Though we had been to the Lexington Police Station numerous times, most of the interns had never received an official tour. Detective Rob Wilson kindly put to rest our curiosities and showed us around. Upon entering the front door, the first thing you see is the glass window of Central Records much like that at a doctor’s office or a movie theater. Unless you are an employee of the police station or authorized personnel, you don’t get through the locked door across the lobby. When the public comes in to file an accident report or make inquiries, they talk to the employees behind the glass. We, however, get right through with Detective Wilson at our side. Behind the locked door lies the rest of the main floor: overnight storage of evidence, first aid room and the communications center.

The communications center is one of the most fascinating places in the police station. There is rarely a dull moment in this area because it is where the dispatchers for Fayette County are located. After having been on a ride-a-long, we knew what a busy job the dispatchers had. Not only do they take all of the incoming 911 calls, but they have to get information out of hysterical people all the while staying calm so that they can accurately direct police officers out on the street where to go. Their job is vital to the effectiveness and timely response of police officers. The dispatchers also provide necessary information for police officers such as running license plates through a national data base or looking up records that the police officer may not be able to find. Through the communications room is the dock where the mobile crime lab and swat team truck are located. The mobile crime lab is a large R.V. that goes to crime scenes to do various tasks such as collect evidence and decontaminate if necessary. The swat team is a large truck with benches lined along the walls for swat team members and overhead storage for equipment.

The second and third floors of the police station house offices such as the Chief’s office and the pension office. There are also rooms to hold large meetings such as the Senior Internship meeting and the Compstat meeting we attended within the past couple weeks. The fourth floor is the detective’s bureau. There are different sections for each branch: i.e. robbery, homicide, financial crimes, crimes against children, among other areas. The Lieutenants’ offices are also located on this floor. Lining the walls are interview rooms and holding cells.

Finally, the basement is where the property and evidence room and the forensic lab are located. Although we were not allowed a tour of the property/evidence area, we were told that it houses all of the evidence booked from various crimes. Security is very tight and few people are allowed behind the large steel doors. Any time an officer wishes to book evidence, they have to use a phone located outside the doors to call into the property/evidence room for one of technicians. Each time a piece of evidence is opened by an officer or attorney, it is then resealed and signed.

The employees of the police station have different positions but they all work together to help keep the community informed and safe.

On June 15, 2005, Steven Fields, Erin Hayne and I accompanied Ray Larson to Campbell County, to gather information regarding a case in which our office has been assigned as the Special Prosecutor. A Special Prosecutor has to be assigned when there is a conflict of interest between the defendant and the Common-wealth’s Attorney of the county where the crime occurred. His defense attorney at the time of the original trial is now an Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney in Campbell County, so our office was asked to respond to the motion because that is a conflict of interest.

The facts of the case are very disturbing. The defendant was babysitting a three-month old child. At some point in the early afternoon the child began crying. The baby’s mother picked up the child several hours after the incident, and took her to the hospital when the child began having seizures. The defendant admitted to the police that he yelled at the child and shook it to try to make the child be quiet; a 12-year old child who was in the house at the time witnessed the entire episode. The shaking was so serious that the baby is currently blind, and only has a 50/50 chance of ever being able to walk. The child is too young at the moment to know the true extent of any learning disabilities that may result from the abuse.

Because of the serious nature of the charges, and the large amount of evidence against him, the defendant entered a plea of guilty. Now that he is serving an 18-year sentence, the defendant is trying to get out of his plea. A common way that convicted criminals try to get their cases overturned is by saying that they had incompetent defense attorneys. This is called an 11.42 motion. In his 11.42 motion, the defendant claims that he was not competent at the time he pled guilty, and that his attorney should not have allowed him to plead. Our trip to Campbell County was so we could interview Mott Plummer, who was the attorney for the defendant, and gather all of the information he had regarding the case. Mr. Plummer was very helpful in explaining the case to us from the standpoint of someone who was actually involved. There are a lot of things you can get from talking to someone that it is hard to get from just reading a file. Mr. Plummer provided us with all of his notes, as well as the videotape of the defendant’s guilty plea.

After reviewing all of the information in the case, Steve, Erin and I drafted the response to the defendant’s 11.42 motion. The evidence in the case clearly showed that the defendant was competent at the time he pled guilty. The information also showed that Mr. Plummer provided the defendant with the best advice possible and fully performed his duties as a defense attorney. Mr. Plummer advised the defendant to plead guilty to Assault in the First Degree, and take the Commonwealth’s offer of 18 years. Otherwise, the defendant could have faced 20-50 years. With the amount of evidence against the defendant, Mr. Plummer gave him excellent advice.

The trip to Campbell County really helped us understand this case and draft an effective response to the 11.42 motion.

