Newsletter
July – August, 2007 / Volume 3
Contact Us:
Commonwealth’s
Attorney Lynn Pryor
511 South Main Street
Courthouse Annex
Second Floor
Hopkinsville, KY 42240
(270) 889-6587
(270) 889-6590
Email:
/
“Leading the Fight on Public Safety”
Hello Everyone! Welcome to the 3rd Edition of our newsletter. We have been very busy, so I apologize for the delay. As we approach completion of our office renovations, we are planning an Open House in December. Our next newsletter will announce the date and time. Thanks again for your patience and support.SPOTLIGHT: Kathi Adams/ New Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney
Kathi Adams is the newest Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney in our office. She began working with us August 1, 2007, after serving the Commonwealth of Kentucky as an attorney with the Department of Public Advocacy. Kathi has been actively practicing law out of Madisonville, Kentucky since her admission to the Kentucky Bar. She has handled hundreds of cases throughout the Western Kentucky area, including Christian County. Prior to becoming an attorney, she served as a Law Clerk for the Hopkins County Attorney’s Office.
Her husband, Chip Adams, is also an attorney practicing in the Whitfield & Cox Law Firm in Madisonville. Kathi and her husband have a daughter, as well as extensive family in the Western Kentucky, Louisville, and Lexington areas. Kathi is the daughter-in-law of the late Kentucky State Senator, Dick Adams.
With regard to working in the Christian County Commonwealth Attorney’s Office, Kathi is looking forward to serving the citizens of Christian County in prosecuting crimes and seeing that justice is accomplished.
Grand Jury
The Grand Jury is made up of 12 people who hear cases presented by law enforcement or crime victims and determine if there is enough probable cause to indict a person with a felony. They served during July and August and effectively and proficiently returned 134 indictments, 4 “No True Bills” and 2 cases were referred back to District Court. The Grand Jury was very dedicated, and we appreciate their service to our community. Their report is attached.
Court Proceedings
From July 1, 2007, through August 31, 2007, our office has handled 219 arraignments, 64 probation revocation hearings, and 119 sentencings. Between January and August 31, 2007, we have returned 604 indictments.
Jury Trials
Commonwealth’s Attorney, Lynn Pryor tried 7 cases during this term. The first of seven being a bench trial on July 12, 2007, in the matter of Commonwealth v. Michael Crotzer. The court found Mr. Crotzer not guilty of Manslaughter, Second-Degree and Wanton Endangerment, First-Degree, in a case which involved a failure to yield right-of-way.
In the matter of Commonwealth v. Elsie Fox-Nolt, which came before the court on July 23, 2007, the Defendant was charged with Criminal Abuse in the First and Second Degree. Following a bench trial, Judge Self found the Defendant guilty of Criminal Abuse in the Second-Degree and sentenced her to 2 years suspended and probated. Ms. Fox-Nolt had whipped a 4 year old child with a piece of firewood causing serious bruising and a gash to his head.
On July 30, 2007, a jury trial was held regarding Commonwealth v. Christopher Lyle. A jury found Mr. Lyle not guilty of Assault in the First-Degree, in a case involving serious physical injury inflicted on his own 4 year old daughter.
On August 2, 2007, a jury trial began on Commonwealth v. Isaac Wilford. The Defendant is charged with Rape in the First-Degree. A mistrial was declared due to a reference in testimony of medical evidence that neither party had access to prior to the trial. The case is scheduled to be retried on February 4, 2008.
On August 13, 2007, a jury heard testimony in Commonwealth v. Michael Stevenson, a Murder charge. The jury found the Defendant not guilty of the death of his girlfriend’s 1 year old son.
On August 21, 2007, a jury trial began on Commonwealth v. David Leroy Albritton who was charged with Retaliating against a Participant in Legal Process and Persistent Felony Offender, First-Degree. The Jury found the Defendant not guilty of threatening Officer Tomlinson with the Oak Grove Police Department.
FOCUS ON CRIME: RECENT MURDER TRIAL
On September 10, 2007, a jury was selected to hear the case involving the murder and robbery charges against Michael Lemon, 17, Austin Teague 20, and Cameron Bibbs, 19. Because of the attention the media has given to this case, I wanted to take this opportunity to explain the recent trial and the outcome.
First, the testimony at the trial included Michael Lemon’s admission that he intended to rob the victim, Rob Charbonneau, and he ultimately shot him during the attempted robbery. Lemon and Martel Majors identified co-defendant’s Austin Teague and Cameron Bibbs as the other 2 males who were in the car during this tragic event on August 3, 2006. Teague was named as the one who gave the .38 revolver to Lemon and got out of the car with Lemon for a short period of time prior to the shooting. Teague had obtained the gun from Bibbs days prior, and Bibbs was the driver of the car.
The Commonwealth argued that Bibbs, Teague and Lemon were equally to blame for Rob’s death; however, the jury determined that Teague and Bibbs were guilty of lesser crimes than Lemon. It is likely that this decision was based at least in part on the lack of proof that the three defendants planned or conspired to rob and kill the victim.
On September 13, 2007, Lemon was found guilty of murder and first-degree robbery. Because he was a minor, Lemon was not eligible for the death penalty or life without parole. His sentence could have been any number of years between 20-50 or life. With any of these sentences, from 24 years up and including life, Lemon would be eligible for parole after 20 years. As a juvenile, his case will be reviewed on his 18th birthday, at which time he may be transferred to an adult facility.
After lengthy discussion and over the Commonwealth’s objection, the court’s jury instructions included ten different charges from which the jury had to choose. After 3 ½ hours, the jury found Austin Teague guilty of Complicity to Second-Degree Manslaughter (C felony, 5-10 years) and Complicity to First-Degree Robbery (B felony, 10-20 years). Teague’s sentence could have ranged from 10-30 years, depending on whether the charges ran concurrently or consecutively, and neither the death penalty nor any form of a life sentence was an option in his case after the jury verdict was read.
Cameron Bibbs was found guilty of Facilitation to Second-Degree Manslaughter (Class A misdemeanor, up to 12 months) and Facilitation to First-Degree Robbery (Class D Felony, 1-5 years). By law, misdemeanors run concurrent with any felony sentence, and 5 years was the maximum number of years the jury could have imposed on Bibbs.
After these verdicts were announced, all the possibilities were discussed with Rob Charbonneau’s parents, including the range of sentences that could be imposed and the potential for appeals that might follow. We also explored the fact that the jury could impose the minimum sentences for any of the defendants and nothing prevented them from running the sentences concurrently. This seemed a very real possibility given the youth and lack of criminal history of each of the defendants and the emotion shown by the jury when the verdict was read.
A joint decision was made between the Charbonneau’s and the Commonwealth to make offers to each Defendant prior to the sentencing phase of the trial. The major benefit of resolving this case in this way is that each Defendant gave up their right to appeal and the Charbonneau’s do not have relive the tragedy that took their son from them years before his time.
Finally, each Defendant entered a guilty plea to the charges that the jury found them guilty of. Michael Lemon took 27 years on Murder and 10 years on Robbery First-Degree, to run concurrently. Austin Teague entered a plea for 5 years on Complicity to Second-Degree Manslaughter and 10 years for Complicity to First-Degree Robbery. Teague’s charges will run consecutively, for a total of 15 years. And, Cameron Bibbs misdemeanor charge will run concurrent, by law, to his 3 year sentence on Facilitation to First-Degree Robbery.
On behalf of the staff of the Commonwealth Attorney’s Office, I would like to express our deepest sympathies to the family and friends of Robert Charbonneau.
GUN VIOLENCE MEMORIAL
A Gun Violence Memorial that is sponsored by the Christian County Community League will be held on the steps of the Justice Center on October 18, 2007, at 5:30 p.m., to honor those in Christian County who have been killed due to firearms. October 18th is the National Day of Concern about Young People and Gun Violence, and one the Christian County Community Leagues goals is to reduce gun violence in Christian County, particularly involving our youth.
The Problems with Reasonable Doubt
Juries are instructed to find a Defendant not guilty unless they find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that he/she is guilty. Reasonable doubt is a very difficult concept to define, and according to Kentucky’s Supreme Court, attorneys are not allowed to try and define reasonable doubt to juries. Because reasonable doubt is often the hurdle that many juries cannot overcome, I wanted to provide you all with definitions as found in different websites.
· The level of certainty a juror must have to find a defendant guilty of a crime. A real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case.
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty.
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/q016.htm
· The burden of proof that the prosecution must carry in a criminal trial to obtain a guilty verdict. Reasonable doubt is sometimes explained as being convinced "to a moral certainty." The jury must be convinced that the defendant committed each element of the crime before returning a guilty verdict.
www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/term/7BD6A0CA-92B0-4FEB-A12BCD3CEFDD1514
· This is the standard required by the prosecution in most criminal cases within an adversarial system. This means that the proposition being presented by the government must be proven to the extent that there is no "reasonable doubt" in the mind of a reasonable person that the defendant is guilty. There can still be a doubt, but only to the extent that it would not affect a "reasonable person's" belief that the defendant is guilty. If the doubt that is raised does affect a "reasonable person's" belief that the defendant is guilty, the jury is not satisfied beyond a "reasonable doubt". The precise meaning of words such as "reasonable" and "doubt" are usually defined within jurisprudence of the applicable country. In the United States, it is usually reversible error to instruct a jury that they should find guilt on a certain percentage of certainty (such as 90% certain). Usually, reasonable doubt is defined as "any doubt which would make a reasonable person hesitate in the most important of his or her affairs."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof
· It is not required that the state prove guilt beyond all possible doubt. The test is one of reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is a doubt based upon reason and common sense----the kind of doubt that would make a reasonable person hesitate to act. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, must be proof of such a convincing character that a reasonable person would not hesitate to rely and act upon it. The jury will remember that a defendant is never to be convicted on mere suspicion or conjecture. The burden is always on the state to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This burden never shifts to a defendant, for the law never imposes upon a defendant in a criminal case the burden or duty of calling any witnesses or producing any evidence.
So, if the jury, after careful and impartial consideration of all of the evidence in the case, has a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the charge, it must acquit. If the jury views the evidence in the case as reasonably permitting either of two conclusions---one of innocence, the other of guilt---the jury should of course adopt the conclusion of innocence.
http://www.state.wv.us/WVSCA/jury/crim/reasonable.htm
· "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you firmly convinced of the defendant's guilt. There are very few things in the world that we know with absolute certainty, and in criminal law cases, the law does not require proof that overcomes every possible doubt. If, based on your consideration of the evidence, you are firmly convinced that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged, you must find him guilty …. If, on the other hand, based on the evidence or lack of evidence, you have a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt, you must give him the benefit of that doubt and find him not guilty."
http://federalism.typepad.com/crime_federalism/2007/07/doing-away-with.html
· An accused person is entitled to acquittal if, in the minds of the jury, his or her guilty has not been proved beyond a “reasonable doubt;” that state of minds in which they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction as to the truth of the charge.