The Fourth Circuit issued a decision bolstering our 2nd Amendment rights. The case is styled USA v. Nathaniel Black, out of the Western District of North Carolina. Essentially, a guy who was a convicted felon was open carrying a firearm. He was then seized by police, who were subsequently able to determine that he was not allowed to possess a firearm. But, was it an unconstitutional seizure since they didn’t know before they seized the guy that he was committing a crime by possessing a firearm?
The 4th Circuit held that it was unconstitutional to seize the man merely because they observed him with a holstered handgun, since they had no reason to believe that he was legally barred from possessing firearms, or that he was engaging in any other illegal activity. The importance of this decision is that it protects our 2nd Amendment rights. If it is legal for us to openly carry a handgun, then law enforcement is unable to seize us in order to determine our criminal record, harass us, etc. The case has all the goodies when it comes to search and seizure case law in the Fourth Circuit (WV, VA, NC, MD).
In a 4-1 decision, authored by Justice Menis Ketchum – a Justice with criminal defense experience – which was filed yesterday, the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals actually acquitted a woman who had been convicted of murder in Cabell County, West Virginia.
A jury convicted Tanya D. Harden of first-degree murder in 2007, ignoring her argument that she acted in self-defense. She said Danuel Harden Jr., her husband of 11 years, told her that “nobody was going to walk out of the house that night,” including their two children. She apparently shot her husband with a shotgun while he was sleeping on the couch.
This was basically a “battered woman syndrome” self-defense case.
The justices’ decision acquitted Harden of murder charges, and ordered her released from prison immediately. She had been serving a life sentence with a recommendation of mercy.
Syllabus Point 3 of the Opinion held that:
Where a defendant has asserted a plea of self-defense, evidence showing
that the decedent had previously abused or threatened the life of the defendant is relevant
evidence of the defendant’s state of mind at the time deadly force was used. In determining
whether the circumstances formed a reasonable basis for the defendant to believe that he or
she was at imminent risk of serious bodily injury or death at the hands of the decedent, the
inquiry is two-fold. First, the defendant’s belief must be subjectively reasonable, which is
to say that the defendant actually believed, based upon all the circumstances perceived by
him or her at the time deadly force was used, that such force was necessary to prevent death
or serious bodily injury. Second, the defendant’s belief must be objectively reasonable when
considering all of the circumstances surrounding the defendant’s use of deadly force, which
is to say that another person, similarly situated, could have reasonably formed the same
belief. Our holding in Syllabus Point 6 of State v. McMillion, 104 W.Va. 1, 138 S.E. 732
(1927), is expressly overruled.
Where it is determined that the defendant’s actions were not reasonably
made in self-defense, evidence that the decedent had abused or threatened the life of the
defendant is nonetheless relevant and may negate or tend to negate a necessary element of
the offense(s) charged, such as malice or intent.
An occupant who is, without provocation, attacked in his or her home,
dwelling or place of temporary abode, by a co-occupant who also has a lawful right to be
upon the premises, may invoke the law of self-defense and in such circumstances use deadly
force, without retreating, where the occupant reasonably believes, and does believe, that he
or she is at imminent risk of death or serious bodily injury. In determining whether the
circumstances formed a reasonable basis for the occupant to believe that he or she was at
imminent risk of death or serious bodily injury at the hands of the co-occupant, the inquiry
is two-fold. First, the occupant’s belief must be subjectively reasonable, which is to say that
the occupant actually believed, based upon all the circumstances perceived by him or her at
the time deadly force was used, that such force was necessary to prevent death or serious
bodily injury. Second, the occupant’s belief must be objectively reasonable when
considering all of the circumstances surrounding the occupant’s use of deadly force, which
is to say that another person, similarly situated, could have reasonably formed the same
belief. Our decision in Syllabus Point 2, State v. Crawford, 66 W.Va. 114, 66 S.E. 110
(1909), is expressly overruled.
You know, sometimes prosecutors should come to the conclusion that the guy deserved it. They should have given this woman a break. She was protecting her children. The police wouldn’t have stopped him from killing her, or the children. That’s why we have guns for self defense. It’s each of ours individuals responsibility to protect ourselves and our children. The prosecutors were trying to victimize these children by turning them into orphans.