Each week about 40 prisoners are released into Fayette County after completing their jail sentences. This process of transitioning from jail to the community is a very difficult process – no one wants to hire you, rent their property to you, give you money, or other resources.

Unfortunately about 60-80% of the crimes are committed by 5% of the people. This basically means that often people released from jail continue to commit crimes. Therefore, this program will provide them with some support, direction, and a reminder that the law is watching, with the hope that each released prisoner will be a positive contributor to our community, rather than feeling the need to recommit crimes.

A variety of different organizations came together to create and carry out this program. Basically there are four different bodies represented: law enforcement, faith-based, job and education, and development/support. There are members from the police and sheriff’s offices, local churches, counseling organizations, the Hope Center, job-training organizations, and a variety of others. Each week representatives from these groups will hold a meeting with the released prisoners to prepare them for their shift from jail to society.

Since the beginning of this internship, I have been attending the meetings and helping out with various tasks including the Prisoner Re-entry Community Resource Guide. I took an older directory of community organizations and vamped up the information, making the guide more user-friendly. The guide is divided into sections such as education, housing, or job training and includes each organization’s contact information, officer hours, and a brief description of the services offered. This guide provides a complete directory to help prisoners meet their needs, as opposed to experiencing an unsuccessful job/housing search. After completing the guide, I presented it to the group for revisions or additions.

In two weeks the first meeting will occur between the released prisoners and the program. The guides will be distributed and each organization will present their role in assisting with the transition process. The combination of organizations and the different perspectives they have each offered to the creation of this program will be tremendously helpful to the prisoners and beneficial to the community as a whole.

Education continues to prevail as one of the most effective tools for fighting crime. Regardless of the age, education heightens awareness and improves relationships between community members and their crime fighters. On Tuesday, June 14, the interns joined Ray Larson and Carolyn Miller for an educational luncheon at the Police Department as part of the Senior Citizen Internship program.

This internship program is a week-long schedule of events and tasks that bring Senior Citizens to the center of crime fighting in Lexington. Throughout the week this group of about 50 Senior Citizens experience and learn about every level of the Criminal Justice System. As they experience the system, they become more aware of their role in the community, as well as becoming more aware of the ways in which criminals may target their age group.

A buffet of lasagna, chips, soft drinks, and an array of desserts started off the luncheon. Then we moved onto the educational portion as Ray challenged our audience on the basics of the justice system. The Senior Citizen interns were eager to learn and offer their expertise, which ranged from a variety of different backgrounds. Ray taught the group that he does not "put people in jail," but that the prosecutors are "enablers" who enable these criminals to put themselves in jail. While most loved this statement, some did not take it as lightly. One very sweet and sympathetic lady in the front showed her exasperation throughout the luncheon, questioning Ray on everything.

Next we started a round of introductions from the interns. With each introduction we were able to share the different aspects of our office. We talked about the graffiti project, the death row thermometer, different trials coming up, as well as a variety of other projects. Erin also talked to the group about the Spanish radio show. This show is conducted completely in Spanish, informing the Hispanic community of the crime issues in Lexington. On the radio show they also read the Crimestoppers report, looking for help from all demographics. Again this reflects yet another avenue of using education to fight crime. Erin read this week’s report in Spanish and they loved it!

Following the introductions, Carolyn talked more about the Sex Offender registry and the Prisoner Re-entry Program. The sympathetic lady in the front row was appeased and comforted by the Re-entry program as she heard about the variety and number of community organizations pulling together for this program.

As the luncheon approached the end, the senior citizen interns jumped at the chance to ask questions. They inquired about identity theft, jail time, and other issues until unfortunately we ran out of time. As we bridged the gap between a group of people who were beginning their careers and another group who have recently ended their careers, we had the opportunity to connect and exchange different ideas. Surprisingly their enthusiasm surpassed that of most audiences and we all had a great time.

The police ride along was one of the more interesting aspects of my summer internship. I was assigned to Central Sector for the Friday 4 PM to 2 AM shift. The ride along began with the roll call meeting. At roll call, the chief goes over any special activities going on in the city. That night he covered a couple of stolen vehicles to look out for while on patrol, along with a few of the high priority arrests made since the officers’ last shifts.

I was assigned to ride along with Officer Michael Sharp, a dedicated officer who loves his job. After we buckled ourselves into the patrol car, but before we had even left the parking lot, a call came in directing us to an automobile accident. With the sirens blazing we raced to the scene, thus began a night which I will not soon forget. Once the accident was cleared, we were called to a series of situations ranging from an EPO violation to an armed robbery at a retail store.

