Kentucky Precedent: Zero alcohol, zero drugs, zero impaired driving DUI

by Crane-Station

Good afternoon. In the next few weeks, I will be uploading documents and footage from my case in Kentucky. It is the only case that I am aware of, in the entire country, where a DUI has been affirmed on appeal, and published as precedent, where blood analysis showed zero drugs detected and zero alcohol, and there was no impaired driving whatsoever. In other words, this case can and will be cited, in Kentucky, in future Sober DUI cases.

Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2008-CA-000849-MR
RACHEL LEATHERMAN APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM MCCRACKEN CIRCUIT COURT
v. HONORABLE CRAIG Z. CLYMER, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 06-CR-00408
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY APPELLEE
OPINION
AFFIRMING

page 2, the 911 call:

DISPATCHER: Central dispatch. This is Lou.
Could I help you.
MR. WILKEY: Yes, sir. This is Vernon Wilkey.
I live out here on Queensway Drive.
And there is a lady in a dark blue looks like a
Buick LeSabre. I’d say it’s a late ‘80s, early ‘90s model.
And I’ve got a license plate number. But she’s out here
walking around in my neighbor’s yard and everything
and writing stuff down, and she’d talked to him and
mentioned something about tar heroin and all that stuff.
DISPATCHER: Talked to who?
MR. WILKEY: My neighbor next door.

Walking around and writing in a book and mentioning something “about 218A,” a drug statute, which is what the dispatcher related to the officer, is considered criminal activity, in Kentucky, if you are from out-of-state, page 14:

Based upon the prior 911 call, during which the caller described a woman
driving a car that displayed Washington state license plates who was committing
criminal activity,

The stop and search of my vehicle and my person lasted nearly two hours, and was performed by three officers from two agencies. Since the tape was tampered with, however, the court of appeals only apparently viewed a brief portion. I will be uploading the original that I have, but I need to fix something on the computer first, as it will currently not play a DVD. Anyway, the court of appeals found and noted, in pertinent part, the following:

Two hours is reasonable, for the “brief” investigatory stop, page 14:

However, the
law is clear that a stop may only continue long enough for the officer to determine
whether his suspicions were correct.

Also on page 14, and this is significant. They conclude that I essentially stopped the officer, and insisted on the search. This is false. The evidence in in prior testimony, that I was not allowed to confront, and also, in the dispatch recording that was altered and tampered with, in chambers, on the morning of my trial. I will be presenting that. For example, the officer testified at the Grand Jury, but I was disallowed from questioning him on any prior testimony:

As I was going back into town on Highway 60–Queensway is right off Highway 60. I located the vehicle right around the area of Highway 60 and Cairo Road. I stopped the vehicle, asked her to exit–asked her to exit the vehicle.

This disallowment cleared the way for suborned perjury at trial and the following finding in the affirming opinion:

and the undisputed fact that Leatherman pulled to the side of the
road and stopped before Deputy McGuire activated his emergency lights,

Now, for the other significant findings:

We note that the record contains a videotape of the
cruiser cam video; unfortunately, there is no audio recording attached to the video.

This is false. The recording is clear, and I will show that. An altered version was sent to Frankfort.

This is the key part of the sober DUI. The Court of Appeals actually noted in the opinion:

A breath test and later blood tests revealed that there were no drugs or alcohol in
Leatherman’s system.

[emphasis added]

The DUI was solely based on this finding. The arresting officer had a thorough understanding of HGN and its connection to impairment. He told the Grand Jury, as would a scientist:

And it’s the same principle as if you were to spin around in a circle ten times and then check someone’s eyes. The room’s spinning. That’s the same–that’s the same way that we use to detect the presence of any kind of controlled substance, alcoholic beverages in a DUI arrest.

And she showed–she failed that. She showed all six clues of that.

Pfffffffffffffft.

The finding at page 5 of the opinion:

On the horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test, Leatherman showed six clues that indicated impairment.