From Tanya Harden’s arrest to her sentencing, the State has never disputed an essential fact – that the decedent threatened to kill his wife and children and used his fists and shotgun to brutally beat his wife just before he died. The injuries suffered by Tanya Harden, including facial fractures, were preserved on photographs taken the day of her arrest and made part of the record in this case, and were attested to by the State’s own witnesses.
On Friday, the US Supreme Court settled an argument that had been raging for decades: does the 2nd amendment apply to individuals, or does it apply to “well regulated militia’s”? Thankfully, the Supreme Court got it right this time. West Virginians know this better than anyone else: you can’t depend on the police to wake up, take a shower, and drive thirty minutes to your house to protect you from danger. You have to be able to protect yourself and your family.
What still makes me sick, is that some guy (or gal) convicted of some stupid non-violent felony that has nothing to do with guns, will never be able to own a gun. What about his children? Should they be at the mercy of some armed intruder who is aware of the fact that they cannot protect themselves? Should they be required to die because some bleeding-heart know-it-all is anti-gun?
For a great analysis of this recent Supreme Court decision, take a look at this post from the South Carolina Criminal Defense Blog, by Bobby Frederick.
– John H. Bryan, West Virginia Attorney.
From the Register-Herald today:
Its no big surprise that after just under two hours of deliberations, the jury of seven women and five men found Gary D. Martin, 57, of Stringtown Road, guilty of two counts of first-degree murder and one count of second-degree murder.
Obviously the jury didn’t buy the self defense argument. However, they did find Martin guilty of second-degree murder for killing the victim that had the gun in the holster. Thus, the jury was not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Martin killed that particular victim with premeditation. They were convinced with respect to the other two victims however.
This result is no surprise given the evidence. However, I was surprised to read what Fayette County Prsoecutor Carl Harris “thundered” in his closing argument. The Register-Herald quoted him saying as follows:
“Only two people are alive at the end of that day because the other three are dead,” Harris thundered in closing arguments. “This is a weapon for killing,” he added, holding up the AK-47. “This is not a weapon for target practice. This is a military weapon. You don’t pull out a pistol when you’re facing a weapon like this. Self-defense (as a legal defense) doesn’t work when you shoot someone in the back.”
According to Carl Harris, an AK-47 is only a “weapon for killing” and cannot be used for target practice as it is purely a “military weapon.” Carl Harris should be ashamed of himself. Law-abiding citizens across the State of West Virginia own so-called “assault weapons” such as AK-47s and AR-15s, which they do use for target practice, self defense, or just to collect. It is just a semi-automatic rifle, similar to many others that West Virginians and other Americans own and use across the country every single day. Attention Fayette County residents: hide your guns because Carl Harris is probably looking to prosecute you for harboring “weapons for killing.” Don’t try to get some target practice in, you may end up in prison. Carl Harris needs to realize that it is perfectly legal to own that particular gun, as well as many others, and he needs to keep his anti-gun feelings to himself, and out of the courtroom.
Read the full article here.
– John H. Bryan, West Virginia Attorney.
From the Register-Herald today:
Fayette County prosecutors presented 16 witnesses Monday and explained that they plan to call just one more today in the triple-murder trial of a Hico area man accused of gunning down three young men with an AK-47 semi-automatic rifle last Memorial Day on the road in front of his home.
Gary D. Martin, 57, of Stringtown Road, is charged with three counts of first-degree murder in the May 28 shooting deaths of Dustin Tyler Hughes, 22, of Hico, Christopher Lee Legg, 23, of Hico, and Carl Blaine Cox Jr., 24, of Edmond.
