The mother loses a case, no big deal. public defenders lose all the time. Her daughter wins a case, it helps her career. That's a profound conflict of interest.
Actually, this is a win win scenario for mother and daughter. Mother got a good deal for her guilty client and daughter got a criminal behind bars. This makes BOTH of them look good! It's crazy that the judge thought otherwise....
@@tetedur377 I'm not saying that he's guilty. However, this is how it will look like to everyone else. He's found guilty, so that must meaneen he's guilty in the eyes of most. Therefore, making both mother and daughter look good, independent of if he's actually guilty....
90% of all people assigned a public pretender, will be convicted. Most will be coerced into signing a confession. Public Pretenders do not work for you. They are there for appearances only.
It seems to me there was clear bias from the court appointed lawyer, when the client says im innocent and she wants him to plead guilty. I find the judge to appear completely corrupt.
@@therrydicule "I put the judge as a maybe in that he should have realized the situation" It was not just this one case. The judge admits to knowing the relationship and not telling any of the defendants. The mother should really disclose to the defendant, but they both disclosed to the court.
When I found out my first lawyer was best friends with the prosecutor, my lawyer tried to explain how it was a good thing. I was innocent, yet all my lawyer ever considered was getting me a plea deal. This was a 2nd degree felony charge so I wasn’t interested in anything but vindication. I fired him, and months later both of them were exposed by the district attorneys office for inappropriate relationship and favors, as well as sharing of nude photos of clients and defendants (just another reason why they love confiscating your phone for “evidence”).
@@snowcloudshinobi I agree you should, however in the real world you don't and assuming otherwise is just asking for trouble. Even if it's not legal, they'll find any reason they can to dump your phone (even if they have to completely fabricate it), and you can bet any "interesting" photos they find are going to be shared around.
That is what the judge, prosecutor and defense attorney should be in trouble here about. I know that the judge knew of this CoI and didn't intervene, there is no way that he could not know.
I was wondering if procedurally that was the judge's problem. Wouldn't it be reasonable for him to presume that the defendants lawyer did her job and informed her client?
The judge didn't think there was a problem in _any_ of the cases between mom and daughter. That must mean there's more cases that have been tainted by the two.
Seems like that was a bug reason why they didn't want this decision to be made. Since there is now this ruling, every other case with this mother daughter combo will be able to be challenged. It will be interesting to see how many cases get brought back up.
Holy Smokes there's a judge that should be disbarred as well. How can the judge defend their action? This is a disgrace to the entire judicial system. Lost trust of the public is the only result of this entire debacle.
The judge 'didn't see' a conflict because they were getting people to plead guilty, which makes every case much easier and more convenient to the judge.
Disbar the judge, the public defender and the prosecutor. The fact that the court and the prosecutor decided this was the hill they wanted to die on says a lot about their dedication to due process.
I actually put this on the judge. The County judge where I live, is actually a distant cousin. My great-grandmother and his great- grandfather were siblings. However, being from a small town, even though we're distant cousins everybody knows everybody else.When my sister got in trouble, he recused himself from the case because it could have been seen as a conflict of interest.
This reminds me of a similar situation - someone is convicted of a crime, he is later exonerated and the conviction is overturned, yet the prosecutor openly declares "he's still guilty". This often happens where the group (sorry I don't recall their name) later looks at cases and discover the whole court action was designed to railroad the defendant, many of which turn on DNA evidence proving the guy couldn't have done the crime. It's sickening to see how the prosecutor, or crooked cop, or whoever, gets by with such and nothing is ever done to them.
That's the "justice" system in America, which has by far the highest incarceration rate per capita of any country in the world, most of which is people convicted of penny-ante "drug crimes". America's obsession with the so-called War on Drugs is stupid on too many points to go into here. No, I don't and never have done drugs, and I don't personally know anybody who has been arrested or jailed for it.
There's a whole John Oliver episode 80% on this subject but on the larger subject of appeals. Features prosecutors doing this exact thing to a death row detainee days away from execution in Texas, and I believe an Oklahoma prosecutor arguing before the State Supreme Court on Camera that it would be better to knowingly imprison innocent people by denying thier appeal when there is overwhelming evidence of innocence, because of not filing an appeal within a set time frame, because "It would risk the finality of criminal convictions."
I feel like when the appeals court reverses a lower court's decision, you should be allowed to have a new judge assigned considering you've just proven the judge in your case either doesn't understand the law or doesn't care what it says.
@@MadeInMichigan I wouldn't. Why? Because the fact is that in many cases the law is vague and the arguments the judge made could be considered valid from a certain PoV.
@@Craig_Narramoore There was no conflict of interest, from a certain point of view. (Or should I say, "I feel the conflict within you. You know it to be true. Give in to the prosecutor, and together we will rule the trial district!")
@@Craig_Narramoore Your trite dismissal notwithstanding, I agree with Christopher Kidwell. The mere fact that a judge's decision was overturned on appeal does not, on its own mean that the judge acted in bad faith. The case presented here is an extreme one. We know why the judge didn't tell the defendant about the (potential) conflict. Because the defendant would request a new attorney -- as was his right. If all situations were so cut-and-dried, we wouldn't need judges. So I wouldn't automatically fire the judge. However, I would send the case to a new judge, just in case hurt feelings cloud the first judge's judgement.
@@MadeInMichigan Nah, it's not always the judge's fault. If evidence comes forward later that the prosecution had exculpatory evidence they withheld, that's grounds for a solid appeal, but the judge didn't necessarily have any idea.
Lmao, “no significant risk” 😂😂😂 the mom is a public defender and doesn’t care if she wins or loses, the daughter would like to pad her prosecution record, HOW IS THAT NOT A RISK OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST! It doesn’t matter whether it was or was not in reality, at the very least the appearance that it could be should give him the right to a new trial, regardless of evidence.
That was my same thought. Being a layperson and having only a vague understanding of the law, it would appear as though public defenders are not held as accountable for their success at protecting their client as a prosecutor would be. A great point that Steve brought up was if disclosing the relationship would have had no bearing on what plea the defendant pled, why bother to conceal the relationship?
@@MrTechKey Just a note here. Understanding LAW is, usually, not the problem. Understanding PROCESS is what hangs up the vast majority of people who try to represent themselves or understand a trial. Laws are usually pretty straightforward. Process is so convoluted and confusing it should be a crime.
@@neal9692 the worse part is. The "process" is designed to pervert accountibilty. It takes more money than most citizens have. Our rulers have become corrupt. The 2nd admendment needs reconsidered in this country. Blood quenches corruption. The justice system acting like a gang. Lying and protecting each other....corruption in every county in our Nation!
True story. Years ago, one of my former partners got called for jury duty, got assigned to a panel of prospective jurors and went into the courtroom only to see another lawyer from our firm sitting at counsel table getting ready to try the case. When the judge asked the routine question, "Do any of you know any of the parties or lawyers?" he raised his hand and said, "Well, Mr. so-and-so over there is one of my law partners." When everyone, including the judge, stopped laughing, the judge said, "OK, you're excused."
My mother-in-law had two brothers in senior positions with the police department. She never served on a jury. Amazing that not having a related juror is more important than related attorneys in a case.
That would be pretty funny, and I imagine the odds are pretty slim of that actually happening, though I imagine that when it does it's the easiest, most certain way to get out of jury duty ever.
