Newton Iowa Walker & Billingsly May 13th, 2008
How Did an Iowan Facing 25 Years in Prison Have His Charge Dismissed?
Recently, John Billingsley from our law firm was appointed to represent a man in prison who had filed an application for a new trial. He was serving a 25 year prison sentence for a drug offense after being found guilty by a jury. He then appealed his case to the Iowa Supreme Court who affirmed his conviction. However, the client did not give-up and working from the prison library, the he painstakingly read his way though court decisions and filed his own application for a new trial.
After his application was filed, John was assigned to assist him. John read through the transcripts of the proceedings. There had been a pretrial motion hearing about the legality of two police searches. One of the searches was ruled legal and one was ruled illegal. The legality of the two searches was extensively analyzed by the Supreme Court, and that Court affirmed the trial court ruling that one of the searches was legal and one was illegal. There did not seem to be any grounds for a new trial. Originally, John did not really understand where the man was coming from, so he read through the materials a second time. Then he went to see the man in prison. The most important evidence in the case was a lock box.
The courts had ruled that the seizure of the box was legal and the box could be used in evidence. “But,” the client said to John, “When the box was seized it was locked. How did they legally open it?” At this point, the light began to come-on for John. A third reading of the record of the case enabled him to perceive the problem. The problem was that nobody had ever considered the opening of the box as a separate event. Once the box was seized by the police, the inquiry ended. So how was the box opened? It was opened with a key that was taken in the illegal search. That made the opening of the box an illegal search. In a critical portion of the trial, which covered eleven pages of transcript, the original defense attorney said, “No objection” four times. If he had said “Objection” instead, and based his objections on the illegal search, there would have been no admissible evidence to convict the man. The attorney had dwelled upon the fact that the police legally seized the box without considering that they illegally seized the means of opening the box. He perceived his pretrial motion as being basically unsuccessful rather than basically successful. As a result, the objections were not made and the man went to prison.
There is something that happens to everyone from time to time. We dwell on what we don’t have, rather than what we have. We allow ourselves to be discouraged by failure rather than encouraged by success. We are unable to recognize the strength of our situation because we dwell on the weakness of our situation. John did not originally recognize the legal features of the situation. Only the man in prison believed in his case at first. Only by listening to the man was the John able to understand the important question that was not addressed as the case made its way through the legal system. Only by understanding the important question was John able to identify the point in the trial when the question should have been posed. If the question had been asked at the right moment, the man would have gone free. A hearing was held upon the application for a new trial. The presiding judge was the judge from the original pretrial hearing, but not from the original trial.
The judge recognized that his original ruling could have been used effectively by the defense attorney, but the attorney had dwelled upon the unsuccessful part of his motion, instead of the successful part of the motion. As a result, the successful part of the attorney’s motion was not used on the man’s behalf. The judge ruled that the man did not receive his constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel. The judge ruled that the conviction be overturned and that the man be granted a new trial. Because it was now clear that the box was opened illegally and that the evidence could not be admitted, the authorities dismissed the charge. The man was free, and the charge was removed from his record. There are several teaching points in this case: 1. It is to be persistent; 2. It is important for a client to work with his or her attorney; 3. It is important for a attorney to listen to his or her client; 4. It is important to take stock of your strengths and to not be discouraged by something that doesn’t go your way. Both John and his client were very happy with the outcome.
Other people were not so supportive when they learned that a convicted drug offender was set free. In fact, John’s mother referred back to the days when her son was county attorney and she said, “I liked it better when you were putting them away.” John reminded his mother that one of the things that defines us as a free country is the fact that all persons are presumed innocent until proven guilty by competent evidence. In this case the evidence was not competent. That is the law. Working on the imprisoned man’s behalf, John was enforcing the law, just like he did when he was county attorney. A new FREE legal guide entitled “Criminal Law, Iowa Guide to Protecting Your Rights and Freedom” exposes the “5 Rights to Know if you are Charged with a Crime.” To find out more you can log onto our new web page www.IowaLegalInsider.com or to hear a brief recorded message about how to order your FREE copy, Call 1-800-850-6617 and enter ext. 515. (24 Hour Recorded Message).
