Archive for the ‘Frog Gravy legal case’ Category

The Kentucky Supreme Court denied our Motion For Discretionary Review of the Frog Gravy legal case without opinion or comment. Here is a copy of the order:

11 02/15/2012 FINALITY: FL


This means we have reached the end of the road on the direct appeal in Kentucky and the published opinion by the Court of Appeals is the law of the case. The briefs filed by the parties will be available online at the Chase Law School in Kentucky at some point.

Documents in this case, including the briefs and the published opinion (pdf), are also available here:

The preliminary hearing is here:

The Grand Jury hearing is here:

The exculpatory labs are here:

The suppression hearing is here:

The first order denying suppression:

And the second, and the third:

Other documents:

What is the next step in this case?

There are three options right now:

1. Do nothing. The case no longer specifically impacts our day-to-day lives one way or the other. Fortunately, I am not on death row. The case will impact others in the future, because it is published and it sets precedent. One option is to do nothing.

2. Petition the United States Supreme Court for Certiorari, or review, of the decision. The issues are very specific in such a petition. Here is more information about Certiorari:

3. File a state habeas corpus petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. In Kentucky, this is called an 11.42 petition. Here is more information about that:

It will be interesting to see how this case will impact future cases.

This latest result is entirely consistent with the patterns and practices of the case so far, as evidenced by these documents.

My case is so surreal, I sometimes have difficulty believing it myself. That is why I am trying to provide as many documents as I can.

Judge Craig Clymer’s sentence in my case was eight years from the bench but four years in writing. Unless specified, DOC will read sentences as to be served concurrently:

Final Judgment & Sentence

I went home on parole, with a parole plan, after serving the required time on a four year sentence. Judge Craig Clymer contacted DOC and said something like, “Why is she out? I amended her sentence.”

I was then rearrested with a doubled sentence. Here is that article:

Here is the amended sentence:

Corrected Judgment & Sentence

Here are some other sentences, issued by the same judge:

MCCRACKEN COUNTY, KY – From a house party to the jail house. A shocking end to the Caleb Barnett tragedy. Despite emotional pleas for mercy a local man learned how much time he’ll serve in connection to the death of his close friend.

In July 2009 Taylor Thompson and Caleb Barnett were partying and taking drugs, drugs Thompson provided. On Wednesday, McCracken County Circuit Judge Craig Clymer sentenced Thompson to two two-and-a-half-year terms to run concurrently.

Thompson pleaded guilty to trafficking a controlled substance, possession of drug paraphernalia and possession of marijuana.

McCracken County Circuit Court Judge Craig Clymer sentenced Karen Clark Thursday morning. Clark had already pleaded guilty to Theft by Deception and Criminal Abuse in the Second Degree. On Thursday, Judge Clymer sentenced Clark to three years on both charges. Clark will serve the sentences at the same time, totaling only three years.

PADUCAH, KY (AP) – A western Kentucky judge sentenced a woman involved in the sale of hallucinogenic mushrooms implicated in a deadly break-in to more than two years in jail.

The Paducah Sun reports McCracken Circuit Judge Craig Clymer sentenced Shaina Skinner on Monday to 2-1/2 years for trafficking in a controlled substance.

Seriously, had I trafficked in drugs that were directly involved in the death of a young person, I would have received less than half the time I did receive, for a no-drugs-no-alcohol-no-bad-driving DUI and possession of one-tenth of a gram of crack.

Are you interested in state-by-state incarceration rates and other statistics?

Go here:

After presiding over the suppression hearing and issuing a first order denying suppression, McCracken Circuit Court judge Hon. Craig Clymer issued a second order setting aside the first order and substituting this one for it. Here is that second order:

Supplemental Suppression Order

It gets better. After the completion of the trial and after the conviction, Hon. Craig Clymer issued a third order supplementing the second order denying suppression, with additional findings of fact and conclusions of law. Here is the third order:

Supplemental Suppression Order

Judge Clymer states that McGuire did not conduct a stop of my vehicle.

See if you agree. Here is McGuire’s Uniform Citation:

Uniform Offense Report

Pretty clear that McGuire fell in behind my vehicle and stopped it.

Then there’s this:

where McGuire said that he stopped my vehicle, and there’s this:

where McGuire talked openly about stopping my vehicle on a hunch.

But the kicker is that in the suppression hearing itself, McGuire admits that he put his emergency lights on before my car came to a complete stop.

I often wonder if, even today, there will be a fourth, or maybe even a fifth order denying suppression post trial and not based on the suppression hearing. His third order is, ironically, ‘unusual, suspicious and disturbing.’