The defense is claiming that since a Glock pistol in a holster was found one one of the victims, that the shootings were justifiable homicide – or self defense. However, there are some problems with that defense; namely, that the pistol was found shot and damaged with the holster. The article doesn’t say whether the gun was actually still in the holster or not. If it was, then self defense would be a tough row to hoe. If the gun was not in the holster, then self defense would be an easier case. Reportedly, there were seven rounds in the magazine, which holds nine. So it is possible that the victim shot two rounds. However, none were found at the scene (but that still doesn’t mean they weren’t there). I wonder if they tested the Glock for gunshot residue – or the victim’s hands for gunshot residue. That could prove almost conclusively whether or not he fired a gun. I would hit hard on that if I were one of the defense attorneys. You will see a pattern of sloppy investigative work and repeated failure by the State to do all of the forensic testing or evidence collection that could have been done. Your theory almost has to be that it was self defense, and the State cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self defense, because they failed to do all of the testing that could have proven it.
Of course, all of this is assuming you have a fair and impartial jury. See my earlier posts regarding motions for change of venue. This would have been a good case for one.
Another problem with the defense is that there were three victims shot to death. Even if one of the victims had threatened or shot at the defendant, it would not have been justifiable to shoot all three to death. Yet another problem is the statements made to the passing motorists and EMT workers afterwards.
You can read the full article here.
– John H. Bryan, West Virginia Attorney.
From the Register-Herald today, the full article for which can be found here.
West Virginia Governor Joe Manchin signed the “Castle Doctrine” bill, which provides that residents may use deadly force to repel an intruder or avert a felony crime in the making on one’s property, and it allows such actions to be used as a defense in potential civil litigation.
The name “Castle Doctrine” and the basic theory is the product of a medieval English custom that held a man’s house is his castle, and the wind, but not the king, may enter.
Manchin stated that “Every person’s home is a castle, and every person’s family member is a royal family member.” Senate Majority Whip Billy Wayne Bailey, D-Wyoming, said he considered the measure long overdue.
“It’s part of our culture,” he said. “We’re just codifying in law what is the culture of West Virginia, that a person has a right to defend family and property, even with deadly force. That’s part of culture, without being sued and dragged off to prison. We did quite well on this.”
Manchin agreed, saying, “I think we’ve always felt that. We just now made it legal.”
– John H. Bryan, West Virginia Attorney.
From today’s Beckley Register-Herald:
Note: Apparently the judge reversed his prior ruling denying the defense the ability to call an expert witness to testify about proper undercover procedure. The reason for the reversal was that the State called their own witness solely to testify as to the “ins and outs of undercover investigations.” Thus, the defense should be permitted to have their own witness testify as to the impropriety of the supposed undercover operation on the night of the killing. This could form the basis for a self-defense claim. Regardless, if the judge is going to allow the prosecution to present pictures of the defendant posing with guns and old targets painted as police officers, which are extremely prejudicial, he should allow the defense to fully develop his self defense theory. This requires looking at the situation through the eyes of the defendant – which requires testimony regarding the victim’s actions that night.
Another thing which stuck out to me was the testimony regarding having girlfriends or wives in an undercover vehicle while performing a drug buy. Both Trooper Van Meter and their expert, Trooper Davis, testified that “in case of an emergency, they could not swear they would not take their wives along.” What a load of garbage. They were obviously coached by the prosecution to say that. Since when is buying drugs an emergency? Obviously anything can happen in an emergency – what is important here is policy and procedure. This is what is scary about our criminal justice system in West Virginia – even WV State Police officers are willing to slant their testimony and lie on the stand in order to help the prosecution obtain a conviction. Maybe no one cares in this case. But, as I always say, you will care when your brother or son is wrongly accused of a crime and the State puts the conviction machine to work against them. – John H. Bryan, West Virginia Criminal Defense Attorney.
State Police Cpl. D.C. Eldridge shows the jury in the Thomas Leftwich murder trial a photo, recovered from Leftwich’s computer, of the defendant posing with weapons. Eldridge testified in Raleigh County Circuit Court that the computer contained digital images of narcotics, money, various weapons on display and the defendant posing with the weapons.
Rick Barbero / Register-Herald Photographer
Defense to begin in Leftwich trial
Following the testimony of three State Police officers, the defendant’s brother and a taped recording of the defendant himself, the state rested its case Wednesday against 25-year-old Thomas Leftwich, charged with first-degree murder, conspiracy and felony use of a firearm in the Aug. 29, 2006, shooting death of Beckley Police Detective Cpl. Chuck Smith.