@@randallkelley3600 I was called for jury duty in Kansas. There was a married couple, both had been summon. Both were chosen for the jury. The Judge, prosecutor and defense accepted their word they would not discuss the case between them. Yeah, right!
i was called into jury service about a year ago, my partner was the defending lawyer, when the question was asked if anyone on the jury knows anyone, i put my had up, the judge asked me how i know them, i said i sleep with her every night..... got a few laughs from that one, and got out of jury duty, was looking forward to it as well. oh well hopefully next time my partner isn't involved.....
Judge (from the case in Steve's video): _Do any of you know any of the parties at those tables?_ *Prospective juror raises hand* Judge: _Yes, juror number 23?_ Juror number 23: _Yeah, the prosecutor is my sister and the public defender is my mom._ Judge: _You'll do._ Juror number 23: _Daaaaaaad. I had things to do today. Can't I be excused?_ Judge: _No son. We all have to do our civic duty from time to time._
Makes sense they fought this so hard, you said they did this all the time, this means because of this you can bet there will be a lot more of these cases. it's like opening pandora's box.
@@gordonwaite2 I'm pretty sure the law has something to say about conflicts of interest, no? Defender and attorney being related IS a conflict of interest, not just a possible one....
@@---cr8nw They are not required “by law…” they are required by rules! They can not be prosecuted and imprisoned for a violation of the rules that lawyers must follow. By law though they can be punished by sanction, suspension or revocation of their license for violating the rules. There is a difference. She did not break a law!
Hang on, did they let the judge *who knew about the relationship* decide whether or not it was a conflict of interest? Holy crap! That's a conflict of interest in itself! If he finds it was a conflict of interest, he is admitting he messed up, so of course he would say it's not a conflict of interest!
The judge, prosecutor, and defense lawyer all need to be dis-barred. They knowingly broke the rules and continue to do so repeatedly. This would be organized criminal activity. How many other cases did these three influence, how many times did the mother win or was they all plea deals ?
I'm half way into this video and it really seems like the judge is dumb for letting this "mother daughter team" operate like that in so many cases. Ridiculous.
When the judge learned of the relationship, he should have been asking them to provide documentation for the court's record that the defendant was notified of the conflict and still wants to retain the mother as council.
1. Win or loose public defender gets paid, loose or make deal makes prosecutor look good. 2. Prosecutor wins looks good to their boss = promotion. 3. Judge didn't want to grant the request/ appeal because that would open it up to everyone that was in this situation( mother, daughter) getting their deal or conviction tossed.
Prosecutors move up the hierarchy by 'winning' cases, thus reducing their work load, backlog. A Mother helping her child to succeed would be the obvious outcome.
The problem is that the court also has a conflict of interest : they all knew , they don’t want to look bad , and they don’t want the multitude of cases where they did the same to be reversed. The fact that it was a plead deal is particularly damaging. You say you are. Innocent and your counsel tells you it does not matter, terrible things will happen to you if you don’t plead and he does.
This type of conflicts and impropriety exists in so many case's but it's rare that any defendants have the financial wherewithal to bring light to this kind of corruption. Kudos to this defendant.
Its not bad enough they let and tried to cover up the conflict during this trial, but all the other trials the two family members were involved with are also reversible. Both attorneys need to be disbarred as well as the Judge.
I wonder how the judge would've felt if one of the defendants was his son? (Not that a judge's son would ever go to trial or use a public defender.) I wonder if he would SEE the conflict of interest there. Would he recuse himself? And if so, would he take any issues with the conflict of interest between the prosecutor and his son's counsel?
This definitely beats the time when my mother went down for jury duty and during voir dire she had to reveal that the prosecutor was one of her boy scouts when he was a kid. This got a chuckle from the entire courtroom.
I knew a city that husband was prosecutor and wife was public defender. They used different names and most did not know of their marriage. Seems like funny business to me.
In all seriousness, it all might have very well been above board, but the appearance alone is such a major conflict of interest, one of them should be required to leave their position
@@Strideo1 fun·ny busi·ness /ˈfənē ˌbiznis/ Learn to pronounce noun deceptive, disobedient, or lecherous behavior. "they sent a big strong farmer's lad to make sure there was no funny business"
it seems to me that the reason his motion was denied three times was because they knew that if they granted it they would have every single other person they did this to (Sounds Like Alot BTW) back in court for the same reason.
My buddy went through a divorce in Michigan. The attorney representing his wife was formerly a partner of the judge who was assigned to the case. Needless to say he got screwed over so many times and in so many ways it was hard to believe. Of course a number of years had passed so apparently the statute of limitations magically removed any conflict of interest.
One would assume that a judge would know the difference between belief and facts, and the possible appearance of a conflict of interest, but we all know what it means to assume.
Good grief. I hope they discipline that judge. Its hard to imagine the judge let this go by accident. I would imagine they thought it would make those hearings run smoother since the relationship between the mother and daughter would likely be the priority of the mother over the best interests of her clients. The fact that they didn't tell any of the clients is a profound indication that they new it was a problem.
The prosecutor hired the daughter early in 2019. She was appointed opposite her mother in more than 200 cases by more than one judge in the circuit. This conflict was brought up in a Motion to Dismiss in a different case than the instant case in July of 2019. The Motion to Dismiss was not granted (no surprise there) but by Sept the daughter was now working in another county. An ARDC complaint was filed against the prosecutor by the Defendant. The prosecutor's response in defense of his actions was to claim that upon the hiring of the daughter, he had reached an "accord" with the judiciary in that a conflict of interest did/could not exist moving forward (right?). This put the judges in an interesting, albeit untenable, position. They can either hang the prosecutor out to dry or continue to claim ignorance of the law....they unfortunately chose the politically correct route. This explains why the State dug in so hard for so long on this issue. Thank you for bringing this out in the open.
I would assume the judge didn't say anything because the mother-daughter pair moved cases quickly, thus clearing the court docket. but then I'm not a lawyer thus have no idea what I'm talking about...
"[B]ut then I'm not a lawyer thus have no idea what I'm talking about..." Don't worry, you're still eligible to be a judge or perhaps, in the right court, an expert witness. There's always hope.
I had a state appointed attorney about 50 years ago, was found guilty, and watch the judge and this (fairly hot) public defender walk out of the courthouse arm in arm.
If I’m ever prosecuted I sincerely hope the prosecutor’s, and judges see no conflict of interest if my mommy sits on the jury. My mommy has punished me plenty of times in the past so this should be safe.
@@christopherg2347, there's no such thing as a do-over on a conviction. "...nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;" Double jeopardy. Each of these cases should be eligible for appeal, at which point the appeals court should determine that the the client's attorney committed legal malpractice. The convictions should all be vacated. It stinks because there are certainly some guilty people who would be made free, but that's why it's so important to do the right thing the first time through.
@@cleverusernamenexttime2779, the convictions would still need to be vacated so that these people don't have that offense on the criminal record. It changes things for job opportunities and for gun ownership and for anything else that a previous conviction might affect. But no, there's no way to get months or years of your life back. You can sue for damages, which could be substantial.
Relatives shouldn't even be working in same court. I like how Japan handles a lot these issues, prosecutors and judges move every few years to a new jurisdiction.
@@aitorbleda8267 It's strict, but that was not the point being made. The point made was the ensurance of fairness in court not about the beliefs about the laws.
