Carol Fisher Case Re Cleveland Hts Police : Cleveland IMC (((i)))

April 28, 2006

Carol Fisher Found Guilty

Carol Fisher was found guilty today of two counts of felonious assault of two 200 + pound Cleveland Heights policemen (who, collectively, can bench 700#’s) and whose testimony contained serious contradictions. None of the other witnesses provided by the prosecution actually saw “the assault.” Their claims had more to do with Carol’s perceived lack respect for authority. The jury deliberated for more than 8 hours over two days before announcing the verdict.

Former prosecutor Judge McGinty, who was supposedly “randomly” assigned to Carol’s case, is known to be “police-friendly,” a fact that was painfully obvious to observers. McGinty ruled out key pieces of evidence as “not relevant” to the case, denying the jury the opportunity (obligation?) of hearing them. The fact that virtually everyone in Cleveland Heights can relate “horror stories” about the Cleveland Heights police was not to be known by the jury of individuals born and raised in Northeast Ohio, but not in Cleveland Heights. As the court transcript will show, McGinty showed clear bias toward the prosecution.

Perhaps the most shocking injustice occurred after the prosecutors, in their closing statements, repeatedly misquoted statements from Carol’s testimony and even lied about Ohio statutes defining “arrestable” offenses. When Carol’s attorney, Terry Gilbert, pointed out the erroneous references and asked Judge McGinty if he could read to the jury the correct statutes, Judge McGinty casually dismissed his request, leaving the jury to base its decision on “non-existing” law. This and other behavior was appalling!

Those familiar with McGinty and other police-brutality cases were not surprised by the verdict. With a fair judge and a jury with fewer police in their respective families, the case would have been an open and shut case of police brutality. This case will be appealed!

Please come out tomorrow, Saturday, April 29th at 3pm --Cleveland Heights Coventry Yard (Coventry and Euclid Heights) to support Carol. Hear from the many supporters who witnessed the trial and saw the “justice that wasn’t” this week in Cuyahoga County’s “Justice Center.” This is a very important case that will impact us all!

Victoria Lovegren

victoria.lovegren@case.edu

Theoretically, the judge is supposed to be "neutral" between the prosecution and the defendant, and only trying to find the truth and find "justice". However, when you study "criminal justice" in school, the textbooks are constantly refering to "the criminal justice system" which includes the police, the prosecutor, AND the judge. They admit that they are all part of the same system.

What chance you get for a fair trial in a circus like this?

I've lived in Cleveland Heights for 8 years. The cops here SUCK. They've harrassed myself and many of my friends on numerous occasions. None of us has ever been arrested or charged with anything, but that never stopped them. I can't even describe how many horror stories I've heard. I never even knew or believed what assholes cops are before I moved here, either. If Carol's jury would have been Heights residents, there's no way she would have been found guilty.

This is bullshit. Carol's trial was a miscarriage of justice.

Your article states that none of the prosecution witnesses had actually seen this event. So, I am wondering about this claim, found at HeightsMom, a commenter who claims to have seen the entire episode:

STATUS :IN JAIL

ON MAY 1, 2006 THE DEFENDANT WAS REFERRED TO PROBATION DEPARTMENT FOR PRE-SENTENCE INVESTIGATION. ON MAY 1, 2006 DEFENDANT WAS GIVEN HER P.S.I. INTERVIEW DATE AND TIME. THIS MORNING PROBATION OFFICER JOYCE GILLESPIE CALLED TO INFORM THIS COURT THAT DEFENDANT HAD NOT APPEARED AND THAT PROBATION OFFICER JOYCE GILLESPIE CALLED DEFENDANT AT HOME. PROBATION OFFICER SPOKE WITH DEFENDANT AND DEFENDANT INFORMED (PROBATION OFFICER) THAT SHE WAS NOT COMING IN FOR P.S.I. INTERVIEW, THE PAPERWORK WAS TOO EXTENSIVE AND THAT SHE WOULD DEAL WITH THE COURT THROUGH HER ATTORNEY. THE PROBATION OFFICER FURTHER INFORMED THIS COURT THAT THE DEFENDANT RELAYED TO HER THAT SHE WAS NOT GOING TO FOLLOW THE COURT'S ORDER AND THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS VERY ABRUPT IN TONE WITH HER. A BOND FORFEITURE CAPIAS WAS ISSUED FOR FAILING TO APPEAR FOR P.S.I. INTERVIEW. 05/09/2006 CPDMB 05/09/2006 11:02:30

