It seems that this morning at the Oklahoma County Courthouse, D.A. Wes Lane filed to have the jury pool dismissed for criminal cases. Brian Bates, a.k.a. the Video Vigilante, parked his van at the courthouse with an anti-Lane sign and began to hand out flyers campaigning to vote out Lane. Some of the potential jurors showed up inside the courthouse with the flyers and Lane said the jury pool had been tainted against his office. I'm not certain what the difference is between the jurors hearing Bates on the radio or television, visiting his website against Lane or being handed a flyer.

Wes Lane then went to the Presiding Judge Ray Elliott and asked he dismiss the jury pool. Judge Elliott turned him down. Probably because rather than make such a sweeping and extremely costly move like dismissing the jury pool, then summoning all new jurors, and holding up all the criminal cases for weeks --- all at taxpayers' expense --- the D.A.'s office could simply ask jurors if they were affected by the flyer during voir doir. I was told that Lane is now taking this to the Court of Criminal Appeals and asking the jury pool be dismissed. I can't imagine the state's appellate judges will grant his request.

In the meantime, for today, the jurors were sent home. A prosecuting assistant D.A. was seen picking up the flyers with gloves in the jury pool room. This tells me they are collecting evidence to file some sort of case.

Is it just me or are we watching our tax dollars being wasted by the D.A. choosing to do this rather than just asking jurors questions during voir doir? Is the D.A.'s office doing this to get attention during an election year? Was Bates clearly within his constitutional rights to be there? If so, what sort of case could be filed against him that wouldn't be a complete waste of money? Was anyone down there this morning who saw all of this as it was happening?

KFOR was there, apparently. I'm going to watch the news at noon.

Absolutely Bates was within his rights to be there. The reaction from Lane is what should raise eyebrows. As many of you know from other threads, I don't trust Lane as far as I can throw him. Corruption at the Oklahoma County Courthouse is a hidden shame that needs to be exposed. Needless to say, I'll be voting for former Assistant District Attorney David Prater in November.

-----------------

writerranger,

Sorry to say, I haven't read your posts about D.A. Lane. I'm embarrassed now to admit it to you, but I used to like Wes Lane and I voted for him. But since then, I've watched him twist off too many times and there have been too many bad choices at taxpayers' expense for me to support him any more.

I just checked the court dockets for Oklahoma County judges handling criminal cases and the cases are all marked "Jury Issues."

I feel bad for the folks who actually take their civic duties to serve as jurors seriously. I'm sure a lot of them had to take off from work, pay babysitters for their kids and re-arrange their schedules --- only to get caught up in this mess and be sent home. It's costly to serve as a juror. Your boss may not pay you while you serve. And you make $20 a day to be a juror.

Wes Lane should apologize to those jurors. It was very disrespectful to treat them this way. But he CHOSE to waste their time and our tax dollars rather than proceeding and handling any concerns with one simple question during individual voir doir in the cases. And I hope that's what the Court of Criminal Appeals tells him.

Lane may be looking at this:

Oklahoma Statutes Citationized
Title 21. Crimes and Punishments
Chapter 19
Section 545 - Threatening or Intimidating Judicial Officer, Juror, etc.-Penalty
Cite as: O.S. §, __ __


Every person who, directly or indirectly, utters or addresses any threat or intimidation to any judicial or ministerial officer, to any juror, referee, arbitrator, umpire or assessor or other person authorized by law to hear or determine any controversy, with intent to induce him either to any act not authorized by law, or to omit or delay the performance of any duty imposed upon him by law, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

In reference to our friend's actions. I even think he might be able to make that case. I understand that one of Bate's defenses is that Lane's prosecution is simply harrassment. Contacting the jurors outside the court house to get that message across is potentially unlawful.

