False Arrest and Malicious Prosecution - NUMBER ONE
At approximately 5:00 p.m. on August 11, 1995, while on his way home from work at Pryor Lumber Company, our eldest son was confronted by a drunk driver who was westbound, coming out of the intersection head-on at our son in our son's lane of travel. This was the southwest corner of the intersection of Oklahoma county roads SW650 and W640 in Mayes County Oklahoma.
Our son said he tried to dodge the other vehicle. He turned his vehicle to the left and stopped astraddle the center of the roadway, because, he said, there was not room to go between the other vehicle and the gate post on our son's side of the road. Our son said it appeared the other driver had stopped in the intersection, facing our son, but then the other driver must have started up and rammed our son's vehicle before our son could get out of the way. Our son said he put his standard shift Subaru into low gear and accelerated, trying to get out of the other driver's way.
Our son's acceleration was evidenced by the gravel thrown back onto the asphalt which showed our son was accelerating from the point of impact. The damage to both vehicles was front passenger side With the point of impact being one foot over the center of the roadway. This would place most of BOTH vehicles on the our son's side of the road. This jives with what our son said. That the other driver was on the wrong side of the road.
The point of impact was not within the intersection, but west of the intersection on a straight portion of the roadway. The other driver had no legal right to be driving on that side of the road.
It was obvious from the location of the point of impact and the damage being on the other driver's vehicle's passenger side, that the other driver had exited the intersection on the wrong side of the road exactly as our son had said.
Below is the T-intersection looking South. The yellow steel gate is on the Southwest corner of the intersection. Originally, this was a square intersection of two county roads but the road continuing north from this location was closed off years ago and has since been used only as a private drive. There is also a private drive on the southwest corner at the yellow gate.
The green bottle (hard to see) on the roadway to the right of the first post west of the yellow gate (WHITE ARROW) is setting on the P.O.I. (point of impact) of the accident. The point of contact on our son's vehicle was front right corner so our son's vehicle was setting to the right of the bottle at contact.
Our son received a ticket at the scene from the highway patrol for "fail to yield at intersection". Prior to trial the charge was amended to "fail to yield to vehicle on the right". For either charge, the P.O.I would have had to occur within an intersection. So both of these charges were false simply because the P.O.I was not within the intersection as you will see from the pictures.
The POI was approximately 33 feet west of the west edge of the north-south road. Definitely not within any intersection.
In the next picture, look at the front of our son's vehicle at Point Of Rest in relation to the tree which is the same tree as in Picture #1. With the Point Of Impact being behind our son's vehicle you can see how the green bottle in Picture #1 is sitting on the P.O.I. Go back to Picture #1. You can see the P.O.I was not within the intersection. That green bottle is setting where the other vehicle made first contact with the front right corner of our son's vehicle. Our son's vehicle was actually setting to the right of that green bottle at contact.
Next is the diagram the highway patrolman drew. It is upside down. North is toward the bottom.
Note: The wide swinging curve which does not exist.
Note: Arrow with the notation "Asphalt ends" and the curve in the asphalt roadway which does not exist either. See next picture down that shows there was no curve in the asphalt and that the asphalt pavement does not extend into the intersection.
The non-existent curve was fraudulently drawn for at least two reasons that we can determine:
1. To legitimize the other driver's being on the wrong side of the road, and,
2. to give the right-of-way to the drunk driver.
This is a falsified police report on file with the State of Oklahoma as being legitimate with full knowledge and cooperation of the Rogers/Mayes County District Attorney.
The picture below shows there was no curve in the asphalt and that the asphalt pavement stops before the intersection starts. Remember the point of impact was on the asphalt pavement which was west of the intersection, 33 feet west of the intersection. West of the west edge of the north/south road.
In the next picture, we color in blue, the west and south edges of the roadway on the falsified police report and add a stop sign. This clearly shows the other driver (#2) to be on the wrong side of the road. This also shows the east-west road on which our son was traveling to be the through road which would have the right-of-way had our son even got so far as the intersection which he did not. This is the #2 reason above as to why the highway patrolman fraudulently drew the intersection as a curve.
At the time of the accident the stop sign was missing from the north-south road, the other driver's road. This stop sign has since been replaced twice that I know of. It keeps disappearing. The last time I was down there the stop sign was back in place. This shows that this is an intersection and not a curve as the highway patrolman has drawn.
You see in the above details that the highway patrolman states the P.O.I. was 23 feet west of the west edge of the county road. At page 88 lines 23 thru 25 and page 89 line 1 of the trial court transcript, I testified that I stepped off eleven large steps from the west edge of the north-south road, which at three feet each, would put the point of impact 33 feet west of the west edge of the north south roadway which is another 10 feet back down the east-west roadway from the P.O.I on the highway patrolman's diagram.