ON THE 9TH DAY OF MAY, 2006, THE DEFENDANT, CAROLYN G FISHER, FAILING TO APPEAR IN COURT AS HE/SHE WAS BOUND TO DO BY THE CONDITIONS OF HIS/HER RECOGNIZANCE, THE COURT ORDERS THAT THE SAID RECOGNIZANCE, TAKEN HERETOFORE IN THIS CAUSE BE, AND THE SAME IS, FORFEITED ABSOLUTELY. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE CLERK SHALL FORTHWITH GIVE AS PROVIDED BY LAW, THE SURETY OF RECORD, OR THE DEFENDANT IF THE DEFENDANT WAS RELEASED ON PERSONAL BOND, NOTICE TO APPEAR IN THIS COURT ON OR BEFORE THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 2006. IF THERE IS A SURETY, SUCH SURETY SHALL PRODUCE THE BODY OF SAID DEFENDANT, OR SHOW WHY JUDGMENT SHALL NOT BE ENTERED AGAINST HIM/HER FOR THE AMOUNT OF THE RECOGNIZANCE GIVEN IN THIS CAUSE. IF THE DEFENDANT WAS RELEASED ON A PERSONAL BOND, THE DEFENDANT SHALL SHOW WHY JUDGMENT SHALL NOT BE ENTERED AGAINST HIM/HER FOR THE AMOUNT OF THE RECOGNIZANCE GIVEN IN THIS CAUSE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT A CAPIAS BE ISSUED FOR THE SAID DEFENDANT. THE COURT ORDERS A BOND FORFEITURE AND CAPIAS TO ISSUE FOR THE DEFENDANT. DEFENDANT FAILED TO APPEAR. (FOR P.S.I. INTERVIEW). 05/09/2006 CPDMB 05/09/2006 10:57:32

Number: 10813624
Name: CAROLYN G FISHER
Status: DEFN JAIL
Date of Birth: 05/19/1952
Race: WHITE
Sex: FEMALE

2903.13 ASSAULT (PEACE OFFICER)
2903.13 ASSAULT (PEACE OFICER

"None of the other witnesses provided by the prosecution actually saw “the assault.” "

I have just contacted Terry Gilbert, and i quote:

"there were 4 civilian witnesses who testified as to various observations regarding segments of the incident. Three of them said she was out of control and fighting with the police. There were all kinds of inconsistencies but the tone of the witnesses was that she was definitely in the wrong and resisting."

That means that the Victoria Lovegren statement is specifically misleading.

Let's stop shouting uninformed opinions and find out the truth!

read as you will, but this information is FIRST HAND. Ms. Fisher was asked repeatedly to take down her posters. She said "I will", she then walked away in the opposite direction of the pole. She was then asked 2-3 times for ID, and refused by saying 1st she did not have it, 2nd, she did nothing wrong and would not give it, all while walking away. At this point she was guilty of Obstructing Official Business, a 2nd degree misdemeanor, an arrestable offense. Her coat sleeve was taken to detain her, she starting pushing and throwing punches, along with kicking and biting... the rest is history.

You can find bits of truth in Ms. Fisher's story, but of course she changes the key points. A citation was issued for posting a handbill on the utility pole. The subject matter on the poster was not known until after Ms. Fisher was placed into custody.

2921.31. Obstructing official business
No person, without privilege to do so and with purpose to prevent, obstruct, or delay the performance by a public official of any authorized act within the public official's official capacity, shall do any act that hampers or impedes a public official in the performance of the public official's lawful duties.Whoever violates this section is guilty of obstructing official business. Except as otherwise provided in this division, obstructing official business is a misdemeanor of the second degree. If a violation of this section creates a risk of physical harm to any person, obstructing official business is a felony of the fifth degree.

Obstruction ?
Your comment concluded that when Fisher was walking away while being asked for she was guilty of a crime - obstructing official business. I respectfully disagree.

Obstruction is generally held to require PHYSICAL interference with an officer that interferes with the officer's performance of their official duty. While actual physical interference is not an element, and the laws also cover, obstructing an officer by threat, menace, acts or otherwise. Your comment did not note that Ms. Fisher did or did not actually have an ID, nor that the police had official acts interfered with.

From "What Constitutes Obstruction or Resisting Lawful Arrest in Absence of Actual Force", 66 ALR 5th 397, s 8[a]: Giving Officer false information may suffice as obstruction. The court in State v. Gordon, 9 Ohio App. 3d 184, 458 N.E.2d 1277 (1st Dist. Hamilton County 1983) (applying Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2921.31), a prosecution under a statute making it a misdemeanor to intentionally do any act that hampers or impedes a public official in the performance of lawful duties, the court affirmed the conviction of a defendant who verbally misdirected police officers to the outside of her house when she knew the felon they were looking for was inside. The court stated that the defendant's misdirections to the police constituted an "act" for purposes of the statute, and that whether she actually pointed to an open door at the same time as she spoke was immaterial.

In this case, "I do not have an ID" may indeed be giving false information to an officer during his lawful investigation of a crime, while silence, or "Bugger off you f'ing pig" would not . Also note, that the facts as listed in your comment do not state what authority the police were asserting when asking fisher for her ID. If she was still walking away - then it is unlikely to be a search incident with lawful arrest.
Was their request related to the performance of his official duty? DId Fisher have an obligation to respond?

Was the officer's request for ID related to and probative of the criminal investigation of the hanging of posters? Had an investigation begun? Did the officer make it plain that he was asserting lawful authority? Would Fisher have been reasonable to assume that this was just more of Cleveland Hts Police overstepping their lawful authority they way they do 99% of the time. would knowing her identity make the posters more or less "posted"? Perhaps the officer's request is not within the scope of his duty - and thus Fisher was not interfereing with his "duty", even without actual physical obstruction.

Resisting arrest - physically impairing an officer is a big deal. Twisting that idea is an even bigger deal.

ConcernedCitizen256@hotmail.com

Cleveland Indy Media Center