Steve LaTourette, Prosecutorial Misconduct, Political grandstanding

[AnOhioan]

I think Mr. Katz should know about this case being an expert in criminal law.

Background

Mr. Larry Schlee was first convicted in 1993 of the 1980 murder of Mr. Frank Carroll. (Lake County Common Pleas case # 92CR517). The first conviction was overturned because Steve LaTourette committed prosecutorial misconduct--a recurring theme of his prosecutorial practices in the 1990's.
(See also the following cases: State v. Wolfe, State v. LaFreniere, and State v. Weaver.)
Latourette also jeopardized the Lundgren conviction through prosecutorial misconduct. (Lundgren is the primary case he uses for political purposes.)

Mr. Schlee's 2004 conviction stands, but as you will see below, there are reasons to doubt his guilt. His conviction rests solely on the Amy Binns Woodsby's testimony, which is inconsistent during the grand jury proceedings, the first trial and the second trial.

Perjury in the Grand Jury

The Grand Jury indicted Mr. Schlee on misleading information and perjured testimony. So, the question remains, should Mr. Schlee even have been indicted?

* The coroner's testimony provided false and misleading information to the grand jury as to the cause of death.
* LaTourette elicited testimony that he knew was false from Lt. Larry D. Greene: Greene testified that Amy Binns Woodsby
passed a polygraph exam, when in fact she did not pass.
* Amy's statements at the grand jury were inconsistent with her
prior and subsequent statements as well as her testimony at both trials.

LaTourette's Prosecutorial Misconduct in 1st trial:

Lost evidence:

* New York state police recovered the body and found hairs in the victim's watch band, which did not appear to match Mr. Schlee's
hair or the victims.
* New York managed to keep the hair intact for 11 years until the body was identified, but months after LaTourette and the Lake
County Prosecutor's office received this evidence, between the time defense counsel and their investigator saw the hair in the
evidence room and the second time they asked to examine the evidence, that hair disappeared.
* LaTourette withheld a renowned coroner's autopsy report that contradicted the testimony of the coroner who testified in the
first trial. The report suggested a manner of death markedly different from that testified to by Amy Binns Woodsby. Defense
counsel requested to see the report during a conference in the judge's chambers. The judge denied their request, relying on his
past experience with LaTourette that he would not withhold evidence helpful to the defense. Defense counsel agreed with the
court, vouching for LaTourette's integrity that he would never withhold evidence, but renewed their request for the report.
Latourette said nothing. The court said unless they had cases which said he had to turn it over or the prosecutor agreed to do
so, the court would not give them the report. Defense did not provide any case and Latourette did not agree to turn over the
cases; therefore, this evidence was not turned over. Ultimately, the conviction was overturned based on LaTourette withholding
evidence from the defense which he was required by law to provide.

Intimidation of Defense Witnesses in 2nd trial

Prosecutors intimidated potential defense witnesses warning them against talking to the defense. One witness was given an invalid subpoena and was warned about potential law suits against her. This delayed Mr. Schlee's ability to contact and talk with one of his witnesses thereby affecting his ability to properly prepare his case.

Furthermore, Amy Binns Woodsby appeared incapable of remembering details of the murder, telling conflicting versions of events that a witness to a murder is unlikely ever to forget. Her frequent responses throughout the second trial (approximately 180 times) were: I don't know, I don't remember, or I don't recall. This includes the response to a question about whether she had asked someone shortly before Frank's death whether he would kill Frank or knew someone who would. Her response was a simple "I don't recall." Mr. Schlee's conviction rested mainly on Ms. Binns' testimony, which was inconsistent in crucial details and totally uncorroborated by any physical evidence.


Steve used his position as Lake County Prosecutor to launch a career in DC. If he needed a conviction, he got it however he could.
He abused his positon for political gain and demonstrated contempt for the rule of law.

All the above is public record but is not generally known in the 14th District.

[geiger]

1. was he ever sanctioned or fined or whatever they do to bad boys in court

[AnOhioan]

2. He had 4 cases overturned on appeal......

The cost to taxpayers...VERY high. No fines or sanctions...but overturned cases are a mark of shame for county prosecutors.

Not that Steve is even capable of that emotion.

[geiger]

3. he's a smooth talker

his former links to Abramoff are quite clear as well (see post about Abramoff-Ratner-LaTourette links below.

[AnOhioan]

4. Judged by the company he keeps......

LaTourette is dirty..plain and simple. Prosecutorial misconduct, pay to play, lying to constituents, the facts are there.

[liberalhistorian]

5. I lived in Lake County from childhood until last

summer, when I moved to SD at the age of forty. I was a paralegal and, believe it or not, became friends with one of the attorneys in the public defender's office, who was a former colleague of my boss. She was working on Larry Schlee's appeal to have his conviction overturned and a new trial granted. She was removed from the case because she fell in love with him and they became "involved", as much as you can be when one of the people involved is imprisoned for murder.

During his appeal and while waiting for a new trial, Larry was moved from one of the state prisons to the Lake County Jail; I met him several times in prison, through my friend. In the beginning, I was convinced of his guilt and certain that he was simply a smooth-talker who was pulling a fast one on my friend and taking advantage of her, as so many prisoners do with women on the outside. And for some reason, even educated, intelligent, professional women seem to lose all their common sense in these situations.

But the more I read and reviewed and the more I talked to my friend, the investigators, the public defender, the expert witnesses, etc., etc., the more convinced I became that I was wrong and that a truly grievous injustice had been done to this man. And it didn't surprise me at all, considering who was the original prosecutor. I visited my friend shortly after Larry was found guilty in his second trial; the judge added insult to injury by saying that his original sentence had not been in compliance with the law and he actually added ten years to it. Given that Larry is in his mid-fifties, this is essentially a life sentence unless his current appeals bear any fruit. She was devastated, of course, but she and Larry had been prepared for just such a possibility. The public defender had torn Amy Binns apart during her cross-examination, but it obviously didn't register too much with the jury. And many of the employees and attorneys of the prosecutor's office were around when LaTourette was prosecutor and were obviously afraid to go against him too much in the second trial.

I remain convinced of Larry's innocence, but since he's already had a second trial and been found guilty, I'm really not too optimistic about the chances for a successful appeal. The public defender's office has done what it can do, legally, and it can no longer represent him during his appeal; a private attorney is currently handling the matter on his behalf. She does a lot of the work on his case to cut down on the billing. I frankly don't see the point and I think she should move on, but who am I to tell her that? Really sad situation, all the way around. An innocent man is sitting in jail for life because of the ambition, greed, cowardice and incompetence of a prosecutor and the office he led.