“I heard him screaming, so I figured I hit him in the leg,” Leftwich said on the tape, adding he was “trying to aim low.”
“I didn’t want to kill the man or nothing.”
The defense will begin presenting its case when the trial resumes this morning. Leftwich is expected to testify at some point in the defense’s case.
Leftwich, in a statement recorded just hours after Smith’s death, was heard explaining what happened in the minutes before and after the fatal shooting of the man he said he did not know was a police officer.
After receiving a phone call shortly after 4 a.m., Leftwich agreed to meet a man he referred to as “Mike,” now known to be Michael Martin, as well as a second person who, in Martin’s words, wanted to buy drugs. Martin was convicted of murder in December and sentenced to life in prison.
Leftwich, who lived in a house atop a hill at the corner of Willow Lane and South Fayette Street, said Martin called and said he was outside waiting. When Leftwich reached the steps leading from his yard to the street below, he said he saw Martin and a “white dude.”
After handing the drugs over, Leftwich said, the person told him “today was my bad day.”
Leftwich told police he feared he was about to be robbed, and when he saw the man reach for what he thought to be a gun, he “pulled out my gun as quick as I could and started firing.”
After firing “three, possibly four” shots, Leftwich said he ran, placing the gun underneath a porch and hiding in his basement.
He told police he knew the person he shot at had been hit.
“He kind of turned around screaming …, ” Leftwich said. “I knew from the screaming that he was hit.”
Leftwich said he decided to confess when he saw his family, including a younger brother, being led from the house in handcuffs after police obtained a search warrant based on information from an eyewitness, Beckley Police Cpl. Will Reynolds.
Earlier in the trial, both Reynolds and Smith’s then-girlfriend, Jasminda (Gonzalez) Curen, testified they saw Smith show Leftwich his badge just before he was shot.
In his statement, however, Leftwich said something different.
“I didn’t see no badges,” he said, adding later, “He could have been reaching for a badge or something, but he didn’t say he was a policeman.”
In his statement, Leftwich said he picked up the loaded Smith & Wesson .357 revolver at the last second because of a bad feeling or “gut instinct.”
Kenneth Leftwich testified he could not remember if he ever told police his brother was a crack cocaine dealer, but said he “told the troopers he might have sold a little bit of marijuana.”
When asked by chief deputy prosecutor Kristen Keller if his brother was a crack dealer, Kenneth Leftwich responded, “I’m not sure.”
Kenneth Leftwich testified he was awakened by multiple gunshots just after 4 a.m. on Aug., 29, 2006, adding there were 15 to 20 shots fired and that he later saw 15 to 20 shell casings in the road.
After hearing the gunshots, Kenneth Leftwich said, he called his brother’s cell phone to “make sure he was OK.”
Keller asked him about additional phone calls and Leftwich said he did not know his brother had shot and killed Smith.
State Police Capt. Scott Van Meter testified that based on phone records there were seven calls between the brothers the morning of Smith’s death.
When shown by Keller a painted picture of a police officer riddled with bullet holes, Kenneth Leftwich admitted he and his brother had used it for target practice, writing their initials, either “T.L.” or “K.L.,” beside each hole. He told his brother’s attorney, Mark Hobbs, the “paint by color” picture had been completed by another brother several years earlier and was the only target he and Thomas ever used.
Although the target depicts a police officer and was marked with a scoring system, awarding different points for different hits, Kenneth Leftwich said he and his brother never discussed or planned to shoot a police officer.
Van Meter told Hobbs the target “looks to me like the rehearsal to doing it (killing an officer),” adding he believed it demonstrated there was an anger toward police.
When asked by Hobbs if he believed that anger was enough to kill an officer, Van Meter responded, “Could be.”
State Police Cpl. D.C. Eldridge testified about photographs recovered from a computer seized from the Leftwich residence the morning Smith was killed.