To put the point of impact into perspective on the diagram, see the notation at the top of the north-south road which describes the north-south road as being 25 feet wide and count the number of blocks (10) as the width of the road. This means the highway patrolman's scale was 2 1/2 feet to each block (25 divided by 10). 23 feet west of the intersection would be represented by 23 divided by 2 1/2 = 9.2 blocks. See the White Arrow nearest intersection. Wups. Looks like the highway patrolman has dragged the P.O.I. to the east.
The P.O.I. was 33 feet west (11 long steps) = 13.2 blocks. See Second White Arrown farthest from intersection.
Either of these clearly show the P.O.I was on a straight road and not in any intersection.
The highway patrolman also drew our son's vehicle as traveling down the center and on the wrong side of the road which is not true according to the friction marks made by our son's tires. There were no skid marks period. Only friction marks which some call yaw marks which are caused by the braking tires dragging along the pavement. Skid marks are heavy rubber marks made by locked tires. Rubber is transfered from the tires to the road. The friction marks were so light they did not show in the pictures. These friction marks ran down the right lane until our son made a 45 degree turn just before the point at which the other driver rammed him.
Our son called the sheriff's office and myself at home which was five-eighths of a mile by the road and a shorter distance across the field. When I arrived at the scene which was less than ten minutes, the other driver was very belligerent and trying to bluff our son into leaving the scene. The drunk driver would walk off a ways, then turn and make a run at our son while shouting at our son, over and over for a long time.
The highway patrolman did not show up until after 6:30 p.m. which was an hour and a half later. By that time the other driver had settled down and I had wandered down to the other driver's vehicle which was a couple hundred feet west of the point of impact because our son said the other driver had thrown something into the ditch upon exiting his vehicle. I found two beer cans in the ditch. At this time the highway patrolman arrived and said something to me. I told him I was not involved and that both drivers were up by the other car.
The highway patrolman immediately put both drivers in the patrol unit. After a short while my son exited the highway patrol car and walked over to me with this bewildered look on his face and said, "He wrote me a ticket for fail to yield at intersection."
I pointed at the point of impact which was evidenced by dirt and debris on the roadway (See the green bottle in the picture #1 above) and told the highway patrolman that this is the point of impact and the intersection is over there, pointing east. I pointed at friction marks which had been left down the right side of the road by my son's vehicle while he was coming to a stop where the point of impact occurred. I then pointed at the thrown back gravel where my son had accelerated from the point of impact, trying to get out of the way of the drunk driver who was then coming at our son. The highway patrolman was laughing and looking up in the trees. He would not look at the roadway. The highway patrolman stood there stonewalling me. Not saying anything. Shaking his head and laughing. Pure arrogance. Why? This was bad. Here is where I smelled a rat.
At Page 141 Lines 2, 3, 4, of the trial transcript, the highway patrolman testified he did not see the thrown back gravel. I was blocked from telling the jury the highway patrolman did not see the thrown back gravel because he refused to look at it. I did not get a chance to rebut any of the mis-statements made by the highway patrolman as I was blocked by our so-called defense attorney we were illegally forced to hire.
I told my son he would have to take it to court and to hold the scene while I ran home to get the camera. I returned with the camera and started taking pictures. The first picture I took (below) was of the point of impact which also shows the rear of our son's vehicle and the P.O.I That black thing is the mirror that was knocked off the passenger side of our son's car.
See the round hole in the asphalt pavement toward the lower right corner of the picture? (white arrow) compare that hole to the hole in the picture below (white arrow) which was taken after we received a copy of the falsified traffic report. Same roadway.
I walked backwards and took the second picture to show our son's vehicle at Point of Rest in relation to the intersection.
Note the front of the Subaru in relation to the trunk of the tree. This is the same tree as in the #1 picture above.
I walked backwards still farther for the third picture. Note the same tree as above (arrow)
Our son's vehicle is not even visible and the point of impact was at least 15 feet behind the our son's vehicle according to the highway patrolman's own account. Also, our son's vehicle was behind the P.O.I. Clearly the point of impact was not in the intersection nor on any curve as drawn on the accident diagram by the highway patrolman. You can see there is plenty of room to swing wide around the intersection from this direction without having to cut across the driveway on the southwest corner of the intersection, which is what the other driver did, placing his vehicle head-on at our son in our son's lane of travel. The stop sign is missing.