@@viscountalpha but they also cannot lie to you at all. So they do things better in some aspects. Their 99% conviction rate has nothing to do with them doing certain things better. We should take all the good and not the bad
On the other hand, Japan has an obscenely high conviction rate which either means that the police are very good at arresting only guilty people or they have a problem of innocent people being convicted at a rate far higher than America. As I understand, Japanese police are allowed to Badger you into confessing because there's this long-held belief that no matter what they do to you an innocent person would never admit to something they didn't do. Then again here in America the police go so far as to fabricate fake DNA test results and submit them to the courts so I'm not really sure which is worse. I think I'd rather be badgered for a few weeks while I maintain my innocence then have someone Photoshop evidence to be used against me in court.
Love your question "Why didn't you tell him then? ". They never have an answer for it. You can see from the extremes that a rational client informed of the Conflict would NOT waive it. 1. Mother and daughter hate each other and have not spoken for 20 years. Defendant should be worried that the prosecutor might not offer a plea deal or only offer a crap plea deal because she hates your lawyer. 2. Mother and daughter love each other . Defendant should be worried that his lawyer will consider prosecutor's opening offer perfect and not push back on it. Defendant's lawyer may want case to settle to make her daughter look good or to ease her workload . The sentencing range for an offence is just that. Always a range. What ever sentence was imposed you could ask 'is it possible a different defendant could have got a slightly more lenient sentence ( smaller fine, shorter bond, 1 month less incarceration) ? ' the answer will almost always be yes.
I would be very interested to find out the percentage of the mother-daughter court cases that a plea deal was done. I'm willing to bet all of them were plea deals.
Plea deals are the most common way cases are settled, doesn’t matter who the parties attorneys are. Very few cases go to trial, our system couldn’t handle that many trials, it can barely handle the ones they have.
I expect the guy's lawyer to ask for a new judge before a new trial. And now there will be multitudes of people coming forward asking for their convictions be overturned because of that conflict. And every one will be asking for a different judge to hear their case. Because of the number and the delays, I suspect most will end up being dropped.
Exactly. I was in court and watched a public defender file a motion to arrest his client when he didn't show up to court. Even if you get a PD who wants to do a good job the courts load them down with cases so they literally have no time to adequately defend someone. The entire system is geared to blackmail guilty pleas. If they outlawed guilty pleas the system would break down in six months.
It's rarely the public defender's fault. They are forced to negotiate plea deals bc if everyone who was arrested demands a trial, the courts would be over loaded. Due to this 90% of cases are plead out. Public defenders themselves are likewise overburdened and aren't given the resources required for dealing with such high case loads.
Once upon a time I used to live in Michigan, I lived there for one year. Due to the ethical standard of The Honorable Steve Lehto, I am deeply considering moving to Michigan again! There is NO error in saying that the Judge knew the relationship, they often work with the same set of persecutors and public defenders in the courthouse. So they know who they are and if they relate. But, in this case it looks like there was assignment, court process, sentencing, appeal, and conclusion, so it's beyond a safe assumption from the viewers perspective that the Judge knew the relationship. And, mother and daughter knew their relationship, there is not dispute there!
Could they [Judge & both attorneys] be trying [conspiring] to expedite cases??? ... Yes, what's troubling is that Judge & 2 attorneys saw nothing wrong with this! The dumbing down of society goes all the way through said society, I guess.
This is the reason why you *NEVER NEVER EVER* take a plea deal if you are innocent. I cannot think of any world where pleading guilty is OK when you are not.
I can. You are a male in the United States. A random female you have never met accuses you of fondling her. If you plead, you could get out in 5. If you contest it, you will be found guilty and be sentenced to 20 years.
I sure as heck would want to know of a familial relationship going into it. Any judge that thinks the lack of foreclosure was acceptible should be sanctioned as should be attorneys involved...
I love the class this comment conveys... I on the other hand am a distasteful scumbag you are questioning weather the judge is boning the defense attorney (mother of the prosecutor)
I would assume that the trial court did not let the defendant get to change his plea and it might open the door for many other convicted people to appeal their cast. This would look very bad for the court.
Imagine a prosecutor prosecuting her own daughter in a criminal proceeding. The District Attirney would assume a conflict of interest and would never allow it.
Anyone who has ever had a "Public Pretender" knows they pretend to have their clients best interests in mind as long as they don't actually have to do much work.
My experience was worse than that. Mine literally worked against me. He left the courtroom while prosecutor & judge entered witness written statement as evidence that should have been argued as hearsay because the witness was not present during alleged battery. Without that statement they lacked probable cause. I knew something was fishy , but didn't know til I looked it all up later. I ended up getting it dismissed when I showed my attorney multiple lies the cop made on arrest reports- LIKE HE LEFT OUT THE PARt WHERE THE OTHER PERSON ADMITTED TO STARTING THE FIGHT!!! public defenders are sh!t Our courts are a joke. Steve's statement on how defenders obligation to their defendent not who pays them is naive & ridiculous (not to mention. Lacking substance for an argument)
I had to fire the public defender in the courtroom once because when the visiting judge from another city gave me a fine the public defender actually argued that the sentence was too lenient. The attorney still works in that same city, but he’s the prosecutor now. In many small towns like mine, the entire system has been corrupted from top to bottom.
You said there were multiple times where this mother-daughter pair was dealing with cases in court, so does that mean any other convictions resulting from that would now have to be reversed automatically as well? Or do the convicted people in these cases need to be lucky enough to hear about this and file the necessary motions with the court on an individual basis? Also, should/would failure to disclose this conflict of interest to defendants over multiple cases count as sufficiently unethical behaviour to justify penalizing the public defender - up to and including disbarment?
Let's say for the sake of argument, that in fact the mother and daughter hated each other. That doesn't mean that the defense counsel will act in the best interest of her client. For example, the counsel could hate her mother so much she is willing to destroy or fabricate evidence, act out improperly in court (ex: yelling at each other), or even just not show up at all.
Yes! Also, it could lead the prosecutor to be inappropriate as well and try everything to get a guilty verdict, even if it mean falsifying evidence and stuff
Never had a public defender, but I got a pro-bono attorney once, and in less than an hour she straightened out some bullshit that I'd been spending close to year on.
My grandfather was the defense attorney where it turned out there was a relationship between two people involved in the case. It was some fairly big trial in the 1940's in Vandalia, IL where my grandfather lived (southern Illinois) and the town folk in the court room knew him. The prosecutor was a big shot from Cook County (Chicago area and not liked by those in southern Illinois). One member of the jury pool was my father, the defense attorney's son-in-law. And the town folk knew him, too. So, the prosecutor starts asking him questions. "Do you know the defendant?' "No sir." And there was a little tittering from the public. "Do you know any of the witnesses?" "No sir." And a little bit louder laughter. The prosecutor asked the similar question if he knew this or that person and each time it was "No sir" and louder and louder laughter. Finally, the prosecutor asked, "Do you know anyone in this courtroom?" "Yes sir." "Who do you know?" "The defense attorney, he's my father-in-law." The prosecutor screamed "GET OUT OF HERE !!!" and the courtroom exploded in laughter. The prosecutor's error was not having his first question as something like "Do you know anyone involved in the case?"
Shouldn't the judge have realized the conflict of interest immediately, and taken action? Surely judges have some knowledge of the lawyers regularly appearing before them. Also, is such failure to disclose by the two attorneys (who MUST have recognized each other) grounds to take away their Shakespeare?
most judges are attorneys who have failed in private practice, and became judges, because they needed a job, in order to pay the rent/mortgage, and feed themselves
It sounds like he did know, but felt like the mother and daughter worked well against each other. That doesn’t seem like it’s his choice to make though
When I went to jury duty we were asked if we knew anyone in the court room, and if so, how. This relation should have been revealed. Even mother/daughter who hate each other should still be revealed as that situation could affect their performance or choices during the court proceeding.
