Its all a SETUP---DA's Public, Defenders and now the JUDGES
Posted in the Blairsville Forum
#1 Jul 4, 2013
For anyone that has not read the White County news should try and get a copy..
The Public Defenders office is under a lot of pressure now. They are all getting figured out.. This circuit needs to get rid of this group.. They have no idea how to actually try a case.. all are forced to take their plea deals stating that committed a crime even tho they are innocent.. they admit this openly... They are under investigation... who is next ???? well
They are setting up the DA and the Judges as well.. Looks like the magistrate fell hook line and sinker..
My opinion the DA is correct on this one...
My personal opinion is that they all have things on each other that is now coming to lite and the ego's are running rampant...
#2 Jul 6, 2013
Motion by D.A.’s office in drug cases creates stir in courthouse
07.03.13 - 02:52 pm
by Billy Chism
White County News
It wasn’t your typical preliminary hearing.
Normally, a defendant charged with a felony offense is brought into White County Magistrate Court for a committal or preliminary hearing. At that time, the prosecuting attorneys show probable cause for the arrest to get the case bound over to White County Superior Court.
But last Thursday, June 27, before the preliminary hearings could begin, Magistrate Court Judge Joy R. Parks was asked to rule on a motion “to recuse the office of the Enotah Judicial Circuit Public Defender.”
In essence, the motion by District Attorney Jeff Langley asked the court to disqualify all six attorneys in the public defender’s office, including lead public defender attorney Charlie Brown, from representing any of the 22 co-defendants whose hearings were scheduled for that day.
The reasoning, according to Langley, was that “each of these defendants is connected to at least one additional co-defendant,” and there would be conflicts if the public defender’s office represented them.
Langley cited a Georgia Supreme Court opinion on April 15, 2013,“that determined that circuit public defender’s offices operated like a law firm, and if an impermissible conflict existed for one attorney in the office, it existed for all attorneys in that office.”
The 22 defendants scheduled for the hearing were among 47 persons arrested on June 11-12 in a major drug sweep in Cleveland and surrounding counties.
Each of them was charged with violation of the Georgia Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) Act, for their alleged participation in a drug-selling ring. Some of those had other charges made against them as well.
“Many of these defendants have familial, social, business relationships to one another in addition to the conspiracy between them that resulted in these criminal charges,” according to the D.A.’s written motion.
Brown argued that his office already had considered any conflicts of interest, and had turned down representing 11 of the defendants.
But he saw no conflict – at the time – of his public defender’s office representing 22 of the 47 people arrested.
“We seem to be the only ones who will stand up for the people,” Brown said.
Judge Parks denied the district attorney’s motion, interpreting the Georgia Supreme Court’s opinion differently. Part of that opinion states that this rule “does not become relevant or applicable until after an impermissible conflict of interest has been found to exist.”
The following day, Friday, June 28, more legal wrangling between the D.A.’s office and the office of public defender continued.
Brown had asked for “all evidence that relates to the criminal investigation.”
Assistant district attorney Ann Pickett argued that such requests “were beyond the scope of a committal hearing” and “would jeopardize the ongoing investigation.”
Judge Parks ruled in favor of the prosecution.
Later in the day, the prosecution met separately at the courthouse with a number of defendants, along with their appointed counsel. All of the defense attorneys in the meetings were members of the public defender’s office.
After these meetings, Brown agreed to recuse the public defenders on 11 additional cases. That left them representing 11 defendants.
But that was at least 10 more than District Attorney Langley would have wanted.
Citing the Supreme Court ruling, Langley told the White County News:“In most circumstances, cases with this many defendants are rare. In these (drug) cases, we have more than 50 potential defendants.”
He pointed out that in the normal course of business,“95 percent of our cases involve only one or two defendants. Therefore, the public defender’s office is eligible to represent defendants in 95 percent of our cases.”
#3 Jul 6, 2013
He added:“My goal is not to prevent the public defender’s office from representing anyone. Instead, I want to make sure that in any case that goes to trial, that that trial can stand the scrutiny of the Georgia Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court finds a case with a conflict of interest that exists, then that case is likely to be overturned and have to be tried again, at the expense of the taxpayers of White County.”
“We’re barely in the first round of hearings,” he said.“This is a complex investigation and would be a complex trial.”
Langley added:“Our motion reflects the view that it would be improper for him (Brown and his five public defender attorneys: Jeanne Davis, John Deacon, Kristian McPeek, Zachary Tumlin and Monica Barton) to handle more than one defendant.”
He said he may bring up this motion later,“if necessary.”
Langley said “there are a number of attorneys on the conflict list.” The Georgia Public Defender’s Standards Council could appoint attorneys from this area who are on the list, he said.
Of course, some of the defendants already have secured private attorneys to represent them. Those without attorneys can request a public defender. Some of those arrested have bonded out of jail, while others remain in the White County Detention Center.
At the end of two days in court, only two hearings were held. In one case, the defendant, Grady Carl Thomas, was bound over to Superior Court. In the other hearing, Judge Parks dismissed the case for insufficient evidence, allowing the defendant, Madeleine Elizabeth Poulos, to go free.
Langley pointed out he still can bring this dismissed case before the grand jury with additional evidence, if he so chooses.
Currently, out of the 47 people arrested, 45 are still awaiting a preliminary hearing.
The next round of these hearings is scheduled at the White County Courthouse on Friday, July 12.
“Right now, we have 21 on the calendar for July 12, but there could be more,” Judge Parks said.
#4 Jul 6, 2013
In those cases that the Public Defenders Office is dismissed from representing the accused, what happens next? Are the accused denied representation? Or are their cases automatically moved to another juristiction?
#5 Jul 6, 2013
Its a showdown of egos now and the people loose when this happens.. We pay these people..