Eldridge said he recovered 231 photo files, many of which featured narcotics, weapons or money.
In some of those pictures, which were shown to the jury, Leftwich is shown posing with various weapons, including the gun used to shoot Smith.
Hobbs argued the importance of the picture, asking Eldridge if the weapons shown in the photos could be purchased by the general public at a sporting goods store.
“They can be,” Eldridge replied, adding the purchases would be contingent on the buyer’s background and the intended use for the weapon.
State Police Cpl. Jason Davis, who has worked undercover for seven years, testified about the ins and outs of undercover investigations.
When questioned by Hobbs about using his police car as a personal vehicle, as Smith is said to have done, Davis testified his work car was his primary car, and, as an undercover officer, it would look suspicious if he was seen by drug contacts in multiple cars.
Responding to Hobbs’ references and questions regarding Smith’s girlfriend’s presence at the time of the shooting, both Davis and Van Meter testified they, in the case of an emergency, could not swear they would not take their wives along.
Because of Davis’ testimony, Judge H.L. Kirkpatrick reversed a pre-trial ruling, advising Hobbs he would be permitted to produce his own witness to testify about undercover protocol.
From the Beckley Register-Herald:
Manchin intends to sign ‘castle doctrine’
CHARLESTON — When the National Rifle Association comes calling at the West Virginia Capitol with legislation in mind, it helps that the nation’s leading hunting and Second Amendment advocate has an ally in the Governor’s Mansion.
Such is the case with the NRA’s chief legislative goal this year — the so-called “castle doctrine” bill.
Gov. Joe Manchin is a lifetime NRA member and intends to sign the measure, which garnered nearly unanimous support in the Legislature, provided there are no legal foul-ups in the bill.
Twenty other states have enacted similar proposals that expand a homeowner’s right to protect hearth and home by using deadly force, if needed, to thwart a prowler.
And exercising such action isn’t limited indoors, either.
If an invader is about to commit a felony outside one’s home, force likewise is justified in the proposed law.
The key element in the NRA-backed bill, sponsored chiefly by Sen. Shirley Love, D-Fayette, is to provide a homeowner with protection in court if an intruder or his family brings a lawsuit after a violent confrontation. This bill says a property owner can use the burglar’s presence as “a full and complete” defense for using deadly force.
Florida became the first state to enact the castle doctrine, named after an old concept in English law that held a man’s home is his castle, and the wind, but not the king or, in modern application, a burglar, may not enter.
Manchin is on board with the legislation, first off because the Legislature overwhelmingly backed it. Only Delegate John Doyle, D-Jefferson, opposed it in either chamber.
“We respect their decision,” communications director Lara Ramsburg said Wednesday of Manchin’s attitude toward legislation approved with landslide support.
A similar bill died in the House Judiciary Committee a year ago in the final week of the session. This one focuses on protection in lawsuits since West Virginia has never obligated a potential crime victim to retreat in the face of an adversary inside one’s domicile.
More importantly, however, is Manchin’s approval of the idea of safeguarding one’s home with protections afforded by the law, Ramsburg said.
“It is a concept that he supports in terms of protecting your own home,” Ramsburg said.
So far, the bill hasn’t arrived at the governor’s office.
“As always, our responsibility when we receive a bill, our legal staff looks at it to make sure it’s legally sound and there are no technical issues. Short of that, he intends to sign it.”
From the Beckley Register-Herald:
Note: In the article below, I bolded a quote from Judge Kirkpatrick that immediately stood out to me. He says that the previous blood-alcohol testing that was done for the prosecution was done by the State Medical Examiner’s Office, not by an expert chosen by the prosecution. Well, if you have read any of my prior posts regarding our State Medical Examiner’s office, you would know that the prosecution couldn’t hire a better expert for their side if they had unlimited funds to do so. Being that many things in our state are backwards, the State ME’s Office and the State Crime Lab are basically appendages of the police and prosecutors. When they testify at trial they are trained to slant the evidence and their testimony towards the prosecutors. They are hired guns basically. If anyone contests this, then I will be glad to give examples. The end result is that none of their conclusions can really be trusted without independent testing and independent experts looking over their shoulders. Just “google” the WV State Crime Lab and you will find examples of what I am talking about. – John H. Bryan, West Virginia Criminal Defense Attorney.