If the father/husband only owned the private prison where the people are incarcerated it would have completed the whole circle. So sad the family is making money only in two end of the case
Well....if it's a gov facility , the judge, defense attorney, and prosecutor all get paid by/ work for the same entity as the jail/ prison It's OK they're over crowded. They'll build another one and or early release some violent criminals in your neighborhood, who got more violent from their stay btw.
British, esquire ~ agent of the Crown Aristocracy, 'Ruled by the best' Blk's L. 11th Registry A gov building for weddings, deeds, B&D records. a syndicate of professional sophistry, creating edited accounts of official records ~ Transcripts are a tool of obfuscation. A way for the BAR to avoid account.
I worked for a company that was sued in court by a driver's family for a car wreck where the driver was drunk and ran I to our vehicle. It was plainly obvious the two attorneys and the judge knew what the outcome of the trial was going to be. The judge even admonished the company owner for trying to fight the $1M lawsuit by the widow. After hiring a private detective the company owner found that both attorneys worked for the same insurance company. It turned out the deceased worked and attended a company party at cart dealer that was insured by the same insurance company but for $10M. They had both worked with the judge to allow the lawsuit for a $1M so they wouldn't put the $10M policy on the line.
How in the heck does ANY court, judge, attorneys involved not reveal that information to the defendant and let the defendant decide? The judge and attorneys involved may be highly trustworthy but ya gotta reveal something like that! Sounds like grounds for appeal on all the other cases they were involved in. Granted a relationship between the prosecutor and defense could go either way. A prosecutor could go easy on the defendant or the defense lawyer could give the prosecutor an easy win. regardless, it should be disclosed.
what irks me isn't so much that the trial judge got it wrong as it will usually get worked out on appeal... its how often prosecutors won't back down when something was clearly wrong, unfair, unethical, ect. So many of them seem to not only not give the benefit of the doubt when it's a close call, they won't even back down when it's obvious there is a problem with the case. They have unlimited budgets and resources to assist them and the deck is already stacked against a defendant without adding things like this into the mix.
The original trial judge is a clown. He basically says in his ruling "yeah, you're right, the rules say that this shouldn't be allowed because it could be an issue, but I have decided that it isn't an issue, so the rule doesn't cover this, even though it directly does."
Outrageous that he doesn't get a new judge. The judge has an interest in saving face now for his evident error in judgement. A conflict of interest now exists with this judge. And really if he's failing such a simple concept as 'conflict of interest' can he really be trusted to decide on complex issues.
@@roy19491 we wish. We have had this situation for since time now and there is no recall vote here. Soon. Very soon. People that it effects don't have the$$ to fight it. They play in civil court not criminal.
@@tomw8647 If a judge has an obvious ethical conflict the repercussions would be worse than what happened here. That would usually end up in a suspension if not an outright dismissal from the bench. While lawyers are held to a higher standard, judges are held to an even higher standard.
I went through that on jury duty. A smart lawyer when picking the jury asked if any pospective jurers knew one another, worked together mainly to ask if anyone's boss was there, or were related to one another. He said once he had a jury where a guy and his mother in law were on the same jury. That must have been a fun trial.
The legal system in this country has gone to Hell.... Actually, there seem to be no ethics anymore! Look at our legislators and Supreme Court. It's appalling!!!
The mother loses a case, no big deal. public defenders lose all the time. Her daughter wins a case, it helps her career. That's a profound conflict of interest.
Actually, this is a win win scenario for mother and daughter. Mother got a good deal for her guilty client and daughter got a criminal behind bars. This makes BOTH of them look good! It's crazy that the judge thought otherwise....
@@tetedur377 I'm not saying that he's guilty. However, this is how it will look like to everyone else. He's found guilty, so that must meaneen he's guilty in the eyes of most. Therefore, making both mother and daughter look good, independent of if he's actually guilty....
@@HighLordBaron I think you forgot a not between I'm and saying cause it LOOKS like you're saying that he's guilty
@@shrimpy_nazeem Ah yes, you're right, whoops. My bad. I meant that I'm NOT saying that he's guilty 🙈
90% of all people assigned a public pretender, will be convicted. Most will be coerced into signing a confession.
Public Pretenders do not work for you. They are there for appearances only.
The judge, the prosecutor and public defender need to be held accountable for this. Even if there wasn't as conflict the appearance of one is enough
The appearance of impropriety
It seems to me there was clear bias from the court appointed lawyer, when the client says im innocent and she wants him to plead guilty. I find the judge to appear completely corrupt.
@@therrydicule Lehto says that the judge did know the relationship.
@@therrydicule "I put the judge as a maybe in that he should have realized the situation"
It was not just this one case.
The judge admits to knowing the relationship and not telling any of the defendants.
The mother should really disclose to the defendant, but they both disclosed to the court.
@@therrydicule DId you listen to the findings of fact, he investigated the matter ahead of time and determined it was fine?
Un-freaking believable. The mother, daughter, and judge should all have their bar licenses suspended.
When I found out my first lawyer was best friends with the prosecutor, my lawyer tried to explain how it was a good thing. I was innocent, yet all my lawyer ever considered was getting me a plea deal. This was a 2nd degree felony charge so I wasn’t interested in anything but vindication. I fired him, and months later both of them were exposed by the district attorneys office for inappropriate relationship and favors, as well as sharing of nude photos of clients and defendants (just another reason why they love confiscating your phone for “evidence”).
Thats why you don't keep nude photos on your devices. Duh.
That's your own fault.
@@billyyank5807 you should have a right to privacy, you dope.
@@billyyank5807 it wasn’t nude photos off my phone. I never said that. They had been doing it for years with various clients/defendants.
@@billyyank5807 wrong
@@snowcloudshinobi I agree you should, however in the real world you don't and assuming otherwise is just asking for trouble. Even if it's not legal, they'll find any reason they can to dump your phone (even if they have to completely fabricate it), and you can bet any "interesting" photos they find are going to be shared around.
This Judge should be held to account also for not reviling the conflict that the Judge knew of .
You want them to hold grandpa accountable?
That is what the judge, prosecutor and defense attorney should be in trouble here about. I know that the judge knew of this CoI and didn't intervene, there is no way that he could not know.
I was wondering if procedurally that was the judge's problem. Wouldn't it be reasonable for him to presume that the defendants lawyer did her job and informed her client?
I will say from what I've seen here in this video that you know idiots can be attorneys
@@joewilson3393 The judge should still double-check if they're aware of such a conflict.
The judge didn't think there was a problem in _any_ of the cases between mom and daughter. That must mean there's more cases that have been tainted by the two.
yea, the mother was the public defender for most if not all of the cases in a particular day, the daughter was the same, but just the prosecutor.
Yes , Steve mentioned that there we're many cases conducted under this mommy/baby girl conflict
500
Seems like that was a bug reason why they didn't want this decision to be made. Since there is now this ruling, every other case with this mother daughter combo will be able to be challenged. It will be interesting to see how many cases get brought back up.
@@xbrandon502x hopefully ALL of them!
Holy Smokes there's a judge that should be disbarred as well. How can the judge defend their action? This is a disgrace to the entire judicial system. Lost trust of the public is the only result of this entire debacle.
The judge, prosecutor and defense attorney should be sanctioned and disbarred.
The judge 'didn't see' a conflict because they were getting people to plead guilty, which makes every case much easier and more convenient to the judge.
