to Win cases or they will loss their job. Weather the elected DA or a deputy working at the pleasure of the elected DA, the public wants convictions and will replace those that fail to achieve them.

2. It is the responsibility of the attorney for and/or the defendant to present law and legal theory to defend against the charges being brought forth by the DA. If there is law or legal theory in the pleadings from the DA it is to support the charges or explain why the law or legal theory is not applicable in the case being discussed.

3. Obviously you do not see any deficiency in law, but if there were none, why proceed to trial? I do not know if Patrick is guilty or not of the charges, but I do see issues that need to be decided by a trier of fact, whether judge or jury, based on the pleadings submitted to the court.

4. Not only has the motion to dismiss been uploaded, the entire case is available on this site under the "Resource" tab. These are public records and are shared to help understand and monitor the proceedings. It is the intention in making these type of documents available easier for interested parties to follow the case as well as have healthy discussion regarding them, recognizing that there will be differences in opinion as to the meaning and direction intended for each document.

Yes, what fun would it be to agree.

1. Just a couple of days ago, I read a job description for a DA posted on a county web site (but I can't remember which one). That is where it said that the job is NOT to win cases, but to serve justice. Are you saying that comes with a "wink-wink" attached? The public for the most part is unaware of cases dealt with by the DA, so unless it is a sensational crime receiving much coverage, the public isn't going to vote out the DA for not winning lame cases. A good DA here would drop the charges, IMO.

2. I think you have that backwards, at least idealistically. The DA needs to prove the crime. The defense shouldn't really have to do anything except poke holes in the prosecution's case. Innocent Until Proven Guilty (or some such nonsense) Lol.

3. Right, I don't. The law is clear. In Oklahoma, you don't have to ID.

4. Yes, I've read them all so far.

 

[observer]

1. Just a couple of days ago, I read a job description for a DA posted on a county web site (but I can't remember which one). That is where it said that the job is NOT to win cases, but to serve justice. Are you saying that comes with a "wink-wink" attached? The public for the most part is unaware of cases dealt with by the DA, so unless it is a sensational crime receiving much coverage, the public isn't going to vote out the DA for not winning lame cases. A good DA here would drop the charges, IMO.

2. I think you have that backwards, at least idealistically. The DA needs to prove the crime. The defense shouldn't really have to do anything except poke holes in the prosecution's case. Innocent Until Proven Guilty (or some such nonsense) Lol.

3. Right, I don't. The law is clear. In Oklahoma, you don't have to ID.

4. Yes, I've read them all so far.

1. I do not know if it was a "wink-wink" , but in my years of watching election issues involving most politicians is their stance on crime and crime prevention. This resulted in laws being passed to demonstrate the "toughness" of their position. The mandatory sentencing guidelines is a classic example of legislation that was implemented but proven to be a major failure.

Back to the DA aspect of the conversation. Every election cycle that I am aware of both sides have always used the win/loss or conviction rate as the measurement of their success or failure depending on what side of the equation your were on. Based on this I do stand my the premise that the public wants convictions and will replace those that fail to achieve them.

2. I agree 100% with you that it is the responsibility of the DA to prove guilt of the crime. However, the time to prove the guilt is at trial in front of the trier of fact be it a judge or jury. At this point, both parties have only submitted briefs/motions to the court of what they believe are the legal issues. There has been no evidence per se introduced to the court for the purpose of demonstrating guilt or innocence.

The defense does not have to prove anything at trial as the burden is 100% on the DA. However, the defense does have the opportunity in pre-trial motions to put forth their legal arguments. They can and must also put those arguments into the record in the form of objections etc. if they want to preserve issues for an appeal.

3. NNP was not charged with "Failure to ID". He is charged with obstruction so the decision before the court is did NNP's failure to provide ID cause sufficient obstruction to prevent the officer from carrying out his lawful duties. This is a decision that the "tried of fact" will need to make either based upon the pre-trial motions or during trial.

4. Did you learn anything from any of the documents that you previously did not have knowledge of? Did you find the documents to be helpful or should FAANClub not invest the time and effort to colle3ct and publish these types of public records?

Agreement is fine but not necessary as we can all grow as our differences are explored and we listen to the input of others with differing perspectives. Thank you

 

[RogueRivered]

According to NNH's daughters, the DA doesn't want to take on a case it doesn't think it can win. Maybe they really are trying to get to the bottom of the issue here in Patrick's case -- can someone be convicted for obstruction by refusing to give ID when that ID is not required? But I doubt it. I think they are simply trying to back up the officer that arrested him.

Good point about the defense putting legal arguments in their pre-trial motions. I'm still hoping the whole thing gets dismissed. The DA wouldn't need to count that as a loss.

Yes, I had not seen any of the NNP legal briefs and motions prior to reading them here, so it is valuable to me at least. That is one complaint I have with a lot of the court reporting web sites. Either I can't find the pre-trial documents, or they are not made available to the public online. Usually what I am looking for is amicus briefs, but I rarely find them. The Court sometimes mentions them in the decisions.

 

[observer]

Usually what I am looking for is amicus briefs, but I rarely find them. The Court sometimes mentions them in the decisions.

Do you have an account on Pacer.gov. This is the Federal Website for all District, Appellate, and Supreme Court access to public records. Registration is required and fees are charge, but you get $15.00 free per quarter. I would expect that you would find amicus briefs on this site. Best of luck in finding what you are searching for.

 

[Andrey Sloan]

AND he was found guilty...