JAMES L. HANKINS
(Oklahoma City), Supreme Court cert. grant/vacate/remand in light of Booker on sentencing issue. The Tenth Circuit decided the case prior to Blakely. I raised the Blakely issue on cert., even before Booker came out, but the case was still on "direct review" since the last step in that process is the cert. petition to the Supreme Court. As many cert. petitions as I have filed up there, it's startling that the Court actually granted one, even if it's just a G/V/R!
06.27.05 RON JONES, JAMES L. HANKINS, BOBBY FAULK, laced them up in Enid on Monday, June 27, 2005, before a solid Garfield County jury. Client accused of two counts of Lewd Mol. against two separate complaining witnesses. Motion to Sever. Judge Ron Franklin thought that maybe allowing the State to present both counts in one trial would be unduly prejudicial, so Motion to Sever--Granted. No physical evidence, client denied allegations when questioned by the cops, so case boiled down to the credibility of complaining witness and application of reasonable doubt. Solid cross by Ron created the reasonable doubt in my opinion. This is the second case of this type I have tried with Ron and both have had positive results which I attribute to the cross of the complainant, primarily exposing the prior inconsistent statements and other inconsistencies in the case. For example, in this case, the complainant insisted that the molestation occurred during the time that a specific "sex show" was on television between 8:30 and 9:00 p.m. But, the cable company confirmed that this particular show aired on the date in question at 11:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. I have also noticed that during the sometimes tedious questioning of the complainant on the prior inconsistent statements there seems to be an initial feeling of discomfort among the jury when the complainant (twelve at the time of the alleged incidents; fifteen at time of trial) is quizzed over sexually explicit statements and conduct; but there comes a point when the discomfort gives way to skepticism as the inconsistencies are exposed and doubt begins to creep in. Client had seven priors (none sex offense related) and did not take the stand. Good old-fashioned lawyering in front of a fair judge and educated, thoughtful jury. Client still faces second charge and that appears to be headed for jury trial as well. But, overall banner week in Garfield County.
06.30.05 (Oklahoma City) Won a contested Application to Accelerate in Garfield county on Thursday, June 30, 2005. Client was on two five-year deferreds on drug offenses which carry from 4-life. Client in serious jeopardy because judge in the case is known for telling defendants that they will "do it all in or all out" and he means it. Consecutive life sentences were a distinct possibility here. The probation violations stemmed from a new case alleging 1) Burg. I, 2) Child Stealing, 3) Felon in possession of firearm, and 4) A&B w/Dangerous (a shovel). State's evidence was just so weak and contradictory and we spent the morning on the State's case and had eight more defense witnesses lined up for the afternoon. Never made that far, though, as the Defendant's demurrer was SUSTAINED. The new charges are still pending and those appear definitely headed for jury trial as well. I plan to file a motion to dismiss before the special judge raising collateral estoppel, double jeopardy, and law of the case and will let you know how that goes.
07.13.05 (Oklahoma City) for saving 19-year-old Dority from a 50-year sentence in the Dority case above. This is one of those cases that you know should be won, but have to sweat it out until it finally is.
08.15.05 OCDW/ JOSH WELCH & JAMES HANKINS, Oklahoma City, got some love in Pittsburg County on some motion practice, including a motion to suppress a written confession in a lewd acts case. I drafted the motions and Josh argued them and conducted the Jackson v. Denno hearing that resulted in the suppression (two separate contacts with client by cops, no Miranda the second time and officer's credibility shaky because of some discrepancies in the written reports and the times indicated). Josh reported that Judge Bartheld runs a tight ship but was receptive to defense arguments and ordered relief stringently when necessary by, for example, directing the State to produce DHS records by noon the next day for defense inspection (and lo and behold, there were two reports of the complaining witnesses actually admitting to lying about being molested by another person(!) Looks like a possible shot at a bona fide fair trial a week from Monday.
|