Liar, Liar

Alright, I thought by this morning my anger would pass. I have been doing this for over 35 years. I should not be surprised when a police officer lies under oath. Yet, it still shocks and offends me when it happens.

I had to try a case yesterday in east central Missouri. I have never handled the case in this county. I don’t know any of the local players. This was going to be a bench tried case. For those of you who don’t know, that means there is no jury, only a judge.

One of the issues in the case was who was actually driving the cars involved in this collision. Two cars collided at an intersection. It happened in a rural setting. It took the Highway Patrol 35 minutes to get to the scene of the collision. When they got there there were no drivers in the vehicles.

My client was charged with careless and imprudent driving by failure to yield. For reasons that are entirely too complicated to go into, my client was unable to enter into a plea bargain. His injuries were so severe that he has no recollection at all of even being in the collision. Interestingly enough, the other person has no recollection of even being in the collision. We have two people in a collision and neither of them can remember what happened.

So we decided that the best way to resolve the issue was to have a bench trial. It did not occur to me before the trial that the State would not recognize the problem of placing the drivers and vehicles. But apparently that never crossed their mind. I believe everybody just assumed that identifying the drivers would not be an issue. However, at a minimum there had to be some testimony putting my client behind the wheel of one of the cars. It became evident when they put the Highway Patrolman on the stand That no one on the prosecution side had thought about that.

I think the judge could have gone either way on that issue. Do I think they proved beyond a reasonable doubt that my client was driving? No. However, I am an involved advocate. The judge, who has taken an oath to uphold the law, believed beyond a reasonable doubt that my client was driving one of the vehicles.

You see when the paramedics arrived they did have to take the other man from his vehicle. However, my client was sitting on the curb. Now had the State brought in the paramedics they could have testified that these were the only people present when they arrived and is shown with a little more certainty that my client was driving. Although no one could affirmatively put him behind the wheel, they could have ruled out with more certainty that someone else might have been driving. I mean, theoretically, another person could have been there and left. That person could have been driving one of the vehicles. It is the obligation of the State to come forth with the evidence. As I said, I think they missed the burden on this point. The judge disagreed with me.

So when this particular Highway Patrolman was on the stand and started to testify that my client was the driver I objected. I pointed out to the court that the Highway Patrolman did not know that. The judge, in one of those little tricks that judges play, said that he would allow the Highway Patrolman to testify about that, not for the truth of the matter but to explain why he took certain actions.

Someday I will write an entire article on that kind of crap. Sometimes it seems like the judge and the police officer and the prosecutor are all on the same team. The judge should not be on anybody’s team. The police officer should simply be an accurate reporter of the facts. The prosecuting attorney should be the advocate. Many times it just doesn’t work out that way.

In any event, once the judge gave the Highway Patrolman a free rein to testify the Highway Patrolman started to wax eloquent about what happened out there.

In other words, when the pressure was on, when he saw that he was not going to be able to definitely show that my client was the driver of the vehicle he had a choice to make. Would he lose on that point or would he lie? He lied!

First he said that the paramedics had told him that my client was the driver. Then he said that the paramedics had told him that they had extricated the drivers from the cars. Both of those statements were lies.

There was an ambulance report in existence that showed that my client was sitting on the curb when the paramedics arrived. Clearly he wasn’t extricated from the car by the paramedics. Clearly the paramedics would not have said he was driving because they did not know. Even if the paramedics had said he was driving the Highway Patrolman should have noted that in his report. He did not. This officer simply worked on the assumption that my client was driving the car. He did no investigation at all to confirm that. He realized that as he sat on the witness stand. And then he made a choice that tells what kind of man he is.

I will never forget the name of this Highway Patrolman. Every time I see his name on the ticket or a police report I will wonder whether it is the truth or the truth as this Highway Patrolman wants it to be. This man has done a disservice to the Missouri State Highway Patrol.

Police officers are supposed to be scrupulously honest reporters of the facts as they exist. They are supposed to come to court and relay the facts. They are not supposed to be advocates. They are supposed to be reporters. This officer crossed the line. He lost focus as to what he was supposed to be doing. He disgraced himself. He disgraced the Missouri State Highway Patrol. He spit in the face of the justice system.

I have seen this happen over and over again. One would think that after 35 years of watching police officers lie under oath that would be used to it. I hope that never happens.