The Full-Text Suppression Hearing pdf [Frog Gravy legal case]

Leatherman Suppression Hearing_0001

For those of you following the legal case, here are the documents and briefs that have been filed in the case so far. The case currently sits with the Kentucky Supreme Court, as a Motion For Discretionary Review. All of these documents are in the public domain. For law students following this case: filed briefs, responses and the COA opinion are all here, full-text from original sources, in one convenient place:

1. Appellant opening brief:

2. Commonwealth Brief In Response:

3. Appellant Reply Brief:

4. The Court of Appeals Opinion Affirming and To Be Published:

5. Appellant Petition For Rehearing:

6. Commonwealth Response to Petition For Rehearing:

The Commonwealth did not file a response. They were not required to file such a response.

7. Court of Appeals denies rehearing without comment, opinion or analysis:


The source.

8. The Motion For Discretionary Review:

9. Commonwealth Response to Motion For Discretionary Review:

10. Will add this document on edit.

11. The docket, Court of Appeals:

The Court of Appeals docket in this case is at this site.

The status of the case today:

Case # 2011-SC-000272
Case Type Discretionary Review (CRIMINAL): (1R )
Document Type Discretionary Review: (D)
Case Status Active: (A)
Last Main Event SENT OUT FOR ASSIGNMENT (07/18/2011)


The full-text Motion For Discretionary Review is here:

Get your Pepto Bismol. Here is the full-text reply to the Motion for Discretionary Review by Dark And Stormy Night Gregory Fuchs.

Remember, this to-be-published case was affirmed by the Kentucky Court of Appeals, and the case now sits with the Kentucky Supreme Court.

If this case becomes binding case law, guess what? Exculpatory toxicology crime laboratory testing will be irrelevant. DNA won’t matter. If you are pulled over, you might as well waive the option for clearing yourself by opting for blood analysis.

Your fate will be in the hands of a rogue, lying deputy and whatever coached speculation he offers over a lengthy period of time. Science matters not in the least in the state of Kentucky, according to this decision.

So, you see, this case is not about me anymore. This case will affect pretty much every criminal case in the future.

Commonwealth Full-Text Response To MDR [Frog Gravy legal case]

20111010084852102 (1)

Have a gander at this incomprehensible hunk of garbage authored by Commonwealth Assistant Attorney General Gregory Fuchs. His writing would do the Bulwer-Lytton fiction contest proud, both for the fantasy as well as the wretched writing.

AG’s brief (1)

Music for this post:


Since I am transcribing a read-only document, I will present it in parts. The author is Assistant Attorney General Gregory C. Fuchs. The document is so poorly written that it is difficult to transcribe. I will present the table of contents at the end. The document is in the public domain. If you want the read-only pdf, email me, or file an open records request.

I will also place the full-text reply on this site.

Here is yet another of the many versions of the Commonwealth’s ever-changing story.

As someone at Mason’s site pointed out, there are a gazillion ways to point out that the body is a corpse. Gets old, after a while.


Appellant was indicted in McCracken Circuit Court for possession of a controlled substance, cocaine, tampering with physical evidence and operating a motor vehicle under the influence of drugs. (TR 1). Prior to trial, appellant moved to suppress all evidence derived as a result of the stop of the vehicle that she was driving as the stop was based on an uncorroborated tip. (TR 17). The court held a hearing on the motion on November 27, 2006.

At that hearing, the arresting officer Deputy Eddie McGuire was the only witness. He testified that on June 28, 2006 that he had received a report from dispatch that Vernon Wilkey had called 911 to report that a female with blond hair driving a dark blue Buick with Washington plates had asked about purchasing heroin. (Tape 11/27/06 14:05:00). The deputy later observed a dark blue Buick driven by a female with blonde hair on US 60 in the right lane with its left turn signal blinking. (Tape 11/27/06 14:07:00) And when the deputy slowed down to pull in behind her, appellant pulled over to the right side of the road. (Tape 11/27/06 14:07:20). It was then that the deputy pulled over to the side of the road too and activated his lights (Tape 11/27/06 14:07:35).

The deputy then approached the vehicle and asked about the report he had received and in speaking with her noticed that she had glassy eyes, unbuttoned and unzipped pants and a full cup of beer in the console as well as an open bottle of wine. (Tape 11/27/06 14:07:55 et seq.; 14:08:45). The officer administered a horizontal gaze nystagmus field sobriety test which indicated that appellant was impaired or intoxicated on some substance. (Tape 11/27/06 14:09:45).

Appellant told deputy that she was on three prescription drugs including Clonazepam and he obtained consent to search her vehicle and recovered the prescription bottles, beer and bottle of wine. (Tape 11/27/06 14:10:14-38). Appellant was then arrested for driving under the influence. (Tape 11/27/06 14:10:48).