Disbar the judge, the public defender and the prosecutor. The fact that the court and the prosecutor decided this was the hill they wanted to die on says a lot about their dedication to due process.
Court clerks, bailiff, DA,ADA….a whole list of people who know better.
If this is all it would take to disbar them, there would be 0 judges/lawyers practicing.
its reallllllllly hard for a judge to get in trouble for anything
They ALL SHOULD LOOSE THEIR LICENSE TO PRACTICE LAW. They took away his right to earn a living. THEY SHOULD LOOSE THEIR RIGHT TO LOOSE A LIVING...
If I had to guess, I'd say they were all in on it... No one would turn down that free money.
I actually put this on the judge.
The County judge where I live, is actually a distant cousin. My great-grandmother and his great- grandfather were siblings. However, being from a small town, even though we're distant cousins everybody knows everybody else.When my sister got in trouble, he recused himself from the case because it could have been seen as a conflict of interest.
That is a great example of "the appearance of impropriety" good job to that judge.
This reminds me of a similar situation - someone is convicted of a crime, he is later exonerated and the conviction is overturned, yet the prosecutor openly declares "he's still guilty".
This often happens where the group (sorry I don't recall their name) later looks at cases and discover the whole court action was designed to railroad the defendant, many of which turn on DNA evidence proving the guy couldn't have done the crime. It's sickening to see how the prosecutor, or crooked cop, or whoever, gets by with such and nothing is ever done to them.
Pretty sure thats The Innocence Project
That's the "justice" system in America, which has by far the highest incarceration rate per capita of any country in the world, most of which is people convicted of penny-ante "drug crimes". America's obsession with the so-called War on Drugs is stupid on too many points to go into here. No, I don't and never have done drugs, and I don't personally know anybody who has been arrested or jailed for it.
@@negate3 Yes, that's it. I had simply forgotten the name, thanks for the reminder.
@@coop5329 Yet another result - or as some would say benefit - of Saint Ronnie's war on ordinary Americans.
There's a whole John Oliver episode 80% on this subject but on the larger subject of appeals. Features prosecutors doing this exact thing to a death row detainee days away from execution in Texas, and I believe an Oklahoma prosecutor arguing before the State Supreme Court on Camera that it would be better to knowingly imprison innocent people by denying thier appeal when there is overwhelming evidence of innocence, because of not filing an appeal within a set time frame, because "It would risk the finality of criminal convictions."
I feel like when the appeals court reverses a lower court's decision, you should be allowed to have a new judge assigned considering you've just proven the judge in your case either doesn't understand the law or doesn't care what it says.
@@MadeInMichigan I wouldn't. Why? Because the fact is that in many cases the law is vague and the arguments the judge made could be considered valid from a certain PoV.
@@christopherkidwell9817 Your response could have just as easily been "Only Sith's deal in absolutes".
@@Craig_Narramoore There was no conflict of interest, from a certain point of view. (Or should I say, "I feel the conflict within you. You know it to be true. Give in to the prosecutor, and together we will rule the trial district!")
@@Craig_Narramoore
Your trite dismissal notwithstanding, I agree with Christopher Kidwell. The mere fact that a judge's decision was overturned on appeal does not, on its own mean that the judge acted in bad faith. The case presented here is an extreme one. We know why the judge didn't tell the defendant about the (potential) conflict. Because the defendant would request a new attorney -- as was his right. If all situations were so cut-and-dried, we wouldn't need judges. So I wouldn't automatically fire the judge. However, I would send the case to a new judge, just in case hurt feelings cloud the first judge's judgement.
@@MadeInMichigan Nah, it's not always the judge's fault. If evidence comes forward later that the prosecution had exculpatory evidence they withheld, that's grounds for a solid appeal, but the judge didn't necessarily have any idea.
Lmao, “no significant risk” 😂😂😂 the mom is a public defender and doesn’t care if she wins or loses, the daughter would like to pad her prosecution record, HOW IS THAT NOT A RISK OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST! It doesn’t matter whether it was or was not in reality, at the very least the appearance that it could be should give him the right to a new trial, regardless of evidence.
You are absolutely correct. This is the same principle reflected in law which uncle Tom-ass broke.
Judge meant that it was no significant risk to him. Turn out he was wrong.
That was my same thought. Being a layperson and having only a vague understanding of the law, it would appear as though public defenders are not held as accountable for their success at protecting their client as a prosecutor would be. A great point that Steve brought up was if disclosing the relationship would have had no bearing on what plea the defendant pled, why bother to conceal the relationship?
@@MrTechKey Just a note here. Understanding LAW is, usually, not the problem. Understanding PROCESS is what hangs up the vast majority of people who try to represent themselves or understand a trial. Laws are usually pretty straightforward. Process is so convoluted and confusing it should be a crime.
@@neal9692 the worse part is. The "process" is designed to pervert accountibilty. It takes more money than most citizens have.
Our rulers have become corrupt. The 2nd admendment needs reconsidered in this country.
Blood quenches corruption. The justice system acting like a gang. Lying and protecting each other....corruption in every county in our Nation!
True story. Years ago, one of my former partners got called for jury duty, got assigned to a panel of prospective jurors and went into the courtroom only to see another lawyer from our firm sitting at counsel table getting ready to try the case. When the judge asked the routine question, "Do any of you know any of the parties or lawyers?" he raised his hand and said, "Well, Mr. so-and-so over there is one of my law partners." When everyone, including the judge, stopped laughing, the judge said, "OK, you're excused."
My mother-in-law had two brothers in senior positions with the police department. She never served on a jury.
Amazing that not having a related juror is more important than related attorneys in a case.
That would be pretty funny, and I imagine the odds are pretty slim of that actually happening, though I imagine that when it does it's the easiest, most certain way to get out of jury duty ever.
@@randallkelley3600 I was called for jury duty in Kansas. There was a married couple, both had been summon. Both were chosen for the jury. The Judge, prosecutor and defense accepted their word they would not discuss the case between them. Yeah, right!
i was called into jury service about a year ago, my partner was the defending lawyer, when the question was asked if anyone on the jury knows anyone, i put my had up, the judge asked me how i know them, i said i sleep with her every night..... got a few laughs from that one, and got out of jury duty, was looking forward to it as well. oh well hopefully next time my partner isn't involved.....
Judge (from the case in Steve's video): _Do any of you know any of the parties at those tables?_
*Prospective juror raises hand*
Judge: _Yes, juror number 23?_
Juror number 23: _Yeah, the prosecutor is my sister and the public defender is my mom._
Judge: _You'll do._
Juror number 23: _Daaaaaaad. I had things to do today. Can't I be excused?_
Judge: _No son. We all have to do our civic duty from time to time._
Makes sense they fought this so hard, you said they did this all the time, this means because of this you can bet there will be a lot more of these cases. it's like opening pandora's box.
The attorneys need an ethics class and an exam to show their competence. Clear violation.
Monthly.
These judges need an ethics class.
The judge ought to have to attend that same same class.
They need to be disbarred.
True, however some people can be standing outside in the rain, and claim it is not raining!
Yet another case of Judges and Attorneys covering for each other when they break the law but don't consider it a "big deal".
No law was broken! A “possible” conflict of interest was not disclosed. It is an ethics violation not a criminal violation.
Laws are only a big deal when YOU break them. Don't you know that?
@@gordonwaite2 I'm pretty sure the law has something to say about conflicts of interest, no? Defender and attorney being related IS a conflict of interest, not just a possible one....
@@gordonwaite2, the attorneys are required, by law, to act in their clients' best interests. Failure to disclose this relationship is a breach.