Leftwich loses bid to suppress evidence
A Raleigh County judge Wednesday denied a motion from Thomas Leftwich requesting suppression of a search warrant and the evidence it allowed officers to obtain from the accused police killer’s South Fayette Street home.
Leftwich, charged with first-degree murder and conspiracy in the shooting death of Beckley Police Detective Cpl. Chuck Smith, is scheduled to go to trial March 10.
Defense attorney Mark Hobbs questioned the probable cause for the warrant, the second issued in the hours after Smith’s Aug. 29, 2006, death. That warrant led to the seizure of a numerous items, including a variety of weapons, ammunition, drugs, videotapes and computers.
Raleigh Sheriff’s Detective Cpl. James Canaday, who signed the affidavit for the warrant, and State Police Sgt. Craig Light, who carried out the search, testified as to probable cause during a pre-trial hearing Wednesday.
The officers told the court that items seen while carrying out the first search warrant led them to obtain a second warrant.
Circuit Judge H.L. Kirkpatrick denied Hobbs’ motion for suppression, telling him there was probable cause for the second search warrant and adding a second warrant was not actually needed and the officers were simply exercising “extreme restraint and caution.”
Kirkpatrick also issued a pre-trail order intended to determine “pending motions, as well as establish parameters of inquiry of witnesses and remarks of counsel.”
Through the order, Kirkpatrick denied Hobbs’ Feb. 21 motion to be supplied with a sample of Smith’s blood in order for the defense to perform its own testing to determine Smith’s blood-alcohol level at the time of his death.
The order mentioned chief deputy prosecutor Kristen Keller’s assertion that the “BAC of the victim is entirely irrelevant when a defendant claims self-defense.” Also, Kirkpatrick pointed out the previous blood test had been completed by the state medical examiner’s office, not an expert of the state’s choosing.
Kirkpatrick also denied Hobbs’ request to enter as evidence the City of Beckley’s general policy manual for police officers. In the order, Kirkpatrick stated there was no written guideline for policy and procedures for undercover operations and said a general policy manual would have no relevancy.
Also, because speculation became a problem during the trial of Leftwich’s co-defendant, Michael Martin, the order prohibits “sheer speculation concerning supposed motives attributable to the victim.”
Martin was found guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced to life without parole.
The order also states the court will not allow the victim’s character to be “trashed.”
Kirkpatrick’s order permits the defense to inquire about and address testimony pertaining to all activities and events surrounding the shooting.
State Police Capt. Scott Van Meter, left, looks on as chief deputy prosecutor Kristen Keller asks Raleigh County Circuit Judge H.L. Kirkpatrick to disallow any negative commentaries on the character of the late Beckley Police Detective Cpl. Chuck Smith Thursday during pre-trial motions in the Thomas Leftwich murder case. Leftwich is accused of shooting Smith to death during an Aug. 29, 2006, undercover drug operation.
Rick Barbero / The Register-Herald
From the Beckley Register-Herald:
Note: What the defense is getting at here is allegations that the victim narcotics officer was not acting entirely in the capacity of a police officer when this happened. It is claimed that the victim was at a bar drinking prior to the shooting, and that when the shooting happened, he was unarmed, and his girlfriend was in the car several steps away, along with his partner, who was also purportedly unarmed at the time.
If the defense is allowed to bring in some of these facts – which inarguably are in violation of the police operations manual, then it enables them to change the scenario from undercover cop killed in the line of duty, to off duty cop killed under questionable circumstances. This will be absolutely necessary if the defense is going to present self defense to the jury.
However, it doesn’t look like the Judge is going to give the defense much latitude with this argument. Regardless, his co-defendant was already convicted, and he had a much better chance of getting off because he wasn’t the shooter. He probably will inevitably be convicted, as he should. But its possible he will get convicted of 2nd degree murder if the jury runs with any of these facts. – John H. Bryan, West Virginia criminal defense attorney.