As the evening wound down, Officer Sharp ran the plates on a car in front of us. The plates came back as the owner of the car having several active arrest warrants out on him. Officer Sharp signaled for the car to pull over. The driver didn’t comply and continued traveling down the road at a normal rate of speed. After a quarter mile, the car suddenly made a turn onto a one way street going the wrong way. We followed and the car eventually stopped. As the officer exited the cruiser and approached the car, the driver floored the gas, leaving 20 feet of rubber on the road. The officer dove back into the cruiser and eventually caught up to the car as it went to a street ending in a cul-de-sac. As the car got to the end of the street, the driver bailed out and fled on foot. Officer Sharp quickly followed suit and was able to apprehend the suspect after a short chase through an apartment complex. The driver was then taken to the Fayette County Detention Center where Officer Sharp booked him in and filed the citations for several charges.

I was very appreciative of Officer Sharp answering my many questions throughout the evening. The Lexington Police Officers do a great deal for the members of the community that most of us never realize. They are often times more problem solvers rather than enforcers of the law. Be it helping a stranded motorist or calming an argument before it escalates to an assault. I was also impressed by the endless patience and professionalism shown by the officers even in the face of verbally abusive suspects and highly emotional witnesses.

The police ride along was an excellent opportunity to experience first-hand how the cases that appear in the prosecutor’s office are initiated, and it has given me a newfound respect for the job that police officers perform.

Of all of the challenges that we face in our present-day American society, there are few that are more urgent than the need to reduce the number of firearms on the streets and the crimes associated with them. Accordingly, a number of preventive measures have been undertaken in the last decade or so with the goal of discouraging criminals from carrying or using firearms and, more specifically, easily concealable handguns. In the Lexington-Fayette community, a number of law enforcement officials are working together on a project known as Cease Fire in order to ensure that such a notion becomes a reality.

Luckily for local citizens, law enforcement turf wars appear to be largely a figment of Hollywood’s imagination and less a part of the real world (for Cease Fire, at least). At any rate, from what I have observed so far, the success of the project lies primarily in the cooperation that exists between the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s and U.S. District Attorney’s Offices. Every other Friday, state and federal prosecutors convene along with complainant police officers and representatives from the Sheriff’s Department and ATF at the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office. Following a thorough discussion of each individual Cease Fire case, the attorneys decide who will prosecute them based on the defendant’s criminal history, state and federal statutes and, correspondingly, who can potentially get the toughest sentence.

Compared to other attempts to reduce the prevalence of gun-related crime, Cease Fire is a success. For instance, consider some of the factors that are thought to have made a significant impact on the crime drop that occurred during the 1990's. Speaking from a personal standpoint, gun buybacks and legislation such as the Brady Law come to mind. Nonetheless, as Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner point out in Freakonomics, both of these had a negligible effect on the dramatic drop in crime that occurred during the early 90s. First of all, gun buybacks only temporarily lessened the amount of firearms on America’s streets. In turn, these were quickly and easily replaced by a constant and steady supply of weapons that continued to be produced by various manufacturers. Secondly, the Brady Law did little to deter criminals from securing guns, as they had access to a voluminous black market. On the other hand, Levitt and Dubner noticed a strong causal link between rising incarceration rates during the 1980's and 90's and a corresponding drop in crime during the early 1990's. While this may seem obvious to the average American in this day and age, it apparently was not during the 1960's and 1970's when society was often blamed for being the reason for criminal behavior. Under Project Cease Fire, criminals continue to be held accountable for their actions as is indicated by the statistics provided below.

In addition to being an extremely effective project so far, Cease Fire has been a great experience on a personal level. I have gained quite a bit of firsthand knowledge of not only the project, but a much better understanding of how the American criminal justice system truly works as well. I hope that more people will take the opportunity to do the same and that, as a society, we will continue to recognize significant criminal issues and ensure their resolution.

It is said that a picture is worth a thousand words. Well, if that’s true, then a movie or video is worth thousands more. Recently, Judge Bouvier came over to the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office and showed us (employees and interns alike) a compilation of video clips that he had put together over the years. I have since deemed this collection "Kentucky Court’s Greatest Hits." I think that you’ll understand why shortly.

While Judge Bouvier’s videos contain a variety of inappropriate behavior displayed by defendants both inside and outside of the courtroom, there are two incidents in particular which stand out from the rest. One involves a man who was serving a life (or some other lengthy) sentence in prison. The defendant had apparently decided that he would commit petty crimes so that he could be sent back to be evaluated by the state’s psychiatrist who he had a crush on. The judge had learned of his motives and simply dismissed the charges. Needless to say, the defendant was angry and lunged at the judge as soon as he entered a courtroom to appear for his latest charge. The second incident is an excerpt of a defendant slugging his attorney in a courtroom (I guess that’s one way to tell your lawyer that his services are no longer required). The first defendant succeeded in doing little besides knocking over the judge’s bench and startling him while the defense attorney in the latter episode managed to survive the attack by his client.