There is a major conflict of interest.. Currently the Public Defenders are under investigation themselves.. Can they focus on trials of so many when they may be in one themselves? They could very well get in the middle of the process and be ousted and where does that leave those they are suppose to be defending..
Secondly, those that are presently in jail were suppose to have a hearing within 72 hours, did they get one?
They can take one of the defendants and then it should turn into a conflict for all of the others. There is no way one office can fairly represent multiple defendants in the same case. They are going to end up getting the entire thing throw out.
Now is this about the budget that our public defender has already screwed up this year?Appointing legal counsel outside that office will cost and they are already over budget.
All of that to say, We should rid ourselves of the Public Defenders office as they have proven they cannot budget themselves nor keep themselves out of conflicts. Maybe do as many other counties do and use outside counsel. That will save tax payers and those that have been accused just MIGHT get legitimate legal counsel..
Does either of them have any experience at all with the RICO ACT? One or two may however the others are inexperienced. Will they admit to that? These defendants are going to be tried under a trial and error potsy scheme.
Normally I'm not one to Side with any of them as there is rampant Prosecutorial Misconduct here.
Just my thought and opinions
#6 Jul 6, 2013
So - from above I am gleaning that if dismissed, then the Public Defender's Office has to pay for outside counsel to come in? But it is already overbudget - and so unable to prosecute, the state would drop its case?
So the argument could be made that Langley is orchestrating a situation in which he could be forced to drop the prosecution against a bunch of possible Drug Dealers? Do any of the accused have big family ties?
There is a history of alleged insider favoritism regarding drug cases in this circuit it seems.
Is it possible that both sides are basically waging a staged attempt to get certain cases dropped - while maintaining the appearance that everyone did their job?
just questioning and thinking out loud.
#7 Jul 6, 2013
Is there a list of the accused that can be published? More details on the case?
#8 Jul 6, 2013
Yes there is a list of those arrested in the White county news a couple weeks ago.
Good observation "Questions" just wondering if anyone might notice this same thing.
Of course there is favoritism in this bunch. I know of another case that the public defenders are not representing due to a conflict of interest.
and did ya see where Nathan Deal issued an executive order that is providing counsel for ongoing investigation of Our Public Defenders. The Attorney General refused to represent them screaming conflict of interest.
so what does this tell someone? "CONFLICT OF INTEREST" they are ALL IN covering for each other and don't want to be the ones to go down first.
Its a conflict from the state level all the way down to the local level. Not one should be trying or prosecuting anyone. The ones defending and prosecuting all have dirty hands.
#9 Jul 6, 2013
No,I don't believe they will drop the cases for that particular reason. The state would provide outside counsel for them. However the 72 Hour time for first hearing is up.
From the way I read the RICO ACT is that they would have to prove that each defendant was involved in this scheme for 10 years. That would make it qualify unless that has changed. The DA wants to pin felonys on all of them of which the story is that most had less that an oz.
I have a different opinion. This means the tax payers will foot the bill for the 47 if they allow the trumpted up charges. Most all should probably qualify for drug court at most, therefore maybe getting them back to work and paying their own way instead of the tax payers.
It will be interesting to watch. Ive watched the DA and Public Defenders at odds for a while. Each is just waiting to take the other out. not sure which should be first.
#10 Jul 6, 2013
Just to make it clear, I think drug dealers are scum and need to go to jail. So my primary concern is that well connected drug dealers are going to be let off the hook - and then secondarily, that basic sad sack drug users - who really need help - may be overprosecuted.
With all that said, can you provide a summary of this overall case in a couple of paragraphs? As in types of drugs / amounts of drugs / types of arrests / is it a "Drug Ring" or just a roundup? etc etc.
#11 Jul 6, 2013
the drugs were marijuana most all of them had less than an ounce.
They are making every effort to make it a drug ring..
The one guy they are trying to nail had more.. but it was 47 people and a TOTAL value of 10,000 as reported in the paper.
Reports later say it had even less in street value.
Something just does NOT add up
#12 Jul 7, 2013
All thus waste of time and money and threats of lengthy imprisonment for some pot?? I figured it was Meth or something. Their are whole states that have legalized it. Heck - it's barely worse than alcohol, and not worse at all if you are comparing it to an alcoholic's use. These people need a fine, maybe some mandated drug awareness classes, and some community service - and then move it along.
Langley is a friekin waste of humanity - a lowly pissant. We need to get rid of this guy.
Last question - was there growing involved?
And this was a major sting operation? They are spending enormous amounts of tax dollars on a sting to bust 40 - 50 pot smokers, most with less than an ounce? They need to be going after the Meth and harder stuff.
If this is true it is simply unbelievable.
So how does the Public Defender's Office fit into all this? I hear all sort of stuff about them.
Can you give a brief summary on how they fit into this whole picture - the actual case, not the drama of other stuff. What is their position? Are they competent to defend these people?
#13 Jul 7, 2013
Call it Drama if ya want. but who knows. guess we all wait and see. IF they are not distracted with their own issue.
#14 Feb 27, 2014
my family member was due in court on this day but they never brought him and the judge called him
#16 Feb 27, 2014
This is a election year, Time to clean out all the rattle snakes in the government. That's a joke. I bet you a new shiny penny nothing will change,
#19 Feb 27, 2014
We voted them in there. And we will vote them back in there again. That's what the people wants.
Add your comments below
|A simple question for Mr.Henson EMC board of d...||7 hr||acog||17|
|new coffee shop on the square||8 hr||real meaning||40|
|places to rent||15 hr||Betty||6|
|Jenny Craig||15 hr||Betty||2|
|Florida disgusts me||Sat||The Mountains Noise||3|
|Who N Why||Sat||Larry||8|
Find what you want!
Search Blairsville Forum Now
Copyright © 2015 Topix LLC