You might be thinking that the 2-hour search of my car, trunk, personal belongings, crotch, breasts, shoes and person in full view of passing traffic, and also the gas tank, and underneath the seats- a couple of officers on the tape actually disappear inside the car- may have produced illegal drugs. Wrong:

They did not find any illegal drugs during the search.

Deputy McGuire requested that a female officer respond to the scene to
perform a search of Leatherman. Paducah Police Officer Gretchen Dawes
responded, obtained consent to search, and performed a thorough search of
Leatherman, including the front and back pockets of her jeans, the rolled up pants
legs, and under her T-shirt. The search is depicted in the cruiser cam video.
Officer Dawes did not find any weapons or illegal drugs on her person.

[emphasis added]

The documents and footage that I will upload and share will show, among other things: suborned perjury at trial, and suborned perjury at the grand jury. Also- a secret meeting before trial in chambers, hidden from the docket and unknown to me at the time, where several motions in limine were decided, namely, that the rules of evidence would be suspended in my case and I would be barred from cross examining witnesses on prior inconsistent statements; ex parte juror contact post trial, and juror telephone home, work and cell numbers in the case file ahead of a reconstructed and falsified ‘prospective juror’ chart. Also- a secret post trial agreed order denying suppression based on trial testimony, that was written by the prosecutor four months prior to trial and faxed to my attorney, who hid that from me; and a crime lab tech testifying as an ‘expert medical witness’ – qualifying as an expert based on a 30-second internet surf of a lab tech site, where he downloaded two bogus articles and then assured my attorney. “I am your man!” Plus- just minutes before the secret meeting before my trial in chambers, recorded evidence was altered and deleted on 13 occasions, at 8:36, 8:37 and 8:38 AM specifically, and then a fake, prosecutor-generated ‘transcript’ was entered instead of the recording, for the trial.

In addition, I took the case all the way to the US Supreme Court for cert, which was denied, apparently with help from the United States Solicitor General. The petition had to do with the secret post trial agreed order denying suppression that was altered to reflect the new story told at trial, only the order, as I said, was penned four months before trial. So, they deceived the highest court in the nation as well. The Question presented:

Whether the Court’s order denying her Motion to Suppress Evidence, which was amended after the trial and included information presented at trial but not at the suppression hearing violated Petitioner’s right to be free from unreasonable Search and Seizure under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

The United States Supreme Court was unaware, as was I until just recently, that the amended post trial order containing trial information was written before the trial ever took place.

Supreme Court of the United States
spacer
Search: All Documents Docket Files
For Search Term:

Skip Navigation LinksHome | Search Results
Printer-Friendly Printer-Friendly Version

Supreme Court Document
Docket
Oral Arguments
Merits Briefs
Bar Admissions
Court Rules
Case Handling Guides
Opinions
Orders and Journals

Supreme Court Information
About the Supreme Court
Visiting the Court
Public Information
Jobs
Links

No. 11-10420
Title:
Rachel Leatherman, Petitioner
v.
Kentucky
Docketed: May 21, 2012
Lower Ct: Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case Nos.: (2008-CA-000849-MR)
Decision Date: January 21, 2011
Rehearing Denied: April 12, 2011
Discretionary Court
Decision Date: February 15, 2012

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
May 15 2012 Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due June 20, 2012)
Jun 13 2012 Waiver of right of respondent Kentucky to respond filed.
Jun 21 2012 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 24, 2012.
Oct 1 2012 Petition DENIED.

~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioner:
Roy Alyette Durham II. Assistant Public Advocate (502) 564-8006
100 Fair Oaks Lane Suite
Suite 302
Frankfort, KY 40601
roy.durham@ky.gov
Party name: Rachel Leatherman
Attorneys for Respondent:
Gregory C. Fuchs Office of the Attorney General (502) 696-5342
Counsel of Record 1024 Capitol Center Dr.
Suite 200
Frankfort, KY 40601-8204
Party name: Kentucky

Donald B. Verrilli Jr. Solicitor General (202) 514-2217
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530-0001
SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ.gov
Party name: Kentucky

May 22, 2014 | Version 2012.0
Home | Help | Site Map | Contact Us | About Us | FAQ | Website Policies and Notices | Privacy Policy | USA.GOV
Supreme Court of the United States

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/11-10420.htm

I was shocked to discover only recently, in the case file, that the post-trial ‘third order’ was not sua sponte, as my appeal attorney and the United States Supreme Court was led to believe. Rather, it was written by the prosecutor and faxed to my attorney, who hid it from me, on September 27, 2007, four months before my trial. What is extra egregious about the third order is, the claim that I requested it. I had no way to request anything. I was in the hole, in jail.