If I were in Lane's shoes, I might be doing the same thing.

we would all be better off if we never had to hear from Lane or his goofy mother in law again

I hate Wes lane, too, but the most important thing is that our juries are not in there making decisions and judgments based on their political opinions of the prosecutor. It is Wes Lane's obligation to the people to try and remove tainted jurors in the most efficient way possible. If, in fact, the man's actions targeted the jury pool and tainted their view of the prosecution in such a way that they may not be able to make a judgment regarding the facts of the case assigned to them, then they should be dismissed. The cheapest and most efficient way to do this is to dismiss the pool. The expensive way is to question each and every one of them on the matter. The most expensive way is to allowed tainted jurors on the jury, which could set up appeals based on those grounds.

It is also not the judge's duty to find the cheapest way to run his court, but to find the fairest way to run it and enforce the law. So, you see, it's not a ploy or political tactic, it's respect of the constitution and its intention of providing the people with a fair and impartial court. He made the complaint and the judge ruled against him. If he can appeal it, he will and should try. That's how it works.

Running our judicial system is not cheap and should not be compromised for cheapness. There is an obligation to speed, which may have been better served by the pool being dismissed, however, the judge did not see it as an issue. If a crack pot is trying to taint potential jurors, we have to deal with that issue. This is just a case of our courts doing just that.

I was just up at the court house. I happened to see Bates' truck. He has taken a UPS style delivery truck, and he has emblazoned a huge anti-Wes Lane poster on the side of it. He's driving that around the county court house.

The guy [Bates] is so over the top it's unreal.

My opinion in this thread is NOT based on reading linked or related posts in this thead. Not that they are unimportant, but I'm just making an "independent" post, regardless of what's been already said.

Somehow I've managed to (once again) venture into "my forbidden zone" (by my on foreboding, by reason of my own promises to myself to avoid such discussions) ... I like contermporary, past and yet-to be history ... which is "my place" to be. But, as I've said before, sometimes "recent thread" posts picque my curiostity/interest.

And, damit, here it I am, once again. I mean, I've previously expressed my opinions on lots of things political/social, and I do NOT want to haunt this area or similar ones just to repeat what I've said before.

But, damit, here I am. I'm doomed and wish I could restrict myself to contemporary/past/future history. But, on this one, I think that on this one, a contemporary and non-theeoretical issue, I feel that I must speak.

1) There is NO WAY that I would cast my vote for a religious-right district attorney candidate ... Wes Lane or any other. From Wes, and from his Mom, we get messages about family, pornography, and other things that have not registered in my mind as being significant enough to rememember.

2) I MIGHT vote for a hypocrite, everything else considered. Some of my best friends are hypocrites. Maybe I am, too. Why is Les a hypocrite? Consider his differentiation between the circumstances of his wife and every other "ordinary" resident of the county. Wes Lane has not shown himself to apply to the law in the same way to all who are accused. Hypocracy is not an unknown element in the county, or in Oklahoma, so this item (for me) is not outcome determinative. But, if the element is not "neutral", this element would be a strong factor for me in making my own decision. In my estimation, a public official in charge of determining what, if any, charges, should be file against it county's citizens, should use the same standards for all, the lowly, the closely-invovled, everyone. Maybe I've missed it, but I've yet to see an explanation of why Wes Lane treated his wife differntly than he did the the rest of the assused. That omission is not at all unimportant to me. Maybe that's OK to you, but it is not to me.

3) His mom's radio commercials which extoll the virtues of her Christian-religous-right prespectives are a humongeous turnoff to me. Now, I'm not one to do "guilt" by association, which, in this instance, would be to equate Wes Lane being one and the same as his mom ... but I have no reason to disbelieve that the association is invalid, and there is some reason to believe, that the mother/son commercials are hand-in-glove. And, how many of you change the radio station every time you hear one of his mom's sickenly sweet radio commercials begin? Maybe none of you, but I certainly do. If I never hear one of her radio commercials again it will be too soon.

I don't presently even remember the name of Wes Lane's opponent, but, but on election day, I will, and he/she will get my vote.

I don't presently even remember the name of Wes Lane's opponent, but, but on election day, I will, and he/she will get my vote.

David Prater

YWIA! :)

Midtowner, you were correct. According to the news, Wes Lane said Bates might have violated a state statute that prohibits the dissemination of any material that may improperly influence a juror.

And BDP, you make several good points that all point to the bottom line: Every citizen has the right to a fair trial and that right must be protected.

I doubt that Bates wasn’t trying to influence the jury pool. He was just out there doing what he has done several times before by being in front of the courthouse and handing out materials to people. Regardless of what anyone think of Bates, he does have that right to be there and to exercise his rights of free speech.

We don’t know if Bates knew that today began a jury trial session of the courts. I'm guessing that he hasn’t broken a law if he was not willfully or intentionally attempting to influence jurors specifically. After all, as jurors come into the courthouse to report for the first day of jury duty, one can’t tell a juror from an attorney or from someone who is visiting the courthouse for other reasons. At that point, jurors have not been given buttons to wear saying they are jurors or potential jurors.

The AP is reporting:

The Oklahoma County Sheriff's Office, which provides security for the courthouse, did not ask Bates to leave because he was not violating any laws, spokesman Mark Myers said. "This is America. You can stand on a streetcorner and preach if you want to," Myers said. "There were no laws being broken. He wasn't doing anything illegal."

Even the D.A.’s spokeswoman, Debra Forshee, didn’t say for certain that Bates was doing anything illegal:

“It's highly inappropriate if it's not against the law."

Lane said Bates is within his rights to hand out the information. However, Lane said, it is not Bates' right to taint potential jurors.

Judge Elliott told Lane he could ask the jurors about the flyers during individual voir doir and refused to permanently dismiss the jury pool.

Lane estimates that the courthouse shutdown will cost about $13,000. The Court of Criminal Appeals knows that. So I think the Court of Criminal Appeals will hand down a ruling by the end of the day or first thing tomorrow. Then, either way, the judicial process can get moving again.

The Oklahoma Gazette just posted a story on this. You can read it at:
http://www.okgazette.com/news/templates/webexclusive.asp?articleid=849&zoneid=24

Bates could hand these out in any public place, yet he chooses to do it in front of the courthouse as jurors are entering. He either intentionally did this or was too stupid to realize that he could be influencing juries. I have no problem with influencing voters in this way, but don't mess with someone's right to fair trial.

But wait.....it's an election year! How does either side do anything without potentially "tainting" the jury pool? For example, what if those same jury members heard a Wes Lane radio commercial as they left their cars heading into the courthouse? Is it any different? Maybe it is - I'm just saying that it being an election year and Wes Lane advocating his point-of-view to the entire city raises the same questions if one were to be technical with the reading of that law. Maybe I'm wrong, anything that has to do with Wes Lane prejudices me immediately. His work (or lack of) on many cases has been enough to show me he is part of the corruption well documented in Dallas papers - but unspoken in local media.

-----------------

David Prater

YWIA! :)
Well, then, David Prater will get my enthusiastic vote, even thouh I don't know him.

I'm interested in Oklahoma City History ... how in the world did I get sucked up into this political debate?

Doug Dawgz needs some potent "stay away from topics" meds! :boff:

But wait.....it's an election year! How does either side do anything without potentially "tainting" the jury pool? For example, what if those same jury members heard a Wes Lane radio commercial as they left their cars heading into the courthouse? Is it any different? Maybe it is - I'm just saying that it being an election year and Wes Lane advocating his point-of-view to the entire city raises the same questions if one were to be technical with the reading of that law. Maybe I'm wrong, anything that has to do with Wes Lane prejudices me immediately. His work (or lack of) on many cases has been enough to show me he is part of the corruption well documented in Dallas papers - but unspoken in local media.

-----------------

Considering that part of the jury selection was for the trial involving Brian Bates, I think we might have something actionable. It's a borderline case, but that's why those A.D.As make top dollar!

At any rate, you can count on there at least being an indictment for this, and rightfully so. If the Criminal Court of Appeals upholds Lane here, which I think there's a good chance of, Oklahoma County has just wasted $13,000 because bat-excrement Bates is pulling these ridiculous stunts.

By the way, the connection to the Prater campaign is tenuous at best. If a monkey were running against Lane, Bates would be supporting the monkey.

Midtowner,
WHAT trial involving Bates? I checked the court dockets at www.oscn.net and Bates doesn't have a trial pending right now. The D.A. dropped all the charges he had previously filed against Bates, although he will probably re-file at some time, according to the press. Still, there was NO TRIAL INVOLVING BATES THAT INVOLVED THE JURY POOL THIS WEEK.

Re: The rest of your post...LOL :tweeted:

Doug, your input is invaluable.. doesn't matter what topic you want to dissect... we need to hear from your MORE often!

Midtowner,
WHAT trial involving Bates? I checked the court dockets at www.oscn.net and Bates doesn't have a trial pending right now. The D.A. dropped all the charges he had previously filed against Bates, although he will probably re-file at some time, according to the press. Still, there was NO TRIAL INVOLVING BATES THAT INVOLVED THE JURY POOL THIS WEEK.

Re: The rest of your post...LOL :tweeted:

Quite right. Thanks for the fact check.

Here's the link:

http://www.oscn.net/applications/ocisweb/GetCaseInformation.asp?submitted=true&viewtype=caseGeneral&casemasterID=2054098&db=Oklahoma

Strangely, when newsok.com originally posted the story, they mentioned a pending case against Bates involving prostitution.

Now, their article doesn't mention it.

I doubt that Bates wasn’t trying to influence the jury pool. He was just out there doing what he has done several times before by being in front of the courthouse and handing out materials to people. Regardless of what anyone think of Bates, he does have that right to be there and to exercise his rights of free speech.

Right and it's just as important to protect his rights as well. I think we're looking at a confluence of rights that may interfere with each other and this is why I think the process and Wes Lane's actions, along with the cost, are justified. It's worth sorting out and using the legal procedure to do so.

The court simply has to evaluate whether what Bates was doing impedes the pool's ability to evaluate the facts presented in their case in a fair and impartial manner. Personally, I don't see how Bates's reported actions do that, but I also don't pretend to know all the facts regarding his protest. I think if he spoke to any aspect of any pending cases to which these jurors may be assigned, then he is trying to taint the pool. If he spoke to Lane's credibility or veracity in presenting facts in his cases, then he may be directly or inadvertently tainting the pool.

It's up to Wes Lane to show that tainting occurred. If he can justify excusing the pool, then it should be done. If it can be shown that the pool's capacity to evaluate evidence and testimony has not been effected, then the appeals court should uphold the initial ruling. Personally, I have faith, which may be naive, that most reasonable people can look past their political opinions or superficial opinions of the prosecution and objectively weigh the facts. Are you really going to vote Not Guilty just because you justifiably think the prosecution is a jack ass, even though the facts of the case show otherwise? However, I do think we can all agree that we don't want that to happen and that Lane's actions, within that context, are prudent.


it's an election year! How does either side do anything without potentially "tainting" the jury pool? For example, what if those same jury members heard a Wes Lane radio commercial as they left their cars heading into the courthouse? Is it any different?

Which is one reason many would like to remove the political nature of the DA's office (how? I have no idea). I think the bottom line there is that it is up to the DA's office to overcome political bias in presenting their cases and this is one of the reason's I hate Wes Lane. In my mind, he is as much a political activist as he is a prosecutor. Can someone be one and not the other? Maybe not, but he seems to be more aggressive in using his office to advance his ideology than prosecuting the law. In a way, he seems to be consistently trying to influence the jury pool with politics as well. Of course, it may just be that I don't agree with his ideology, but I think that job is more for the legislature than the DA.

But again, even with my distaste for Wes Lane and his office, I can honestly say that it would not be a factor for me in ruling on the facts as a juror. The question is, can that pool of jurors do the same thing after Bates's actions? In the end, I think Lane has plenty of opportunity to find that out during voir dire and I think that's what will eventually happen. But, I don't have any problem with spending a few thousand dollars to make sure.

For my money, Bates and Lane are just two sides of the same coin. Neither one can see past his own press notices. Bates started with a good idea of focusing attention to blatant neighborhood curbside soliciting but when he started filming prostitutes in the act of plying their trade, he went off the deep end. Lane is no better. Bates was a big friend of the DA's office until he crossed some line in Lane's view of the law or perhaps Lane's view of morality.

We have had some goofyassed DA's in Oklahoma County, Curtis Harris punching out an opposing attorney in the County Courthouse hallway comes to mind, and Lane is IMO carrying on the tradition.

Don't either one of these have better things to do with their time? This whole mess has just become a personal vendetta between these two guys.

Check Bates flier and you should note that he was blasting information about Renee McCullaugh. She was set for a JURY TRIAL on the day that he was passing out his dribble. How would you like to be on trial and have someone standing outside passing out your picture??

Check Bates flier and you should note that he was blasting information about Renee McCullaugh. She was set for a JURY TRIAL on the day that he was passing out his dribble. How would you like to be on trial and have someone standing outside passing out your picture??


OKLApi,
Wow! You make a very good point.

What was the case she had going to a "jury trial"?

All I could find was a preliminary hearing conference scheduled for September 28th (a few days after Bates was there and the incident happened). But I couldn't find a jury trial or even a preliminary hearing for McCullaugh.

The preliminary hearing on the 28th was to be on McCullaugh's recent criminal felony charge according to www.oscn.net/applications/ocisweb/GetCaseInformation.asp?submitted=true&viewtype=caseGeneral&casemasterID=2077853&db=Oklahoma :

Count 1: ROBBERY WITH A DANGEROUS WEAPON, in violation of 21 O.S. 801
Date Of Offense: 08/21/2006
Party Name:
Defendant: MC CULLAUGH, RENEE BONNIE
(After Prior Convictions)
Pending.


It looked like they moved the preliminary hearing conference to Friday, October 20, 2006 at 9:00 AM

I'm assuming this is a different case than the one to which you refer since the above-mentioned case was not even to the point of a preliminary hearing, much less to a jury trial.

So what case were you referring to that was going to jury trial?

BTW: For any of those who are legal professionals who have a clear understanding of the law, please let us know if this is close:
I thought a preliminary hearing conference did not have a jury present. Rather, the conference was generally a hearing that the prosecutor can make a plea bargain offer to the defendent. The defendent can decide to accept the offer or not. If the defendent accepts the plea bargain, the defendent waives the right to a preliminary hearing and the case is set for a date for the defendent to plead guilty. If the defendent doesn't accept the plea bargain, a date is set for a preliminary hearing. But there isn't a jury present for this kind of conference. And the jury pool that would have been at the courthouse the week of McCullaugh's preliminary hearing conference would not have been involved in any way with her case.

Likewise, if she rejected a plea bargain, and the case moved to a preliminary hearing date, (where the court would hear testimony to determine if there was enough evidence to believe a crime was committed --- a.k.a. Probable Cause --- again there would be no jurors present. And if the case was bound over for trial, the trial would be scheduled much later. Therefore the jury pool that was present the week of September 25th, would have in no way been involved with McCullaugh's case. And even so, there was no need to send home the entire jury pool just for McCullaugh. They could have just postponed her appearance. It's not like she has a great record for showing up for her court appearances anyway if you read through her cases and dockets.

Is there another case out there to which you referring to OKLApi? Let us know. I want to make certain I/you/we are getting our facts straight.

Oklahoma County CM-2005-3054. Offering to engage. Set for JURY TRIAL the same day that he was passing out his dribble. Bates caused all that nonsense just to get at Renee Mc Cullaugh. That is straight up JURY TAMPERING. IMO Bates just wanted to make sure that any JURORS on her case had prior knowledge and also knowledge of prior crimes that may not heve been allowed at trial. He looks like he is coming apart at the seams. His hairline looks a little thinner these days.

Thanks for the info. That being the case, I guess it comes down to whether or not Bates was aware of her case and trying to interrupt it or not.

If accused of that, he will, of course, say he had no idea. Then there will be a couple of comments from his attorney. Lane will file charges of some kind and get a little camera time for his campaign. And this entire mess will continue to be what determines the running of our Oklahoma County courthouse.

Bates' hair may be thinning. Lane may be looking stressed. But Bates and Lane and their continuing spat make a lot of folks want to pull their hair out and scream. This has escalated to the point of being ridiculous. It's the only thing I've seen Lane focus on or about a year. There have to be some crimes to prosecute for focus on rather than the DA always focusing on Bates.

Maybe folks will realize these two men have totally LOST IT :Smiley204 and then they will vote out Lane.

Then Lane and Bates can take it out on one another without wasting our tax money. :boxing2:

Bates can't say he did not know about the JURY TRIAL date for Mc Cullaugh, he has the information on his own website.

As for Lane verus Prater, IMO Prater had a good shot until he started hanging out with Bates. Prater needs to shoo Bates away like the annoying bug that he is and maybe he can recover.

David Prater for D.A. -Oklahoma County (http://www.davidpraterforda.com/)

My sister in law is related to Crystal Dittmeyer. As a matter of fact she was Crystal's Aunt. Crystal's step dad knows what he did with her, as he was molesting her for a long time. I think he is scum and no matter what he thinks about getting off easy, I can bet you he wont ever walk OK streets without looking over his shoulder looking for the family members that will never forget. Traci has let the DA know things that he did to that poor child and to let Lane get off that easy is a crime in itself. Please vote him OUT of office. I am pleading with the voters of OK that no matter if you dont want to vote please vote in this election. Lane has not done anything for Oklahoma other than make me sad I live in this county with such a poor excuse for a man

My sister in law is related to Crystal Dittmeyer. As a matter of fact she was Crystal's Aunt. Crystal's step dad knows what he did with her, as he was molesting her for a long time. I think he is scum and no matter what he thinks about getting off easy, I can bet you he wont ever walk OK streets without looking over his shoulder looking for the family members that will never forget. Traci has let the DA know things that he did to that poor child and to let Lane get off that easy is a crime in itself. Please vote him OUT of office. I am pleading with the voters of OK that no matter if you dont want to vote please vote in this election. Lane has not done anything for Oklahoma other than make me sad I live in this county with such a poor excuse for a man

Thank you for your post. Sorry for your connection to Crystal. It is one of the most egregious cases of poor prosecution from Wes Lane's office. Really the list is long, too long. But if one case has to top the list, Crystal's is probably it. Thank you for being brave enough to speak out forcefully against Wes Lane - a sorry excuse for a District Attorney.

Click on the link below and learn about our next District Attorney, and he'll make a damn good one.
DAVID PRATER FOR DISTRICT ATTORNEY (http://www.davidpraterforda.com/)

And while we're cleaning up the Court House, remember to send Susan Caswell (Wes Lane's crony/pet judge) packing. She has been called, "The worst judge in America," by people who should know - and has had stinging rebukes from appeals courts when they remand cases back to Oklahoma County. Susan Caswell and Wes Lane - the two that just HAVE to go.


-------------------------

It's so funny that we are talking about this.. Most of the time we only have ourselves to blame for people in office. All we gotta do it VOTE VOTE VOTE