[Rivertontalk] County Attorney Race-Vance Countryman Comment

[kirijo]

On multiple occasions the LeBrun/Oakley Campaign has stated that it is
important for the system to be represented by advocates for the State, the
prosecutor, and defense attorneys. That is the system that exists, however,
a comment contained in the Rules of Professional Conduct that governs
lawyers in Wyoming states that a prosecutor has the responsibility of a
minister of justice and not simply that of an advocate. Rule 3.8, Special
Responsibilities of Prosecutor, states that the prosecutor in a criminal
case shall refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is
not supported by probable cause. 

The Rule itself suggests that a prosecutor has an obligation more than to
represent the State and in fact imposes the obligation to see that justice
is done. Let me share with you facts from The State of Wyoming vs. Kristina
Immenschuh, CR-2010-0484, Riverton Circuit Court, Fremont County, Wyoming. 
In that case, Kristina Immenschuh and her husband, Zachary Clark, owned a
dog named Strawberry which was in the possession of the P.A.W.S. shelter in
Riverton, Wyoming.   Mr. Clark was alleged to have broken into the shelter
and took his dog.  He was charged with burglary, a felony. The State charged
Mrs. Immenschuh with Accessory After the Fact to Burglary, also a felony,
because they alleged that she assisted Mr. Clark in hiding the dog from law
enforcement after he broke into the shelter. There was no question that Mrs.
Immenschuh and her husband owned the dog at the time he was alleged to have
entered the P.A.W.S. shelter and there is no question they were married.  

The applicable Wyoming Statute makes it clear that if Mrs. Immenschuh's
husband committed a felony the most she could be charged with was a
misdemeanor.  Even when Mr. LeBrun was provided with evidence that Mrs.
Immenschuh was married to Mr. Clark, Mr. LeBrun continued with the
prosecution of the felony.  Only when confronted with this issue at the
Preliminary Hearing did Mr. LeBrun admit that Mrs. Immenschuh could not be
charged with a felony.  That should have been the end of it. However, the
charge was amended to a misdemeanor.

The same Wyoming Statute makes it clear that in the event Mrs. Immenschuh's
husband committed a misdemeanor, then Mrs. Immenschuh could not be convicted
of any crime.  Mr. Clark was charged with entering a building without
authority with the intent to commit larceny. The Statute that addresses
larceny states that a person who steals, takes and carries, leads or drives
away property of another with the intent to deprive the owner is guilty of
larceny. The term "deprive" as defined under Wyoming law means to withhold
property of another permanently or to dispose of the property so as to make
it unlikely that the owner will recover it.  

The ethical rule governing Mr. LeBrun's decision to charge Mrs. Immenschuh
required Mr. LeBrun to have probable cause that demonstrated how Mr. Clark
could commit larceny by taking an animal he owned.  That however, did not
discourage Mr. LeBrun, or the prosecutors associated with him.   After the
matter was briefed and argued, the Circuit Court held that the crime of
larceny could not be committed by a person that owned the property.  The
Circuit Court held that the charges against Mrs. Immenschuh must be
dismissed and entered its Order.

The larger point is that Mr. LeBrun's characterization of the need for a
prosecutor’s attitude in the County Attorney office fails to recognize the
abusive and polarized perspective that his attitude has demonstrated in the
past and which could be present in the prosecution of cases in the future. I
am most frustrated with the idea that a person in a position that is
required to seek justice done believes that his obligation as an advocate
supersedes the obligation to be a minister of justice. Mr. Clark was
prosecuted and was placed on probation for a felony when in fact his conduct
could not rise to the level of a felony as a matter of law. There was
legitimate cause to confront him for what he had done. However, the most Mr.
Clark should have been charged with were the crimes of property destruction
and criminal trespass, neither of which in his case could have arisen to
felonies.

I have referred you to a single case to demonstrate my point, but there are
numerous circumstances where defendants are overcharged and which are
pursued with evidence which was collected under questionable circumstances. 
Given the manner in which I have personally observed cases prosecuted by
people associated with the LeBrun/Oakley Campaign, I am endorsing Michael
Bennett.

I strongly encourage you to look beyond the rhetoric which comes from a
campaign and ask you to make inquiry into the real questions. For example,
ask Mr. LeBrun to describe for you the ten most important felony cases he
has taken to trial. Ask him about his experience in representing Fremont
County or any other governmental entity in civil matters, what experience he
has with giving advice regarding contracts, employment issues, policy, and
the prosecution of cases to enforce the rights of the County. Ask Mr. LeBrun
or ask the LeBrun Campaign what his policy is with regard to plea agreements
and how he has utilized plea agreements in the past; and he has. 

Sincerely,


Vance Countryman




--
View this message in context: http://riverton-talk.974171.n3.nabble.com/County-Attorney-Race-Vance-Countryman-Comment-tp4025381.html
Sent from the Riverton Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.