We will break this analysis of this case down in excruciating detail, with documents, over the next several weeks to months, so look for posts, as we continue to cover other topics.

The lab tests are at the end of this post.

(For some outrageous reason, the labs seem to be scrubbed from my flickr photostream. No worries, they are screen grabbed and scanned and mailed all over the country.)

It is also notable that Kentucky flipped the bird to the Sixth Circuit, who allowed this woman to sue over her bogus DUI arrest:

http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/12a0175p-06.pdf

Around this time, Throckmorton momentarily pointed his flashlight inside
Green’s vehicle. Throckmorton stated in his deposition testimony that he aimed the
flashlight’s beam toward the floor of the vehicle so as to illuminate Green’s face without
shining the light directly into her eyes. He “noticed that her pupils were constricted,”
which he thought “was kind of abnormal” because his training had taught him that a
person’s pupils will typically dilate in a dark setting. But, as he noted during his
deposition, “different chemicals or different types of drugs [can] hamper this process.
So. . . if you shine a light into somebody’s eyes, their pupils may stay completely dilated,
they won’t react to the light. Or else . . . they may be constricted, and you put them in
a low lighting and they won’t dilate.”

UPDATE:

CS here. Found em!

On July 24, 2006, four days before the Grand Jury met in my case, the exculpatory alcohol result was Faxed to the Commonwealth:
Exculpatory evidence hidden
and
Exculpatory evidence hidden

On July 28, my birthday, 2006, the Commonwealth suborned perjury at the Grand Jury hearing, saying (transcript linked above):

Q. We don’t have the blood results back?

A. I don’t believe so. Blood or lab, yeah.

Q. Did she admit to drinking at all?

A. No, I don’t believe she did. You can smell alcoholic beverages on a person.

Q. So you could smell it on her?

A. Yes, sir.

I was indicted for an alcohol DUI, when the Commonwealth had a 0.00 alcohol result, in its hand.

On September 25, 2006, the Commonwealth received the exculpatory blood test result for drugs, showing “No drugs detected”
Exculpatory evidence hidden.
and
Exculpatory evidence hidden.

On October 16, 2006 the Commonwealth made me an offer of eight years. The Bill of Particulars with the offer was signed under oath:
Sworn under oath

The problem is, the document claims that the Commonwealth had in its possession NO EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE.
False statement on sworn Bill of Particulars

The document was perjured, and exculpatory evidence was hidden, in the hopes that I would plead guilty. I refused. But just so that you know, it is this sort of prosecutorial and public defender misconduct that results in a great many guilty pleas from people who are not guilty.

10 Responses to Kentucky Precedent: Zero alcohol, zero drugs, zero impaired driving DUI

  1. masonblue says:

    We will be publishing chain of evidence documents, and explaining chain of evidence tomorrow!

  2. Kelly Payne says:

    In other words they committed a series of crimes to get you convicted of a crime you never committed.They should all be prosecuted fired and disbarred. It also the reason why obviously guilty people go free.

    • masonblue says:

      Crane-Station here.

      It is an excellent point about the obviously guilty. For example, a friend that I made in prison, killed her brother-in-law in a DUI accident where she was driving. She was under the influence of a phone book of drugs that were both in her blood and in the car. The drugs were not obtained by legal means. Her sentence? Three years, served after a year. This was not her first conviction, and after her release, she would be arrested again, more than once, but she never really had to worry about time. Why? Money under the table to the right dirty lawyer.

      Case 2: Conspiracy to murder a preganant woman, and then abuse the corpse by burning and cutting. The sentence? Seven years, paroled after a brief period. Why? Her father either was a cop or knew the powers that be.