Appellant according to officer was transported to the hospital for a blood test. (Tape 11/27/06 14:10:58). When appellant exited the vehicle at the hospital, the officer saw her watch and a cellophane package with a substance together in the backseat of the vehicle. (Tape 11/27/06 14:11:20). The officer ultimately retrieved the watch and the package upon return to the vehicle which was determined by testing to have cocaine but appellant denied that it was hers though she admitted the watch was hers. (see Tape 11/27/06 14:30:45).

During the cross-examination, the deputy noted that the specific unusual thing he observed in her driving was the use of a turn signal without turning. (Tape 11/27/06 14:15:40). And he was going to stop the vehicle but she pulled over first. (Tape 11/27/06 14:17:00). He noted that the evidence that she was under the influence included the glassy eyes and that she was just very nervous. (Tape 11/27/06 14:19:42).

to be continued.

Note: To show that, once again, Deputy McGuire lies under oath, I will be placing the full text under-oath preliminary hearing that occurred shortly after the arrest, along with the full text suppression under-oath hearing transcript. His stories are 180 degrees different and conflicting. His memory gets even better with time and coaching; his trial testimony differed yet again. We already know that he told a great big whopper to the Grand Jury.

At suppression we are led to believe that McGuire left a blatant controlled substance in plain view on top of his cruiser back seat in full view of the passing public in a public hospital parking lot, for an hour, during the blood draw.

At preliminary, he admitted that the substance was not in plain view and neither was the watch. Both were under the seat, and, only at my specific request that he do so, did he pull the seat back to get the watch. At that point, he claims to have discovered a so-called baggie. By the way, that he acted, in direct response to something that I requested that he do, makes those statements non-hearsay.

I will continue the Gregory Fuchs charade tomorrow. His writing gives me a sick migraine, and I fear that my grammar checker will explode.

If you want the whole thing now, email me at my address in the About section of this site.

Written by Masoninblue and reblogged from Do yourself a favor. Don’t read Frog Gravy all at once. In fact, don’t read Frog Gravy at all because it will make you sick.

As I said yesterday in Part 1,

One of the biggest problems we’ve seen in crime labs is people testifying as experts regarding matters beyond their expertise.

This happened in Crane-Station’s case when a lab tech with a bachelor’s degree from Transylvania University in Lexington, KY, who routinely analyzes human blood samples for controlled substances in the Central Lab of the Kentucky State Crime Laboratory using gas chromatography and mass spectrometry (GCMC), testified as an expert toxicologist regarding the probable effects of Clonazepam on her. He was permitted to do this without objection from her lawyer, even though,

(1) he had not detected Clonazepam, or any other drugs in her blood when he analyzed her sample;

(2) he had no formal training in drug toxicology;

(3) he never had published a peer reviewed article in a professional journal on any subject;

(4) he did not know what constituted a toxic level of Clonazepam in human blood, as opposed to a safe level;

(5) the prosecutor told him that she had admitted taking her prescribed medication when she was arrested, which included Clonazepam, but he had no information regarding what dosage she had taken and when she had taken it.

Nevertheless, he was permitted to express his opinion as an ‘expert’ that she was probably under the influence of and impaired by Clonazepam when the deputy stopped her.

This was a travesty of speculative nonsense and never should have happened.

Now, how is it possible that she could have been under the influence of and impaired by Clonazepam, if he did not detect it in her blood sample?

Well, he testified that it is difficult to detect using gas chromatography and he might have been able to detect it using liquid chromatography, but the Kentucky State Crime Lab cannot afford the equipment to perform that analysis.

Could some other lab have performed the analysis?

Well, as a matter of fact, NMS Labs in Philadelphia can do it and the Kentucky State Crime Laboratory has a contract with NMS to do the test.

Did that happen in Crane’s case?

According to the Director of the Kentucky State Crime Laboratory, the lab sent her blood sample to NMS.

But Ryan Johnson claims that he did not send her blood sample to another lab and the prosecution denies that another lab tested her sample, or that there is an exculpatory lab result from NMS.

However, there is a 2-month gap between the date that Ryan Johnson completed his analysis and the date that it was approved by his supervisor.

Sure looks like he completed his analysis and sent her sample to NMS. They tested it and sent it back reporting an exculpatory result confirming his analysis without generating a written report, so his supervisor reviewed and signed off on his exculpatory result. Then the prosecution turned over his report without mentioning the NMS report.

NMS has referred all inquiries to the prosecutor and, as I said, the prosecutor claims there is no NMS Report or analysis.

This is the kind of bullshit that we are dealing with.

Cross posted from my law blog.

I will be publishing the full text Commonwealth brief online at this site, later today or tomorrow. In the meantime, Mason is putting the finishing touches on his nauseating article titled Forensic Fraud Part 2, and I hope you will enjoy lowering your day a bit, with some Cyanide and Happiness, The Man Who Could Sit Anywhere, with its usual dry, graphic and offensive approach. These guys are too funny to ignore.