Accused cop killer to claim self-defense
Pre-trial motions heard in 2006 shooting of Beckley police detective
By Michelle James
Two hours or so after he fired the shots that took the life of Beckley Police Detective Cpl. Chuck Smith, Thomas Leftwich told State Police Capt. Scott Van Meter he thought Smith might have been reaching for a weapon.
“I thought he was reaching for a gun,” Leftwich told Van Meter just before 7 a.m. on Aug. 29, 2006. “I didn’t know what he was reaching for.”
Van Meter read Leftwich’s short statement Thursday during pre-trail motions in Raleigh County Circuit Court.
Leftwich is charged with one count each of first-degree murder, conspiracy and use of a firearm in the death of the 29-year-old Smith.
During Thursday’s hearing, his attorney, Mark Hobbs, told the court the planned defense during the trial, which is slated to begin March 10, will be self-defense.
Hobbs said “it was all about (Leftwich’s) state of mind at the time” of the shooting, adding Smith did not identify himself and was fumbling in his pocket.
Although toxicology reports on Smith showed his blood-alcohol content was below the legal limit, Hobbs requested a sample of his blood in order for the defense to perform its own testing.
Chief deputy prosecutor Kristen Keller argued “BAC is irrelevant,” adding even if the toxicology is disputed, it doesn’t mean Smith’s death was justified.
Hobbs, saying he believed Smith had violated police department policies the night he was killed, requested permission to enter as evidence the Beckley Police Department’s policy manual.
Should Kirkpatrick allow submission of the manual, Hobbs said Marvin Robinson, a former city detective, would be an expert witness for the defense.
Keller questioned the relevance of the manual and added not only was there no evidence Smith had done anything wrong on the night of his death, but that if he had been in the wrong it is “no defense saying he wasn’t following rules and procedures.”
Keller asked Kirkpatrick to not permit Smith’s character to be called into question during the trial.
Kirkpatrick said there would be no “attacking or trashing the reputation” or Smith’s character.
Although Hobbs told the judge Smith’s character was not generally an issue, he said some of the conduct from the night of his death was. He asked Kirkpatrick to give guidelines on “how far he could go” when talking about what Smith had done prior to the incident.
Kirkpatrick said he would put together a pre-trial order to discuss what matters are permissible and what are off-limits.
Another pre-trial hearing has been scheduled for 1:30 p.m. next Wednesday, at which time Kirkpatrick will rule on the request for a blood sample as well as on the admissibility of the department policy manual. The hearing will also determine if Robinson is qualified to testify as an expert witness on the manual.
Leftwich’s co-defendant, Michael Martin, who set up the alleged drug buy between Leftwich and Smith and was himself convicted of first-degree murder in December, will also appear at the hearing to determine if he is willing to testify at Leftwich’s trial or if he will exercise his Fifth Amendment rights.
Leftwich, barring a negative medical exam, will wear a shock belt mechanism during his trial.
Kirkpatrick explained the belt will allow the court to reduce the number of police officers needed in the courtroom. Should Leftwich not comply with orders or get out of hand, Kirkpatrick said, a trained officer would administer a shock that would temporarily disable him.
Leftwich agreed to wear the belt.
— E-mail: email@example.com
- Civil Liability
- Computer Crimes
- Concealed Weapons
- Criminal Records
- Domestic Violence
- Excessive Force
- Forensic Labs
- Governmental Liability
- Grand Juries
- History Series
- John H. Bryan
- Judicial Misconduct
- Law Office Tech
- Law School
- Media Coverage
- Medical Examiners
- Money Laundering
- motions for change of venue
- Negligent Homicide
- Plea Agreements
- Police Misconduct
- Preliminary Hearings
- Pretrial Hearings
- Right to Speedy Trial
- Searches and Seizures
- Self Defense
- Sex Crimes
- Sex Offender Registration
- State Agencies
- United Bank Lawsuit
- Vehicular Crimes
- West Virginia Concealed Carry Laws
- West Virginia Gun Laws
- White Collar Crime
- Wildlife Violations