A Douglas County judge Wednesday declined to dismiss a Lawrence robbery case Wednesday after defense attorneys accused prosecutors of coercing a juvenile defendant who has been adjudicated in the case.
Defense attorneys Branden Smith and John Kerns, during a four-hour hearing, pointed to a December courtroom exchange between Deborah Moody, an assistant Douglas County district attorney, and the mother of the juvenile defendant, who is a witness in the case against their clients Dustin A. Smith, 24, and Mikael Englund, 23, both of Richmond.
Prosecutors accuse Englund of robbing a Lawrence man at his home in the 800 block of Hilltop Drive twice — once in late January 2011 or early February 2011 and on March 14, 2011. Dustin Smith is accused of participating in the March 14 robbery with Englund and the juvenile.
The defense attorneys argued Moody was upset after the juvenile’s testimony at a December preliminary hearing because it did not match an earlier statement he gave to Lawrence police, and prosecutors had told the boy’s mother he could face perjury charges if he didn’t change his testimony at trial.
“With the continued coercion, there’s no way that Dustin Smith can have a fair trial,” Branden Smith argued.
District Judge Paula Martin said she didn’t condone Moody’s behavior with the juvenile’s mother, but she said the boy’s mother testified Wednesday she had contacted defense attorneys and was communicating advice to her son that if he lied in court he could face perjury charges.
“There isn’t any evidence that the state communicated any threats to (the juvenile) directly or through his mother,” Martin said.
James McCabria, another assistant district attorney, said in court Moody’s reaction to the juvenile’s mother in December was “unprofessional” and Moody called and apologized the next day. He also said witnesses who testified Wednesday, including the boy’s mother, did not indicate prosecutors threatened the juvenile with perjury charges.
Dustin Smith has a trial in the case scheduled for Feb. 27. Englund’s trial is scheduled for April 2.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
kimk (anonymous) says…
no wonder the prisons are full of innocent people with da's like debbie moody threatening witnesses just to make sure she gets a win. she needs to stop throwing her weight around and intimidating witness and actually spend some time figurung out who actually committed the crime.
AmyR (anonymous) says…
Dear KimK. I found your post interesting, so I read all of your posts. I noticed you posted several times and most posts were jabs at the DA's office.You were creative, sometimes you took a break and bashed the police. I copied and posted a couple of your posts, which follow.
Having Sarah Swain as his attorney is the only positive Sedryck has going into this case. A young black male coming into this town and being accused of a crime by the LPD it's almost always a sure bet he's going to end up in KDOC whether he did it or not. I hope the jurors can look past his color and weigh the actual evidence, or lack there of, as in this case.(It looked like they evaluated the case, and made a decision. Weeks later your opinion is as follows)
It still amazes me just how racist Mr. Branson's office is. If Mr. Welch had been a young white KU student he would have been offered probation months ago. However, once again he uses his favorite henchman, Mr. McCabria to send yet another young black individual to KDOC. I think that Mr. Branson and Mr. McCabria get lots of pleasure out of cleaning up this "problem" of minorities having the audacity to live in their city. (Pretty sour about the situation)
(On another case) What a horrible situation for this family to be going through. But, if there is any attorney that can help them out, it is Sarah Swain.
I noticed you also had a pretty strong opinion on other articles when the paper cited a certain attorney represented the client. (Your never going to believe who the attorney was) Later research would indicate a poor outcome. Are your endorsements paid for?
Come on. Be a little more creative. Is your name really Kim? BTW. I notice the article today the judge vindicated Moody of the allegation. How do you know who really commited the crime?
Publius_Publicola (anonymous) replies…
The funny thing is, Sarah Swain is a horrible defense attorney who rarely is effective in court. She is one heck of a saleswoman though because she keeps getting clients to pony up cash despite her dismal record.
AmyR (anonymous) says…
Sorry, Missed a few posts, but you get the point.
Wow. The prosecutors in Douglas County didn't have any evidence? Nothing new there. It sure seems like Ms. Swain really knows what she's doing. I hope the prosecutors take this as a lesson that they shouldn't be trying to get their weak cases past smart Douglas County jurors.
Vaildini (anonymous) says…
Good catch Amy. I was just looking at it too. funny stuff.
kimk (anonymous) says…
Actually my name is Kim. Due to my job I have the opportunity to frequent the courthouse quite often and I'm able to see Attorney's, the DA's office and LPD in action. I'm sorry that my opinion is not the same as yours. I'm sorry that I see some major flaws in the justice system and the way Charles Branson chooses to let his office treat people and win cases by doing things that later get the case overturned on appeal and the DA's office being told by the court of appeals that the actions their attorney's took amounted to "gross and flagrant misconduct". As far as I know this is America where I'm allowed to have a different opinion than you. So, in conclusion I'm actually not sorry at all that you are so narrow minded that my posts would offend you so much.
somebodynew (anonymous) replies…
So, basically what you are saying is that it is OK for someone to get on the stand and lie (perjury) ??? Because, if I read the story correctly that is what this whole thing is about. A witness (who is probably getting a deal on charges) changes his story when he is under oath. But that is OK, the DA shouldn't get upset by that.
No wonder you think Sara is such a good attorney. But you are correct, we are all entitled to our ouwn opinion.
kimk (anonymous) says…
The witness said the defendant did not do the crime, then the DA threateded to revoke his immunity if he did not change his story, which he did. Then they had him reinterviewed. He said he lied the second time because the DA had threatened him. He is now saying his first story is the correct one and he was scared his deal would be revoked. So no, the DA should not be upset because she is the one that threatened him into changing his story and she got caught. Even though Judge Martin did not dismiss the case, if he is found guilty I believe the court of appeals would look at it very differently. You can not shrug off misconduct by saying they were having a bad day, when in fact you were intimidating a witness.
somebodynew (anonymous) replies…
Well somehow you are reading this story a lot differently than I am. Strikes me his First story was when the police interviewed him. Then he told a different story on the stand. Plus, the story says the DA talked to the mother, not the witness, and the mother testified that She was the one who brought up perjury after talking to the defense attorney. But then maybe you have inside information that I don't.