@@---cr8nw They are not required “by law…” they are required by rules! They can not be prosecuted and imprisoned for a violation of the rules that lawyers must follow. By law though they can be punished by sanction, suspension or revocation of their license for violating the rules. There is a difference. She did not break a law!
Hang on, did they let the judge *who knew about the relationship* decide whether or not it was a conflict of interest? Holy crap! That's a conflict of interest in itself! If he finds it was a conflict of interest, he is admitting he messed up, so of course he would say it's not a conflict of interest!
The judge, prosecutor, and defense lawyer all need to be dis-barred. They knowingly broke the rules and continue to do so repeatedly. This would be organized criminal activity.
How many other cases did these three influence, how many times did the mother win or was they all plea deals ?
Blatant corruption
I'm half way into this video and it really seems like the judge is dumb for letting this "mother daughter team" operate like that in so many cases. Ridiculous.
That the judge cites, mom didn't file any evidence of her clients innocence sort of PROVES there was a conflict.
Dumb or crooked.
I'm going with crookec
It proves the judge is corrupt!
When the judge learned of the relationship, he should have been asking them to provide documentation for the court's record that the defendant was notified of the conflict and still wants to retain the mother as council.
1. Win or loose public defender gets paid, loose or make deal makes prosecutor look good. 2. Prosecutor wins looks good to their boss = promotion. 3. Judge didn't want to grant the request/ appeal because that would open it up to everyone that was in this situation( mother, daughter) getting their deal or conviction tossed.
Prosecutors move up the hierarchy by 'winning' cases, thus reducing their work load, backlog. A Mother helping her child to succeed would be the obvious outcome.
The problem is that the court also has a conflict of interest : they all knew , they don’t want to look bad , and they don’t want the multitude of cases where they did the same to be reversed. The fact that it was a plead deal is particularly damaging. You say you are. Innocent and your counsel tells you it does not matter, terrible things will happen to you if you don’t plead and he does.
This type of conflicts and impropriety exists in so many case's but it's rare that any defendants have the financial wherewithal to bring light to this kind of corruption. Kudos to this defendant.
Its not bad enough they let and tried to cover up the conflict during this trial, but all the other trials the two family members were involved with are also reversible. Both attorneys need to be disbarred as well as the Judge.
Wonder how the judge who said "no problem" would have felt if one of the appeal judges was the defendant's father?
Or acrimonious ex.
Judge is boning one of them
@@deusvult6920 or both
I wonder how the judge would've felt if one of the defendants was his son? (Not that a judge's son would ever go to trial or use a public defender.) I wonder if he would SEE the conflict of interest there. Would he recuse himself? And if so, would he take any issues with the conflict of interest between the prosecutor and his son's counsel?
This definitely beats the time when my mother went down for jury duty and during voir dire she had to reveal that the prosecutor was one of her boy scouts when he was a kid. This got a chuckle from the entire courtroom.
I'm guessing the judge was the grandmother the way they tried to dismiss this
I knew a city that husband was prosecutor and wife was public defender. They used different names and most did not know of their marriage. Seems like funny business to me.
Funny as in sitcom situational comedy funny or funny as in suspicious?
Funny like a clown??
In all seriousness, it all might have very well been above board, but the appearance alone is such a major conflict of interest, one of them should be required to leave their position
@@Strideo1 fun·ny busi·ness
/ˈfənē ˌbiznis/
Learn to pronounce
noun
deceptive, disobedient, or lecherous behavior.
"they sent a big strong farmer's lad to make sure there was no funny business"
Judge knew
it seems to me that the reason his motion was denied three times was because they knew that if they granted it they would have every single other person they did this to (Sounds Like Alot BTW) back in court for the same reason.
My buddy went through a divorce in Michigan. The attorney representing his wife was formerly a partner of the judge who was assigned to the case. Needless to say he got screwed over so many times and in so many ways it was hard to believe. Of course a number of years had passed so apparently the statute of limitations magically removed any conflict of interest.
One would assume that a judge would know the difference between belief and facts, and the possible appearance of a conflict of interest, but we all know what it means to assume.
Good grief.
I hope they discipline that judge. Its hard to imagine the judge let this go by accident. I would imagine they thought it would make those hearings run smoother since the relationship between the mother and daughter would likely be the priority of the mother over the best interests of her clients. The fact that they didn't tell any of the clients is a profound indication that they new it was a problem.
A complete new meaning to the term "family court"
The prosecutor hired the daughter early in 2019. She was appointed opposite her mother in more than 200 cases by more than one judge in the circuit. This conflict was brought up in a Motion to Dismiss in a different case than the instant case in July of 2019. The Motion to Dismiss was not granted (no surprise there) but by Sept the daughter was now working in another county. An ARDC complaint was filed against the prosecutor by the Defendant. The prosecutor's response in defense of his actions was to claim that upon the hiring of the daughter, he had reached an "accord" with the judiciary in that a conflict of interest did/could not exist moving forward (right?). This put the judges in an interesting, albeit untenable, position. They can either hang the prosecutor out to dry or continue to claim ignorance of the law....they unfortunately chose the politically correct route. This explains why the State dug in so hard for so long on this issue. Thank you for bringing this out in the open.
As a former resident of Illinois, nothing about this surprises me. NOTHING.
I would assume the judge didn't say anything because the mother-daughter pair moved cases quickly, thus clearing the court docket.
but then I'm not a lawyer thus have no idea what I'm talking about...
"[B]ut then I'm not a lawyer thus have no idea what I'm talking about..." Don't worry, you're still eligible to be a judge or perhaps, in the right court, an expert witness. There's always hope.
Sounds good to me, but I don't have any idea what I'm talking about either.
Or they had limited options in a smaller court, and it was too inconvenient to keep them on separate cases every time.
@@Br3ttM Which is fine. If they disclose it. And the person can pick someone else.
@@Br3ttM if thats the case, one of them needs to find a new court to work in
I had a state appointed attorney about 50 years ago, was found guilty, and watch the judge and this (fairly hot) public defender walk out of the courthouse arm in arm.
Sure
@@celticlord88 I didn't mean you. I'll take a screenshot next time.
My exGF had a situation where her judge in her divorce was the fishing buddy of her husband. He refused to recuse himself from the case.
My sister's ex mother in law worked for the friend of the court. Sis got the shaft until the kids were grown.
@@briangarrow448 This happens all the time.
If I’m ever prosecuted I sincerely hope the prosecutor’s, and judges see no conflict of interest if my mommy sits on the jury. My mommy has punished me plenty of times in the past so this should be safe.
The mother / daughter attorneys should be disbarred and fired. The judge should be too.
There’s probably some way to check the court records - how many cases did the mother-daughter pair work?
Public record
All of those cases need a do-over.
@@christopherg2347, there's no such thing as a do-over on a conviction. "...nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;" Double jeopardy. Each of these cases should be eligible for appeal, at which point the appeals court should determine that the the client's attorney committed legal malpractice. The convictions should all be vacated. It stinks because there are certainly some guilty people who would be made free, but that's why it's so important to do the right thing the first time through.
@@---cr8nw what about the ones who already finished their punishment?
I hope they bury these three in lawsuits for the rest of eternity.
@@cleverusernamenexttime2779, the convictions would still need to be vacated so that these people don't have that offense on the criminal record. It changes things for job opportunities and for gun ownership and for anything else that a previous conviction might affect. But no, there's no way to get months or years of your life back. You can sue for damages, which could be substantial.