Although these occurrences are certainly amusing (since the targets in both cases escaped relatively unscathed and with unbeatable stories to match), they are extremely pathetic as well. One may be tempted to attribute the sort of actions involved principally to the effects of a society saturated with violence. However, I think that is a poor and tired excuse. In both instances, no one is to blame for the defendants’ thuggish and moronic behavior except themselves. Just like everyone else in this country, prior to committing the crimes that eventually landed them in prison, both defendants were given countless opportunities to do something worthwhile with their lives since they undoubtedly had other options. Nonetheless, they both chose a life of crime and endangering their fellow citizens instead.

Similar but far more disturbing encounters have been caught on film in Lexington. In fact, the recording was done by the perpetrators themselves in this case. During the last week in June, there were numerous reports in Lexington of random attacks by a gang primarily comprised of teenagers. Other than disgusted and disillusioned, it’s extraordinarily difficult to put into words what I felt as I watched the tape they had made (see Noah’s write-up for his reactions). While they may have been influenced by some aspects of our American society, these punks still ultimately made the conscious decision on some level to arbitrarily beat people up and record it. Arguably, they may deserve a second chance, but I think that they also certainly deserve more than a slap on the wrist (which is the most likely outcome due to the fact that they’re not technically adults).

In conclusion, I believe that people typically end up in prison or receive some other punishment chiefly because of poor decision-making and lack of concern for anyone but themselves, not simply because they are products of society. The next time you hear about a person behaving in a violent manner towards his or her fellow citizen(s) and think that society is largely to blame, think again.

COMPSTAT is a crime-analysis and law-enforcement management tool developed originally by the New York City Police Department in the early 1990's.

Computer statistics (here is where the name comes from) are only one part of COMPSTAT. The process involves collecting, mapping and analyzing crime data and other police performance measures on a recurring basis, sharing that information with the entire Lexington Division of Police, and holding supervisors accountable for their performance. The information shared at the meetings forms the basis of the strategic response planning of the Division of Police. The response may involve the use of one or more Bureaus, Sectors or Units within the Division, as well as external resources when required.

The Planning and Analysis Unit performs the collection and analysis of data. The meetings take place monthly. The data used in the meeting we attended was up to a week old, because that is how long it takes to process data collected over one month. The meetings are attended by law-enforcement "managers" and "executives". The Chief of Police attends the meeting, along with Assistant-Chiefs, Majors, Captains, Lieutenants, and Sergeants from the Bureaus, Sectors and Units of the Division of Police. The Mayor’s Office, the Commissioner for Public Safety, the Fire Department, Probation and Parole Services, the Sheriff, and the Commonwealth and County Attorneys are also invited and normally attend.

The meeting format included reports by the supervisors (or their designees) of the Patrol sectors, the Special Units such as Homicide, Robbery, Financial Crimes, etc., the Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office, and an address by the Chief of Police Anthany Beatty. After each report, the Chief, the Assistant-Chiefs and the Majors asked questions of the presenter regarding topics mentioned in the report or issues raised at the previous meeting.

The meeting we attended began with reports from each patrol sector. Lexington is divided into 3 patrol sectors – West, Central and East. The criminal activity (number of crimes, complaints) and law-enforcement response (number of arrests, citations, etc.) for the period mid-May to mid-June was surveyed geographically (where in the sectors it occurred), and it was compared to previous statistics. One sector commander requested more pedestrian and bicycle patrols because of their effective communication and interaction with the public. Another sector commander remarked that his sector tip line, used by residents in the sector to report crimes, had proven to be an effective tool for law enforcement.

The patrol sectors reports were followed by reports by the Special Units, starting with Homicides. Robbery, Commercial Robbery, Financial Crimes, and Special Investigations Unit also reported. Special Investigations includes units such as Narcotics, Intelligence, Vice, and Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC). Each unit outlined their activity for the period, compared it with statistics from past reports, shared photos and videos where it was necessary for the apprehension of suspects, and fielded questions from the audience.

The Intelligence Unit, for example, collects information on potentially disruptive groups, terrorism, and gang activity. This information is utilized for police resource allocation in the prevention of violence. The presenter used the recent protests on the economic and ecological issues surrounding coal mining as an example. Two groups, each supporting a different side of the issue, were protesting in close proximity to each other in downtown Lexington. It was important for law-enforcement officials to have information about the activity of various groups to avoid and prevent violence, as the police did during these protests.

The Commonwealth’s Attorney’s Office was the only outside agency that reported at the meeting about the outcome of recent litigation, as well as about cases that were on their way to trial.

Finally, Chief Beatty addressed the assembly with some announcements.

After the meeting, each supervisor receives a memorandum outlining some outstanding issues that need to be addressed and reported on at the next meeting.

The COMPSTAT process is an effective tool for sharing information, for planning tactical and strategic responses to problems, and for measuring performance. LFUCG is considering implementing the COMPSTAT format for its meetings.

*Lt. Gregg Jones, Planning and Analysis Unit, Lexington Division of Police, and Dan Laren, Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney, contributed to this report.

Mr. Flick was arrested, stands accused of the crime of murder and is awaiting indictment. Judge Isaac set his bail at a mere $200,000 cash. Mr. Flick posted that bond and as a condition of his bail he agreed to have no contact with the victims’ families or the surviving shooting victim, who still live in Fayette County. It still doesn’t seem sufficient to me. He is as free as he was the day he "allegedly" decided to commit his heinous crimes. As a condition of his bail, he is not permitted to be within the boundaries of Fayette County for any reason, other than for pre-arranged meetings with his attorney or for court appearances; although, he is permitted to travel around the country to visit family and friends. After the shooting, Mr. Flick was admitted to hospital for treatment and has since been released.

I’m not sure what I expected to see while I waited in the courtroom for Mr. Flick to appear for this hearing, but Mr. Flick looks like an average guy, blonde hair, about 6 feet tall and approximately 180lbs. He is a former optometrist and he showed up in court looking like a normal, well-adjusted person, not someone who looks very threatening. However, he is alleged to have murdered one person and attempted to kill another, inflicting gunshot wounds in both cases; the only thing that may have stopped additional carnage is the fact that he was tackled and beaten into submission by one of the victims and his brother. Again, I am forced to question why this man is walking free.

Since Mr. Flick posted bond, there has been a lot of concern voiced within the community that Mr. Flick still poses a threat to members of the community in Fayette County, including the surviving victim and the victims’ families. As a result, Judge Isaac decided to alter the conditions of his bail to provide for the constant monitoring of his movements using a GPS monitoring device from Emcon Home Guard, LLC, based in London, KY. It’s a pity that bail couldn’t be revoked completely. Mr. Flick was present in the courtroom with his attorney, Mr. Lowry, and the Commonwealth was represented by Mr. Larson and Ms. Red Corn.

Emcon’s device involves the attachment of an ankle bracelet to Mr. Flick, and this bracelet communicates a signal to a tracking unit that he must carry with him at all times. The tracking unit must also be placed in a charging unit while inside the house so that it is fully charged whenever he leaves the house. This device provides for both passive and real-time tracking of individuals and Mr. Flick will be subject to real-time tracking. This means that Emcon and the Commonwealth Attorney’s Office will know at all times where Mr. Flick is located. Of course, we know from Martha Stewart’s case, that it’s society’s hardened criminals that get to wear electronic monitoring devices. That’s the way to protect the community!

Furthermore, Emcon will set up a "hot zone" around Fayette County, essentially a buffer zone that Mr. Flick is not allowed to enter and, if he does, Emcon will be notified. Emcon will also be notified if Mr. Flick leaves the counties of Boone and Kenton for any reason. This will include any time he travels north or out of state for any reason. Emcon agreed to notify the Commonwealth Attorney’s Office every time Mr. Flick leaves Boone or Kenton counties or if he enters the buffer zone around Fayette County. Last week we were notified he was traveling to Chicago to visit his brother. That doesn’t sit well with me. There are other residents of Fayette County currently enjoying the hospitality of the Department of Corrections, (for lesser offenses) prior to indictment and trial, but Mr. Flick merely has an electronic bracelet and he’s otherwise free from restraint.

The ankle bracelet was attached to Mr. Flick and the tracking capability has been fully functional since Friday June 17^th, 2005. Stay tuned…

The motion was argued by Susan Balliet from the Department of Public Advocacy and David Smith from the Attorney General’s Office.

Ms. Balliet rattled off her argument that T. C. Bowling is no longer an adult but a child of 11-years-old trapped in a man’s body. As a result, she believes that the Court should allow for expert evaluation of this claim, and, if proven, he should not be executed because the law prohibits the execution of juveniles under the age of 16.

Mr. Smith presented a counterargument based on existing case law that should prohibit this motion from being granted. On its face this motion is yet another delaying tactic used by the Department of Public Advocacy, designed to allow T. C. Bowling to again postpone his execution date. On this particular day, they managed to do just that.

When Judge Noble first started to give her ruling, it seemed as if she would deny the motion. She stated that if the theory of mental age was applied to develop a bright line rule, then it should also apply in reverse, to juveniles who may have the mental age of an 18-year-old. This illustrates just how ludicrous the theory of mental age is, and it looked like Judge Noble actually believed it too.

However, she then went on to state that if the theory of mental age is such an arbitrary concept that cannot be relied upon, she wants to hold a Daubert hearing to assess whether it is as baseless as it seems. Since no court in the U.S. has ever recognized the theory of mental age, it sounds like Judge Noble wants to be the first to spend the time investigating this ludicrous theory knowing all the while that she will eventually reject this theory outright and T. C. Bowling will die. But for now, the Department of Public Advocacy is happy that T. C. Bowling’s death march has been extended once again.

Following a 31/2 year criminal investigation of Kindred Nursing facilities in Kentucky by the Medicaid Fraud and Abuse Control Division, Office of the Attorney General, Kindred Healthcare has entered into a civil Settlement Agreement/Corporate Integrity Agreement with the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Fayette Commonwealth’s Attorney, Ray Larson, was appointed special prosecutor. The agreement applies to the fourteen nursing facilities in Kentucky that are owned, operated, managed and controlled by Kindred Healthcare, Inc. These include: Maple Manor Healthcare and Rehabilitation, Riverside Manor Healthcare Center, Oakview Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, Heritage Manor Healthcare Center, Hillcrest Health Care Center, Rosewood Health Care Center, Liberty Care Center, Harrodsburg Health Care Center, Cedars of Lebanon Nursing Center, Bashford East Health Care, Northfield Center for Health and Rehabilitation, Winchester Center for Health and Rehabilitation, Danville Center for Health and Rehabilitation and Woodland Terrace Health Care Facility.

Under the terms of this agreement, Kindred was compelled to hire an external Monitor who would report quarterly on all aspects of resident care at all Kindred facilities in Kentucky. To satisfy this requirement, Kindred hired Long Term Care Institute, Inc., based in Madison, Wisconsin, to serve as the Monitor. They are tasked with reporting problems, concerns, and deficiencies in the form of a quarterly written report presenting of the report findings at the quarterly meeting.

During the first quarter meetings, Kindred was presented with the results of site visits and data collected by the Long Term Care Ombudsmen and the Monitor. The results vary considerably from facility to facility but the majority of problems stem from four core problem areas:

Staff turnover, particularly in the Administrator and Director of Nursing positions;

Lack of supervision and a need for more staff training on a continuous basis;

Need for a better care plan for individual residents and a focus on implementation of these care plans;

Need for better accountability and communication at all levels throughout the organization structure. This includes between Kindred staff, residents and families of residents.

I was tasked to work with Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorney Carolyn Miller to review the report findings and identify problem areas that need to be addressed during the upcoming quarter. The report is not reader-friendly, making it difficult to identify all areas where Kindred is deficient. We clearly outlined the areas that need to be addressed before another report is presented and we are hopeful that the next report will appropriately address our concerns. Possibly the best outcome of the meetings was the fact that Kindred and the Monitor are now in no doubt that this is a serious matter and that the Commonwealth’s Attorney is expecting to see dramatic improvements before the next quarter.

Overall, the meetings were very productive, providing a good starting point from which to build. I was pleased to be involved in the first of these compliance meetings and happy to see the level of attention being given to this important matter. Ray knows how to get peoples’ attention. Prior to our involvement in this investigation, Kindred did not care to seriously address the complaints and deficiencies in resident care. Now they don’t have a choice. In subsequent quarters, the Commonwealth’s Attorney will continue to closely monitor the improvement efforts made by all parties.

One of my main projects for the first part of the summer was helping Ray Larson and Brian Mattone prepare for the Thomas Roberts murder trial. The trial was set to begin on June 21, 2005, but Roberts’ defense attorney called the week before the trial was set to begin and said that his client would be willing to plead guilty.

On the day of the murder, Roberts and his friend Blake Routte held up a woman at gunpoint, and tried to commit at least one more robbery. The two men ran into the victim, 15-year-old Jessica Hines, and her friend at a gas station. Roberts was acquainted with Jessica’s friend, so they offered to let the girls ride around with them for a while. Roberts tried to get several places to cash checks that he had stolen in the robbery earlier that day.

When no businesses would take the checks, he said that he was going to take his gun into the stores and rob them. Jessica and her friend begged him not to do it, and they persuaded the men to drive away. When the girls were about to get out of the car, Roberts pointed his gun at Jessica’s face and said "You don’t think I’ll shoot you in your face?" and Jessica said that she was not afraid of him. Roberts then pulled the trigger, and shot Jessica in the side of her face. The two men drove the car away, after Jessica’s friend ran away, and dumped Jessica’s body behind a local store, where the store’s manager found her the next morning.

Roberts pled guilty to murder, armed robbery, tampering with physical evidence (for hiding the body of the victim) as well as attempting to bribe a witness (he sent letters to Routte asking him to lie on the stand). Roberts was 20 years old when he committed the crime in 2004, has yet to be sentenced, but faces anywhere from 35-50 years in prison.

The guilty plea itself was a very emotional experience because there were roughly two-dozen of Jessica’s friends and family in the courtroom. Many of them were wearing shirts that had Jessica’s name and face printed on them. I had been dealing with the case on a daily basis for several weeks, but had never fully grasped the magnitude of what we were dealing with until I saw everyone that was there. So often you hear people talking about feeling sympathy for the defendant, who has made a mistake in his life and will have to pay for it by going to prison. After sitting through this guilty plea I don’t think it can ever be stated enough that the real people who deserve the sympathy are the victims and families of these kinds of crimes.

Roberts apologized to the family after he pled guilty, but it was strikingly apparent how empty those words must have been for a family that had lost someone so young to such a meaningless act of violence. Being present for the plea really helped me appreciate the personal cost involved in each one of these cases.

After someone is arrested for a crime, they are arraigned and a date is set for their preliminary hearing. If the charges are all misdemeanors, the county attorney will handle the case. If the charges include one or more felonies, the case will fall under the purview of the Commonwealth Attorney’s Office. At the preliminary hearing for felony cases, one of four things will happen. Either the defendant will plead guilty, the charges will be dismissed, the defendant will wave the matter to the grand jury, or there will be a probable cause hearing.

The prosecutors will often offer the defendant a plea agreement, amending the charges to lesser ones or dismissing some of the charges, in exchange for the defendant entering a guilty plea to the remaining charges. Numerous factors go into determining what offer, if any, the Commonwealth will make. These factors include prior criminal record, seriousness of the charge, any facts specific to the case that make it significantly more or less reprehensible than other cases with similar charges, and any sort of proof problems that may be encountered by the prosecution at trial.

Everyone charged with a crime has the right to a hearing on probable cause. That is, did the police have probable cause to arrest the defendant? Many times the defendant will wave this hearing. This is usually due to the defendant knowing that there is no real question as to if probable cause was present. Other times the defendant will request a hearing. This is normally due to a real question as to if there was probable cause for the arrest. Sometimes the defense requests the hearing just to hear the testimony of the witness and hopefully get a better feel for how they should defend the case at trial. The witness at a probable cause hearing is usually the arresting officer or victim. The defense can also call witnesses if they wish, but for purpose of probable cause, the court assumes the Commonwealth will prevail on any questions of fact. Therefore, calling a defense witness is rarely of any use.

District Court can be a bit unpredictable, and the prosecutor has a great deal to keep up with all at once. The docket usually has between 25-35 cases to cover in 1 ½ hours. The court has to move very quickly to cover the entire docket. The order of the cases called is simply by which defense attorney is ready at the time. The officers testifying are often coming off long shifts, having not slept in over a day. Other witnesses come in late, not at all, or even drunk. The defense attorney’s crowd around the prosecution table, trying to get plea offers for their clients, at the same time as the prosecutor is proceeding with other hearings. To say the least, it is a bit hectic and very impressive that the prosecutor can keep up with it all.

I had the opportunity to assist Traci Caneer, one of the Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorneys, during a criminal trial. The defendant was charged with three counts: Rape in the first degree, assault in the fourth degree, and violation of a domestic violence order (DVO).

The defendant and victim are a married couple. The defendant had previously plead guilty to assaulting the victim ten days after they were married. The couple were traveling back to Lexington after visiting Fort Knox in relation to the defendant’s reservist obligations. They argued over a former boyfriend of the victim and he became violent. She attempted to fight back but was unable to defend herself against him. After the assault, the victim separated from the defendant and had a domestic violence order (DVO) taken out against him. The couple had a child in common prior to their marriage, and they separated five months prior to the incident at trial.

Since the victim separated from the defendant, she had moved into a new apartment with a roommate. Both she and her roommate had boyfriends that spent many nights at the apartment with them.

The incident at trial occurred after the victim and defendant ran into one another outside a store. They talked and the victim invited the defendant over to her apartment to see their son before he shipped out for Iraq with his reserve unit. The defendant was to leave town the next day and claimed to have nowhere else to stay for the night, so the victim allowed him to stay at her apartment that night. She called her boyfriend and made plans for him not to be at the apartment that night, so as to avoid any trouble between him and her estranged husband.