      Case 3: A son of a legislator was driving along the road drunk one night, and he hit a 62-year-old woman who was a student. He left her to die in the ditch, and drove home. When the police showed up at his door, noting blood on the car, he denied any knowledge of the accident, initially. Paroled after 3 1/2 years.
      http://murrayledger.com/news/article_bec41799-6a18-5a4e-bed3-99a54b6bd4f6.html

      The point is that, in the United States of Western Kentucky, if you know the right people and give the right money to them, you can do any goddamn thing you want.

  3. CS here. Found em!

    On July 24, 2006, four days before the Grand Jury met in my case, the exculpatory alcohol result was Faxed to the Commonwealth:
    Exculpatory evidence hidden
    and
    Exculpatory evidence hidden

    On July 28, my birthday, 2006, the Commonwealth suborned perjury at the Grand Jury hearing, saying (transcript linked above):
    “We don’t have any labs back yet?”

    Officer: Blood or labs. Yeah.

    Commonwealth: So, you could smell alcohol on her?

    Officer: Yes, sir .

    I was indicted for an alcohol DUI, when the Commonwealth had a 0.00 alcohol result, in its hand.

    On September 25, 2006, the Commonwealth received the exculpatory blood test result for drugs, showing “No drugs detected”
    Exculpatory evidence hidden.
    and
    Exculpatory evidence hidden.

    On October 16, 2006 the Commonwealth made me an offer of eight years. The Bill of Particulars with the offer was signed under oath:
    Sworn under oath

    The problem is, the document claims that the Commonwealth had in its possession NO EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE.
    False statement on sworn Bill of Particulars

    The document was perjured, and exculpatory evidence was hidden, in the hopes that I would plead guilty. I refused. But just so that you know, it is this sort of prosecutorial misconduct that results in a great many guilty pleas from people who are not guilty.

    • Malisha says:

      The fact that your own lawyer was in on it is the fact that makes the whole thing so obvious. The only question in my mind is: what was their ACTUAL TRUE motive in all this? They usually do have a motive; these cases are not really random. Had you discovered something about one or more of them that would, if you were NOT marginalized and discredited, hurt someone in power?

      • It was a retaliation for my blowing the whistle on a start-up law school where I was employed as an Associate Professor. The dean and the assistant dean were skimming student loans for living expenses and passing them on to TPTB in this deeply corrupt community. I cost them a helluva lot of money and they decided to retaliate against me by destroying her.

        It didn’t work.

        • frsandoval says:

          I came across this post tonight. I am at a lost for words.

          I am curious. I note that the SCOK denied your Motion for Discretionary Review of the decision of the COA on February 15, 2012. Have you done anything since? What are your plans at this juncture?

          • Crane-Station here.

            I took the case to SCOTUS for cert, concerning the unbelievably bizarre, altered post trial third order with no preceeding motion in the docket. At that time, my appeal lawyer in Frankfort had been deceived to believe that the judge wrote the thing sua sponte one day.

            He didn’t. It was a secret agreed order, without my knowledge, that the prosecutor wrote, four months before the trial.

            Anyway, at the SCOTUS level, Kentucky pressed into service, the United States Solicitor General, apparently, and according to the docket linked above.

            This is unheard of.

            At this point, I have lost faith in the courts. I feel an obligation to send these documents and CDs to Frankfort, with a bar complaint, just because it is so far beyond the pale- what was presented at trial was one hundred percent fraudulent and falsified. But to file a 60.02, which I may consider because the case truly is extraordinary, I would have to return to the very same judge who said during the secret pre-trial meeting, on tape, and I quote:

            I don’t want to lose this trial.

            So, I mean, I would have do deal with yet another, brand new made up set of facts, and I am tired of it- this is the fifth or sixth version now, and the system is so corrupt that such a motion would be a waste of time.

            Therefore, the legal case will be added to Frog Gravy as part of the book manuscript, and submitted for publication.

          • We have considered and rejected attempting to seek further judicial relief because the courts are too corrupt. Instead, we are going to publish our story and expose the rot in the court of public opinion.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: