Court Staffer Fired for Helping Wrongfully Convicted Man

[roo_ster]

http://www.newser.com/story/171727/court-staffer-fired-for-helping-wrongfully-convicted-man.html?utm_source=part&utm_medium=slate&utm_campaign=greatfinds_rss

Sharon Snyder is 70 years old. She's a great grandmother and has been working at a Missouri court for 34 years. In 2011, she gave an imprisoned man trying to overturn a 27-year-old rape conviction a public document to help him seek DNA tests. Last month, those DNA tests helped Robert Nelson go free. And then Snyder was fired. A Jackson County Circuit judge says she violated court rules by helping Nelson and his family—even though they could have obtained the document she provided them with themselves if they'd known what it was and where to get it, the Kansas City Star reports.

"The document you chose was, in effect, your recommendation for a Motion for DNA testing that would likely be successful in this Division," the judge wrote in his dismissal letter. "It was clearly improper and a violation of Canon Seven ... which warns against the risk of offering an opinion or suggested course of action." Snyder was nine months away from retirement when she was fired. "I lent an ear to his sister, and maybe I did wrong," she says. "But if it was my brother, I would go to every resource I could possibly find. I think I might have been the answer to his prayers."

Tar, heat, feathers, judge.  Some assembly required.

I MF-ing hate this sort of BS, where the system is set up to snare and screw the unsophisticated or unconnected.  It is very sketchy and borderline unethical in the private sphere.  It is an unadulterated sign of malevolence and corruption when gov't does it.

[RevDisk]

http://www.newser.com/story/171727/court-staffer-fired-for-helping-wrongfully-convicted-man.html?utm_source=part&utm_medium=slate&utm_campaign=greatfinds_rss

Tar, heat, feathers, judge.  Some assembly required.

I MF-ing hate this sort of BS, where the system is set up to snare and screw the unsophisticated or unconnected.  It is very sketchy and borderline unethical in the private sphere.  It is an unadulterated sign of malevolence and corruption when gov't does it.

I'm not a fan of our legal system. While money can't necessarily buy a court decision, it's still well over 80% of the battle in plenty of circumstances.

[K Frame]

God forbid there be justice for all...

[RevDisk]

God forbid there be justice for all...

We don't have a justice system. We have a legal system.   

[Brad Johnson]

This won't blow up in their face.  Nope.  Not at all.

Brad

[T.O.M.]

If the woman was charged with practicing law without a license, I'd be right with you yelling about it being a load of crap.  

But the court and its staff cannot do this kind of thing.  You start helping one side or the other in any case, and the system becomes worse than you all already think it is.  What happens when the clerk thinks a child molester should burn, so she tips the prosecutor about some last minute subpoenas that were filed?  Or maybe in a custody case, the clerk thought the dad was a jerk, so she tips mom off that dad didn't file a UCCJEA affidavit with his papers, so if mom objects dad's case will get thrown out?  Or maybe the clerk tips off a dad that mom had a DUI arrest in another county last month, so he should go get records to use against her in the custody fight.  Same basic thing this woman did, by just pointing out something in the public records.

I think firing her was over the top (assuming she has a good work history).  But what she did was wrong.

[vaskidmark]

Determining if she violated Canon Seven all depends on just what she was asked and what she replied.

That being said, most of us here engage in the illegal practice of law on a regular basis  The problem with that is that the Guild has rigged things so in their favor that they have - at least in the eyes of the law - eliminated all discourse on/about legal matters if done by non-Guild members.

As the state bar association acts as the legislative, investigative, and disciplinary arms when it comes to lawyering (well, actually to attorney-ing) there is a good argument that for all intents and purposes they are in fact, at least in that capacity, an actual arm of the government.  When I state my opinion of a law, or my opinion of what that law "means", I am liable to be accused by the bar association of the illegal practice of law.  As such, they infringe on the freedom of expression when they do that.  The problem with such a line of reasoning is that no Guild member will take my case and mount it in those terms for fear of either being shunned or actually thrown out of the Guild.

The only way I know of to get around that strangle-hold on attorney-ing is to become a prisoner.  "Jailhouse lawyers" are officially recognized and sanctioned by the courts.  They can get away with everything up to and including not only deciding what forms to use but filling them out on behalf of another prisoner.  Outside of prison, if you so much as tell someone wondering how to word a petition or an order for signing about the "form book" at the courthouse law library you have opened yourself up to a charge of the illegal practice of law.

Tarring and featherinng usually did not involve heating the tar, as it raised the risk of actually cooking the object of the exercise.  Liberaly apply tar, using such devices as are handy to get it into the creases and folds.  The sacrifice of a feather pillow or feather mattress.  And what is all too often forgotten -- a rough-sawn timber for the guest of honor to ride upon as they are taken to the edge of town/the county.

stay safe.

[Levant]

She didn't interfere with the trial. He easy already convicted.  But how can she get a fair trial when she sues?  How do you get a change of venue so there is no judge?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

[vaskidmark]

If the woman was charged with practicing law without a license, I'd be right with you yelling about it being a load of crap.  

But the court and its staff cannot do this kind of thing.  You start helping one side or the other in any case, and the system becomes worse than you all already think it is.  What happens when the clerk thinks a child molester should burn, so she tips the prosecutor about some last minute subpoenas that were filed?  Or maybe in a custody case, the clerk thought the dad was a jerk, so she tips mom off that dad didn't file a UCCJEA affidavit with his papers, so if mom objects dad's case will get thrown out?  Or maybe the clerk tips off a dad that mom had a DUI arrest in another county last month, so he should go get records to use against her in the custody fight.  Same basic thing this woman did, by just pointing out something in the public records.

I think firing her was over the top (assuming she has a good work history).  But what she did was wrong.

There is a huge difference between providing information and education (what it seems this lady did) and showing favoritism to one side over the other (what your scenarion describes).

In 2011, she gave an imprisoned man trying to overturn a 27-year-old rape conviction a public document to help him seek DNA tests. Last month, those DNA tests helped Robert Nelson go free. And then Snyder was fired. A Jackson County Circuit judge says she violated court rules by helping Nelson and his family—even though they could have obtained the document she provided them with themselves if they'd known what it was and where to get it, ...

There is nothing suggesting she filled out the form for Nelson, or told him what to write in the blank spaces of the form.  She made him aware of the existence of a standard form and provided him with a blank form so he could fill it in.

Check to see if maintaining a library of official forms and providing the same to the public are elements of her job description.  Look to see if she would have been disciplined if a Guild member had asked her about forms to be used in a specific case and all she did was to point at the "form book".

stay safe.

[T.O.M.]

http://m.kmbc.com/news/longtime-court-employee-fired-for-offering-advice/-/15945382/21212530/-/gtt61t/-/index.html

A better article. She overstepped her job as clerk by finding a good example of how to properly file the motion that would be accepted by the court. That was helping beyond giving out a form available to everyone, or even telling them what form they would need.

Wrong? In my opinion, yes.  Worth firing? Not even close. 

[Ron]

Injustice and no mercy.

*expletive deleted*ck your legal system if it penalizes those who actually help the innocent. 

[MechAg94]

http://m.kmbc.com/news/longtime-court-employee-fired-for-offering-advice/-/15945382/21212530/-/gtt61t/-/index.html

A better article. She overstepped her job as clerk by finding a good example of how to properly file the motion that would be accepted by the court. That was helping beyond giving out a form available to everyone, or even telling them what form they would need.

Wrong? In my opinion, yes.  Worth firing? Not even close. 

That applies even when the person was already convicted and the trial was over?

I would rather the judge spend that energy looking at why the guy was wrongly convicted in the first place. 

[brimic]

If the woman was charged with practicing law without a license, I'd be right with you yelling about it being a load of crap.  

But the court and its staff cannot do this kind of thing.  You start helping one side or the other in any case, and the system becomes worse than you all already think it is.  What happens when the clerk thinks a child molester should burn, so she tips the prosecutor about some last minute subpoenas that were filed?  Or maybe in a custody case, the clerk thought the dad was a jerk, so she tips mom off that dad didn't file a UCCJEA affidavit with his papers, so if mom objects dad's case will get thrown out?  Or maybe the clerk tips off a dad that mom had a DUI arrest in another county last month, so he should go get records to use against her in the custody fight.  Same basic thing this woman did, by just pointing out something in the public records.

I think firing her was over the top (assuming she has a good work history).  But what she did was wrong.

Chris, I usually read your posts very carefully and and usually defer to them even if I don't agree with your position entirely.

You lost me on this one.
Procedures are completely meaningless if the procedures and the gatekeepers of those procedures keep an innocent (1) citizen behind bars or otherwise separate an individual from their life or liberty.

I'm not in the 'tar and feather' crowd, I'm firmly in the 'head on a pike to make an undeniable example of' corner.



(1) The man in prison didn't exactly fit the mold of an 'innocent' or 'upstanding' person.

[brimic]

Injustice and no mercy.

*expletive deleted* your legal system if it penalizes those who actually help the innocent. 

Yes.

[roo_ster]

http://m.kmbc.com/news/longtime-court-employee-fired-for-offering-advice/-/15945382/21212530/-/gtt61t/-/index.html

A better article. She overstepped her job as clerk by finding a good example of how to properly file the motion that would be accepted by the court. That was helping beyond giving out a form available to everyone, or even telling them what form they would need.

Wrong? In my opinion, yes.  Worth firing? Not even close. 

Tell me again why we have a legal system.  Is it a make-work welfare system for lawyers?  Maybe it is all an elaborate joke, where those who know the secret handshake can laugh at those who can't find their way out of the maze of law, regulation, and arbitrary procedure?

She showed dude the forms and the expected legal mumbo-jumbo.  She did for him what all the CHL instructors in all the states I have had CHLs do for their students: show which forms exist and how to fill them out so the arbitrary SOBs spending my tax $$$ don't reject it for not properly dotting Is and crossing Ts.

It is just this sort of shinola that turns a neutral, necessary system into a force for evil.  Make it so complex regular folks have no chance to figure it out.

byzantine

a. Of, relating to, or characterized by intrigue; scheming or devious: "a fine hand for Byzantine deals and cozy arrangements" (New York).
b. Highly complicated; intricate and involved: a bill to simplify the byzantine tax structure.

Injustice and no mercy.

*expletive deleted* your legal system if it penalizes those who actually help the innocent. 

Yeah, I am getting there.  It is an evil system populated with evil people, up & down.

"Hana Arendt to the white courtesy phone..."

I'm not in the 'tar and feather' crowd, I'm firmly in the 'head on a pike to make an undeniable example of' corner.

Well, I am soft-hearted, so I wasn't wiling to suggest such pedagogical  methodology.

[vaskidmark]

http://m.kmbc.com/news/longtime-court-employee-fired-for-offering-advice/-/15945382/21212530/-/gtt61t/-/index.html

A better article. She overstepped her job as clerk by finding a good example of how to properly file the motion that would be accepted by the court. That was helping beyond giving out a form available to everyone, or even telling them what form they would need.

Wrong? In my opinion, yes.  Worth firing? Not even close. 

This causes me to re-evaluate my previous post.  I'm still not completely convinced that the mere giving of an exemplar violates the Canon or the law regarding the illegal practice of law.

Chris, I owe you an apology regarding my earlier comments regarding the "helping" issue.

Byrn fired her June 27, telling her she had violated several court rules by providing assistance¹ to Nelson and talking about aspects of the case, even while under seal, to attorneys not involved in the matter².

The judge's dismissal letter cites numerous recorded phone conversations between Dunnell and Nelson³ in which they discussed Snyder's efforts⁴, including the document she provided that Nelson used in his successful DNA motion.

"The document you chose was, in effect, your recommendation for a Motion for DNA testing that would likely be successful in this Division⁵," Byrn wrote. "But it was clearly improper and a violation of Canon Seven ... which warns against the risk of offering an opinion⁶ or suggested course of action⁷."

1 - merely providing an exemplar of a motion is not "assistance".  Maybe it would have been safer to give them a blank from the "form book" but merely pointing out what one person did is not the same as saying "copy this exactly".  Need more information on whether or not Snyderr was looking for a way to get DNA testing done or he was just floundering about wondering if there was any way to get the conviction overturned
2 - dear sweet and fluffy shivering Shiva, this is so wrong for so many reasons and probably deserves not only immediate termination but criminal contempt sanction
3 - ditto
4 - ditto
5 - see #1
6 - saying "this was successful" is not offering an opinion - it is stating a fact.  What she then did in #2, #3, and #4 may have been stating opinions
7 - ditto

The sanctity and confidentiality of a court seal is almost sacrosanct.  If the seal was placed to prevent the defendnt from finfing exculpatory evidence there are remedies other than the Clerk gossiping with folks whom the information is sealed against.  The issue is not that the material was improperly sealed but that the seal was improperly broken.  Canon Seven has almost nothing to do with reasons I can see for terminating her.  IMHO the breaches of the canon should have merited, at the most, demotion and suspension.

stay safe.

[RoadKingLarry]

I think firing her was over the top (assuming she has a good work history).  But what she did was wrong.

It may have been against policy, it may even have been against the law. But, it wasn't wrong.
It saddens me that you don't see that.

Better 1000 guilty men go free than one innocent man hang.

[HankB]

This is an example of a disturbing trend that's been developing for quite a while now . . . minor infractions by low level employees bring extremely severe, life-changing penalties, while major misdeeds by high level employees often bring nothing more than a trivial slap on the wrist.

Government seems to be a worse offender in this regard than private industry.

[tokugawa]

 "Laws are for the little people."

[RevDisk]

http://m.kmbc.com/news/longtime-court-employee-fired-for-offering-advice/-/15945382/21212530/-/gtt61t/-/index.html

A better article. She overstepped her job as clerk by finding a good example of how to properly file the motion that would be accepted by the court. That was helping beyond giving out a form available to everyone, or even telling them what form they would need.

Wrong? In my opinion, yes.  Worth firing? Not even close. 

Wrong is a bit of a toss up. It's a greater wrong that an innocent man was convicted of a crime he did not commit, obviously. But I do see the point of the legal system being impartial and not providing legal advice. Problem is... There's often inadequate legal support for folks without cash. I've met some very good Public Defenders. But they do not have the same level of resources as the police combined with prosecutors.

[MechAg94]

This might be a side subject, but if there was DNA evidence from the crime scene, why weren't all parties involved tested?  If not, should that be standard practice?


Also, with as much money as we spend on our judicial system, would it be useful to have a "advocate" office with someone who can help people with stuff like this?  Not legal advice, just help with locating forms and such.  I am not around that stuff so I don't know if that is really necessary.

[roo_ster]

This might be a side subject, but if there was DNA evidence from the crime scene, why weren't all parties involved tested?  If not, should that be standard practice?


Also, with as much money as we spend on our judicial system, would it be useful to have a "advocate" office with someone who can help people with stuff like this?  Not legal advice, just help with locating forms and such.  I am not around that stuff so I don't know if that is really necessary.

Why do you hate lawyers?  They may not have mothers, but they do have spawn to feed!

[RevDisk]

Also, with as much money as we spend on our judicial system, would it be useful to have a "advocate" office with someone who can help people with stuff like this?  Not legal advice, just help with locating forms and such.  I am not around that stuff so I don't know if that is really necessary.

Lancaster, PA has a "victim services" section that was quite helpful. All they did for me was call to tell me when the court date was, where to go, walked me around the courthouse, etc. I didn't need much assistance, but they were still nice and helpful. Something like that for everyone would be nice.

The public defender in that case did an excellent job, and I was sure to let him know I appreciated him doing an excellent job even if it was for a guy that broke into my car. I'd be furious if the guy was steamrolled even if he was guilty.

[vaskidmark]

This might be a side subject, but if there was DNA evidence from the crime scene, why weren't all parties involved tested?  If not, should that be standard practice?


Also, with as much money as we spend on our judicial system, would it be useful to have a "advocate" office with someone who can help people with stuff like this?  Not legal advice, just help with locating forms and such.  I am not around that stuff so I don't know if that is really necessary.

The presence/availability of biological evidence does not always mean DNA testing - especially when going back before 1985.  Based on the story posted, the guy was convicted in 1984 - a year before the generally accepted beginning of DNA testing.  http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1905706,00.html

Back in the day biologics were assayed to determine blood type, which was considered somewhere between probative and conclusive evidence.

What is SOP today was, for quite some time, something between magic and desperation if for no other reason than because while getting an absolute match was the proverbial slam-dunk "beyond a reasonable doubt" there were enough issues of "contamination" that near matches were sometimes accepted as being as conclusive as an absolute match.

stay safe.

[Balog]

Chris: so your point is basically that the correct and ethical thing to do is allow a man to rot in prison instead of providing a form to the victim seeking redress? Jesus. And you're one of the better examples of the legal system.