The defendant was asleep on the couch when the boyfriend of the victim’s roommate arrived at the apartment in the middle of the night. Upon his arrival, the defendant got angry and began to argue with the victim, believing the man that had arrived to be her boyfriend, rather than her roommates. During the argument, the roommate and her boyfriend left the apartment to get food. That left the defendant, the victim, and their 8-month-old son in the apartment alone. It is at this point that the defense and prosecution versions of the story truly begin to diverge.

The prosecution version is that after the other couple left the apartment, the defendant and victim continued to argue until the victim asked the defendant to leave. At that point the assault began. The defendant ripped the victim’s shorts and underwear off her and she managed to run into her bedroom and pick up their child. She believed that if she was holding the defendant’s son, he would not hurt her. When he came into the room after her, he closed and locked the door behind him, and threatened that he would make things much worse for both her and her son unless she put the baby down. The victim did as she was told. The defendant had a hard time becoming aroused and forced the victim to perform oral sex upon him. During the event, the victim attempted to flee and was tripped and the defendant ground her face into the carpet. The victim resisted the defendant; however, she did not fight him tooth and nail. She had fought him during the previous assault and only ended up hurt worse. Therefore, her injuries were not as significant as are often present in first-degree rape cases. She ended up with numerous scrapes, red and swollen area cheeks, a cut on her face, cuts on the inside of her lips where they were pressed against her teeth as he rubbed her face into the carpet, a tear in the corner of her mouth, and the pelvic exam revealed minor injuries to her vagina.

Eventually, the victim’s roommate and roommate’s boyfriend returned. Upon hearing them enter, the victim began screaming for help. They heard her screams and called the police. The police arrived and the victim was still screaming for help. They identified themselves as the police when they were at the door to the bedroom. The defendant refused to open the door and yelled back, I’m only trying to have sex with my wife! At this, the police busted the door in and forcibly removed the defendant from atop the victim. At his arraignment the defendant stated, I don’t think the charge should be rape against your wife if she has a boyfriend. My wife has a boyfriend!

The defense contended this was not how the events unfolded. The defense attorney claimed that the victim’s injuries were the result of rough consensual sex and a beard-burn. They also claim the only reason she began to scream for help is she was afraid the person entering the apartment was her boyfriend (and she was afraid he would catch her in a compromising position with her husband) rather than the roommate returning with the roommate’s boyfriend.

The defendant’s own testimony contradicted the defense attorney’s claims of rough consensual sex. His version of the events made no mention of any sort of rough activity between them or any explanation for the victim’s injuries. He claimed that the victim attempted to have sex with him but that he did not have sex with her and at no point was he able to become aroused.

After the defendant’s testimony, the prosecution recalled the arresting officer to impeach the defendant’s statement that he did not have sex with the victim that night. The officer testified that he literally drug the defendant off the victim. Also the officer testified that after he handcuffed the defendant, he had to pull the defendant’s pants up, at which point it was obvious the defendant was aroused.

Once the officer’s impeachment testimony was completed, the attorneys made their closing arguments and the jurors retired to the jury room for deliberations. After two hours of deliberating, the jury returned their verdict. Count 1: Rape in the first degree, not guilty. Count 2: Assault in the fourth degree, not guilty. Count 3: Violation of a domestic violence order, guilty.

The defendant accepted the Commonwealth’s recommendation of the maximum sentence of 12 months for the violation of the DVO. Therefore, the jury was not required for a sentencing phase of the trial. The formal sentencing hearing was scheduled for several weeks later and the defendant’s bond was reduced to $2,500 at 10% down. His family posted the $250 dollars and he was out of custody that night. He had already served six months awaiting trial and will likely have the remainder of his sentence probated at his formal hearing.

Having been a part of the trial and seeing the evidence put before the jury, I honestly cannot fathom how they arrived at the not guilty verdicts on the first two counts. The defense admitted that the victim had called her boyfriend and made plans for him not to be at the apartment. Why then would she assume that her roommate returning to the apartment was her boyfriend as the defense claimed?

The victim had documented injuries that can’t be explained away by a beard-burn. Additionally, the defense attorney’s rough sex explanation completely contradicted the defendant’s testimony describing the events of the night. The defendant testified that he could not get aroused to have sex, however the arresting officer testified that he was in fact aroused and on top of the victim at the time they drug him off her. Either the defendant, who was facing 10 years in prison, or the officer, who had no vested interest in the case, was lying on the stand.

I have taken one important lesson away from this experience. No matter how obvious the defendant’s guilt is to someone sitting at the prosecutor’s table, a jury is unpredictable. If you are going to be a prosecutor, sometimes you will win cases that you didn’t think you had any chance to win. Other times the verdicts will seem like complete travesties of justice, where the guilty walk away scot-free. Either way, you simply have to present the evidence to the best of your ability and hope those 12 people sitting in the jury box make the right decision.