Saturday, April 28, 2007

This week's Cases to Watch

TS - Contested interview halts molest prelim
ER - Toomey hearing interrupted
"Jacob Charles Toomey, 28, was arrested earlier this month and has been charged with a count of lewd and lascivious acts with a child under 14 and two counts of lewd and lascivious acts with a child 14 or 15 with the suspect being more than 10 years older." ER At issue, "an April 11 recorded interview of Toomey by Humboldt County Sheriff’s Detective Rich Schlesiger... (Humboldt County Chief Conflict Counsel Glenn) Brown, asked for the continuance because, Brown told Humboldt County Superior Judge W. Bruce Watson, he needed time to research a “messiah issue” — “that once a person has been appointed counsel, police may not interview” the defendant without his/her counsel present.

ER - Judge grants third continuance for felony assault case
Charged with "four felonies — false imprisonment/person used as a shield; false imprisonment; threatening crime with intent to terrorize; and assault with a deadly weapon or great bodily injury force with a kitchen knife — and the misdemeanor of resisting arrest or obstructing a public officer." Mark Christopher McClung, apparently considering whether to take an "unspecified plea offer or opt instead for a preliminary hearing... the first continuance was requested so that McClung’s Arcata-based attorney Russ Clanton could go over the offer further with his client." ER

Earlier information: Judge continues McClung hearing

...McClung could get up to two strikes if convicted, past reports indicate, making any future felony a third strike...

McClung is currently on a probation hold from a case that stems from a January 2003 case, in which he pleaded guilty to possessing chemicals to manufacture methamphetamine, as well as to a firearm enhancement.

With the probation penalty and fresh charges combined, McClung faces a maximum prison term of 17 years and eight months, past reports indicate...

“...We have begun a real thorough investigation and it’s put us in a position that we’ve been able to have some discussions with the District Attorney’s Office in regard to reaching an agreement in how we should proceed in this case,” (Russ) Clanton said. “There are many issues in regard to the factual aspects of this case..."

What will the deal be?


  1. How much time does it take to meet with the client and say the DA's office has offered XYZ deal, you can take it or not. Mr. Clanton should know if it's a good deal or not. A question? Who is paying Clanton? Is he just padding the bill? Not that a lawyer would do such a ting?!

  2. Clanton is best buddies with PVG and gets whatever he wants.

    It's Massiah, not messiah. Supreme court case that discusses when a defendant who has a lawyer on one crime can be questioned without a lawyer about a different crime. Tricky stuff. Brown is very slick on this kind of law, and it's questionable whether the
    DA's office still has the brains and guts to beat him on it.


Comments are open, but moderated, for the time-being. Good luck.