Relatives shouldn't even be working in same court. I like how Japan handles a lot these issues, prosecutors and judges move every few years to a new jurisdiction.
You don't want to be subjected to the Japanese legal system. Atrocious
@@aitorbleda8267 It's strict, but that was not the point being made. The point made was the ensurance of fairness in court not about the beliefs about the laws.
@@matko000 They are almost always decided before going to trial. They have a 99% conviction rate.
@@viscountalpha but they also cannot lie to you at all. So they do things better in some aspects. Their 99% conviction rate has nothing to do with them doing certain things better. We should take all the good and not the bad
On the other hand, Japan has an obscenely high conviction rate which either means that the police are very good at arresting only guilty people or they have a problem of innocent people being convicted at a rate far higher than America.
As I understand, Japanese police are allowed to Badger you into confessing because there's this long-held belief that no matter what they do to you an innocent person would never admit to something they didn't do.
Then again here in America the police go so far as to fabricate fake DNA test results and submit them to the courts so I'm not really sure which is worse. I think I'd rather be badgered for a few weeks while I maintain my innocence then have someone Photoshop evidence to be used against me in court.
Love your question "Why didn't you tell him then? ". They never have an answer for it.
You can see from the extremes that a rational client informed of the Conflict would NOT waive it.
1. Mother and daughter hate each other and have not spoken for 20 years.
Defendant should be worried that the prosecutor might not offer a plea deal or only offer a crap plea deal because she hates your lawyer.
2. Mother and daughter love each other .
Defendant should be worried that his lawyer will consider prosecutor's opening offer perfect and not push back on it. Defendant's lawyer may want case to settle to make her daughter look good or to ease her workload .
The sentencing range for an offence is just that. Always a range. What ever sentence was imposed you could ask 'is it possible a different defendant could have got a slightly more lenient sentence ( smaller fine, shorter bond, 1 month less incarceration) ? ' the answer will almost always be yes.
I would be very interested to find out the percentage of the mother-daughter court cases that a plea deal was done. I'm willing to bet all of them were plea deals.
Plea deals are the most common way cases are settled, doesn’t matter who the parties attorneys are. Very few cases go to trial, our system couldn’t handle that many trials, it can barely handle the ones they have.
@@cdrone4066you missed the point
I expect the guy's lawyer to ask for a new judge before a new trial.
And now there will be multitudes of people coming forward asking for their convictions be overturned because of that conflict. And every one will be asking for a different judge to hear their case. Because of the number and the delays, I suspect most will end up being dropped.
My time in court, public defender is not looking out for the client. They just want the fastest way to close the case.
Exactly. I was in court and watched a public defender file a motion to arrest his client when he didn't show up to court. Even if you get a PD who wants to do a good job the courts load them down with cases so they literally have no time to adequately defend someone. The entire system is geared to blackmail guilty pleas. If they outlawed guilty pleas the system would break down in six months.
@@tomjackson4374 :
I wouldn't give it six weeks before the meltdown.
It's rarely the public defender's fault. They are forced to negotiate plea deals bc if everyone who was arrested demands a trial, the courts would be over loaded. Due to this 90% of cases are plead out. Public defenders themselves are likewise overburdened and aren't given the resources required for dealing with such high case loads.
Once upon a time I used to live in Michigan, I lived there for one year. Due to the ethical standard of The Honorable Steve Lehto, I am deeply considering moving to Michigan again! There is NO error in saying that the Judge knew the relationship, they often work with the same set of persecutors and public defenders in the courthouse. So they know who they are and if they relate. But, in this case it looks like there was assignment, court process, sentencing, appeal, and conclusion, so it's beyond a safe assumption from the viewers perspective that the Judge knew the relationship. And, mother and daughter knew their relationship, there is not dispute there!
Frighteningly hundreds of cases were adjudicated in that court with that same mother and daughter.
It appears to me that the Judge has been doing this for a long time and doesn’t want to admit this problem.
Wanna bet the judge was boinking them both?
Could they [Judge & both attorneys] be trying [conspiring] to expedite cases???
...
Yes, what's troubling is that Judge & 2 attorneys saw nothing wrong with this!
The dumbing down of society goes all the way through said society, I guess.
This is the reason why you *NEVER NEVER EVER* take a plea deal if you are innocent. I cannot think of any world where pleading guilty is OK when you are not.
I can. You are a male in the United States. A random female you have never met accuses you of fondling her. If you plead, you could get out in 5. If you contest it, you will be found guilty and be sentenced to 20 years.
Judges who make obvious wrong decisions should be removed and prosecuted.
I sure as heck would want to know of a familial relationship going into it. Any judge that thinks the lack of foreclosure was acceptible should be sanctioned as should be attorneys involved...
@B uppy :
"Disclosure" NOT "Foreclosure".
Every case they were opposing each other needs to be retried or overturned. I wonder if the judge is the prosecutor's father figure.
I love the class this comment conveys... I on the other hand am a distasteful scumbag you are questioning weather the judge is boning the defense attorney (mother of the prosecutor)
And the 'judge' Knew this was a conflict Up Front !! He needs to be sanctioned !!
"We have investigated ourselves and determined we have done nothing wrong." Seems to apply here.
What a disgusting abuse of the court/power.
You're spot on that it's the mere PERCEPTION of a conflict of interest that creates problems and distrust.
I would assume that the trial court did not let the defendant get to change his plea and it might open the door for many other convicted people to appeal their cast. This would look very bad for the court.
Would like to know how many of the OTHER mother/daughter trials were not notified of this.
Imagine a prosecutor prosecuting her own daughter in a criminal proceeding. The District Attirney would assume a conflict of interest and would never allow it.
@Kurt Bromschwig:
Unless, of course, the same person is "wearing both hats"!
Just wanted to say love your videos, it's a fantastic way to become familiar with established rulings and new ones. Thanks for all your work
prosecuter, defensce attorney and judge should all be disbarred
The real question is how many times has this mother and daughter done this? In how many other cases? God bless
Anyone who has ever had a "Public Pretender" knows they pretend to have their clients best interests in mind as long as they don't actually have to do much work.
My experience was worse than that.
Mine literally worked against me.
He left the courtroom while prosecutor & judge entered witness written statement as evidence that should have been argued as hearsay because the witness was not present during alleged battery.
Without that statement they lacked probable cause.
I knew something was fishy , but didn't know til I looked it all up later.
I ended up getting it dismissed when I showed my attorney multiple lies the cop made on arrest reports- LIKE HE LEFT OUT THE PARt WHERE THE OTHER PERSON ADMITTED TO STARTING THE FIGHT!!!
public defenders are sh!t
Our courts are a joke.
Steve's statement on how defenders obligation to their defendent not who pays them is naive & ridiculous (not to mention. Lacking substance for an argument)
_"Your honor, we reached a settlement for XYZ, by the way how's mom?"_ 😹
I had to fire the public defender in the courtroom once because when the visiting judge from another city gave me a fine the public defender actually argued that the sentence was too lenient. The attorney still works in that same city, but he’s the prosecutor now. In many small towns like mine, the entire system has been corrupted from top to bottom.
You said there were multiple times where this mother-daughter pair was dealing with cases in court, so does that mean any other convictions resulting from that would now have to be reversed automatically as well? Or do the convicted people in these cases need to be lucky enough to hear about this and file the necessary motions with the court on an individual basis? Also, should/would failure to disclose this conflict of interest to defendants over multiple cases count as sufficiently unethical behaviour to justify penalizing the public defender - up to and including disbarment?
Let's say for the sake of argument, that in fact the mother and daughter hated each other. That doesn't mean that the defense counsel will act in the best interest of her client.
For example, the counsel could hate her mother so much she is willing to destroy or fabricate evidence, act out improperly in court (ex: yelling at each other), or even just not show up at all.
Yes! Also, it could lead the prosecutor to be inappropriate as well and try everything to get a guilty verdict, even if it mean falsifying evidence and stuff
and the defense attorney can stall the proceedings to stall the daughters career, undermining the right of a quick and fair trial.
Never had a public defender, but I got a pro-bono attorney once, and in less than an hour she straightened out some bullshit that I'd been spending close to year on.
My grandfather was the defense attorney where it turned out there was a relationship between two people involved in the case. It was some fairly big trial in the 1940's in Vandalia, IL where my grandfather lived (southern Illinois) and the town folk in the court room knew him. The prosecutor was a big shot from Cook County (Chicago area and not liked by those in southern Illinois). One member of the jury pool was my father, the defense attorney's son-in-law. And the town folk knew him, too. So, the prosecutor starts asking him questions. "Do you know the defendant?' "No sir." And there was a little tittering from the public. "Do you know any of the witnesses?" "No sir." And a little bit louder laughter. The prosecutor asked the similar question if he knew this or that person and each time it was "No sir" and louder and louder laughter. Finally, the prosecutor asked, "Do you know anyone in this courtroom?" "Yes sir." "Who do you know?" "The defense attorney, he's my father-in-law." The prosecutor screamed "GET OUT OF HERE !!!" and the courtroom exploded in laughter. The prosecutor's error was not having his first question as something like "Do you know anyone involved in the case?"
Shouldn't the judge have realized the conflict of interest immediately, and taken action? Surely judges have some knowledge of the lawyers regularly appearing before them. Also, is such failure to disclose by the two attorneys (who MUST have recognized each other) grounds to take away their Shakespeare?
They knew what they did
@@BozesanVlad "The law applies to YOU, not MEEEEE!!"
most judges are attorneys who have failed in private practice, and became judges, because they needed a job, in order to pay the rent/mortgage, and feed themselves
Judge was probably an in-law.
It sounds like he did know, but felt like the mother and daughter worked well against each other. That doesn’t seem like it’s his choice to make though
When I went to jury duty we were asked if we knew anyone in the court room, and if so, how. This relation should have been revealed. Even mother/daughter who hate each other should still be revealed as that situation could affect their performance or choices during the court proceeding.
They ALL NEED TO BE REPORTED TO THE STATE BAR ASSN.
If the father/husband only owned the private prison where the people are incarcerated it would have completed the whole circle. So sad the family is making money only in two end of the case
Well....if it's a gov facility , the judge, defense attorney, and prosecutor all get paid by/ work for the same entity as the jail/ prison
It's OK they're over crowded. They'll build another one and or early release some violent criminals in your neighborhood, who got more violent from their stay btw.
British, esquire ~ agent of the Crown
Aristocracy, 'Ruled by the best' Blk's L. 11th
Registry A gov building for weddings, deeds, B&D records.
a syndicate of professional sophistry, creating edited accounts of official records ~ Transcripts are a tool of obfuscation. A way for the BAR to avoid account.
all cases involving the mother, daughter or any judge related to their cases must be reviewed again for other types conflicts.
SMH They wonder why we have no faith in our justice system 😢
I worked for a company that was sued in court by a driver's family for a car wreck where the driver was drunk and ran I to our vehicle. It was plainly obvious the two attorneys and the judge knew what the outcome of the trial was going to be. The judge even admonished the company owner for trying to fight the $1M lawsuit by the widow. After hiring a private detective the company owner found that both attorneys worked for the same insurance company. It turned out the deceased worked and attended a company party at cart dealer that was insured by the same insurance company but for $10M. They had both worked with the judge to allow the lawsuit for a $1M so they wouldn't put the $10M policy on the line.
So, what happens with the rest of the cases where this mother/daughter combo have faced off?
A new meaning to always having clean briefs.....
👌🏾 Excellent video. Very good point made. I totally agree. I do feel that the judge and the prosecuting attorney cases need to be to looked into.
AHHH, the legal profession. A game the whole family can play.
Imagine if gov nepotism was fully exposed
If I am ever in his shoes and I was informed I would say 'YOU'RE DAMN RIGHT I'M NOT COMFORTABLE!'
Thank you for sharing this information with us
I really like the way you break these things down..., thanks and keep up the good work.
I would love for this case to make it all the way to the Supreme Court just to see what Clarence Thomas would say about this
If a lib, guilty as charge, if a GOP, innocent all the way.
Snap!
God, what a bunch of petty, bitter, libs you girls must be.
How in the heck does ANY court, judge, attorneys involved not reveal that information to the defendant and let the defendant decide? The judge and attorneys involved may be highly trustworthy but ya gotta reveal something like that! Sounds like grounds for appeal on all the other cases they were involved in. Granted a relationship between the prosecutor and defense could go either way. A prosecutor could go easy on the defendant or the defense lawyer could give the prosecutor an easy win. regardless, it should be disclosed.
what irks me isn't so much that the trial judge got it wrong as it will usually get worked out on appeal... its how often prosecutors won't back down when something was clearly wrong, unfair, unethical, ect.
So many of them seem to not only not give the benefit of the doubt when it's a close call, they won't even back down when it's obvious there is a problem with the case. They have unlimited budgets and resources to assist them and the deck is already stacked against a defendant without adding things like this into the mix.
Both parties must be informed!
The FIX is in!!!!
The original trial judge is a clown. He basically says in his ruling "yeah, you're right, the rules say that this shouldn't be allowed because it could be an issue, but I have decided that it isn't an issue, so the rule doesn't cover this, even though it directly does."
"Pleading guilty is good, I know the prosecutor really well."
That both of these women work for the same county judicial system is dubious enough.
Outrageous that he doesn't get a new judge. The judge has an interest in saving face now for his evident error in judgement. A conflict of interest now exists with this judge. And really if he's failing such a simple concept as 'conflict of interest' can he really be trusted to decide on complex issues.
Ben is on the Turbine Car
And what happens when the appointed or the prosecuting lawyer is the Judge's biological son ??
either judge recuse himself, or order a change of attorneys
@@roy19491 we wish. We have had this situation for since time now and there is no recall vote here. Soon. Very soon.
People that it effects don't have the$$ to fight it. They play in civil court not criminal.
The judge would have to recuse himself. Courts have other judges that can hear cases.
@@alanmcentee9457 that would be the ethical thing to do...doesn't always happen.
@@tomw8647 If a judge has an obvious ethical conflict the repercussions would be worse than what happened here. That would usually end up in a suspension if not an outright dismissal from the bench.
While lawyers are held to a higher standard, judges are held to an even higher standard.
I went through that on jury duty. A smart lawyer when picking the jury asked if any pospective jurers knew one another, worked together mainly to ask if anyone's boss was there, or were related to one another. He said once he had a jury where a guy and his mother in law were on the same jury. That must have been a fun trial.
The one time I got called, it was directly mother/daughter. Both were excused.
Yeah. This is cut and dried conflict of interest. The judge is also complicit in allowing this to happen. Throw the book at all of three of them.
The legal system in this country has gone to Hell....
Actually, there seem to be no ethics anymore! Look at our legislators and Supreme Court. It's appalling!!!
100%
Public defenders are notorious for NOT defending their clients!