The picture below shows the rear of our son's vehicle at P.O.R. (Point Of Rest) and the highway patrol car. The highway patrolman was still at the scene while I was taking these pictures. The POI, the very front of our son's car, would be in the area of the arrow. There are no skid marks behind our son's vehicle as testified to by the highway patrolman. I tried in this picture to capture the friction marks left by our son's vehicle to show his route of travel but the friction marks were not dark enough to show up. They were very light. Barely visible to the naked eye. Some describe these marks as yaw marks. Our son made what you might call a somewhat hard stop because the drunk driver was facing him on the wrong side of the road but there were no skidmarks as falsely testified to by the highway patrolman.
We did not receive a copy of the accident report until after the judge of the Mayes County Court violated our son's constitutional rights by requiring our son to hire an attorney. We received a copy of the report from that so-called defense attorney that we were forced to hire. That is when we noticed the unbelievable discrepancies between this accident report and what had transpired at the scene. Our son had received a ticket for "fail to yield at intersection", but the accident report showed a curve and not an intersection. Also the charge on the accident report was changed from "fail to yield at intersection" to "fail to yield to vehicle on the right". You cannot have a charge of fail to yield to vehicle on the right when the point of impact is on a straight road.
Before trial, the formal charge was also changed to "fail to yield to vehicle on the right" and this was the false charge under which our son was maliciously prosecuted and convicted.
The changing of the charge and the intersection to a curve shows the traffic report was later "doctored". The reason for the "doctoring" was that the original charge of fail to yield at intersection was totally false. Instead of straightening their errors, they chose to defraud our son. Our son was on a through county road and would have had the right-of-way at the intersection under Title 47 of the Oklahoma State Statutes, Section 11-401.A.4, excerpted as follows:
A. Whether a stop sign or yield sign is present, visible or not, the driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way and shall not proceed until it is safe to do so, when the driver is:
4. On a county road, which ends at, merges with, or does not otherwise continue directly across an intersecting through county road, upon approaching the intersection with the through county road.
#4 applied to the other driver. The other driver was on a county road that ended at the through road our son was traveling on. This is the reason the intersection was re-drawn as a curve which would give the other driver the right of way. At the time, the stop sign on the other driver's road was missing but was later replaced.
************************************One Day I received a call from our son. He said he was at the Pryor Oklahoma Court House and the district attorney was going to put him in jail because he had no bond money. Our son had taken off work to make a court appearance and had spent all his money on an old junker car that would not run half the time. The drunk driver had destroyed our son's car (oil pan full of water) and due to the highway patrolman's falsified report, the insurance company would not replace our son's car.
I made the mad 25 mile dash and posted bond for our son to keep him out of jail. Is this not crazy?
I think the next time I became involved was when our son had to take off work again for another court appearance and asked me to go with him to court because they were trying to make our son plead guilty for failing to yield to the drunk driver.
In the courtroom that is exactly what the judge and the district attorney were doing. They kept telling our son that he had waived his right to jury trial and that he would have to plead guilty. Our son kept repeating that he had not waived his right to jury trial. Finally this judge said our son could have his jury trial but that our son would have to hire an attorney.
Is this not illegal? What happened to our son's constitutional right to defend himself?
I spoke up and said I would go and hire an attorney. I ran straight across the street on the north side of the courthouse and hired the first attorney I could find. BIG MISTAKE.
*************************************At the trial,
Page 3 line 23 of the trial transcript, COURT: The court finds that the defendant has subjected himself to the jurisdiction of the court and has waived any irregularities in the original information.
This judge has already shown his hostility and prejudice toward defendant by telling the defendant to plead guilty at the earlier hearing and falsely saying that the defendant has waived his right to jury trial. The judge illegally required the defendant to hire an attorney. All of this should have been reversible error. We did not know that our son did not have to put up with this hostile judge any more. The so-called defense attorney should have objected.
I have since heard that this Judge is a past assistant of the District Attorney. So what kind of deal is that?
Page 4 line 4, (The judge continues) That the changes in the amended information do not appear to be any material changes, but rather reiterate the allegations contained in the verified complaint.
Oh but it was a total material change. The judge is wrong again. The original charge was "fail to yield at intersection", plain and simple The highway patrolman acknowledged the scene to be an intersection and the point of impact to be west of the intersection. The highway patrolman proved himself wrong. He is a one man prize fight.
The amended charge of "fail to yield to vehicle on the right" doesn't pertain to the accident report in that the falsified report shows the accident to have occured on a curve. That would be the wrong charge. If it had been a curve, which it was not, the charge would have been fail to yield to oncoming traffic or improper left turn. They are so screwed up.
Again the so-called defense attorney failed to perform.
Our so-called defense attorney struck the last male juror from the jury panel. This man had received a ticket from the highway patrol so why did our so-called defense attorney have this man removed? We wound up with an older all-woman jury who apparently like to see a man in uniform. I told our son that in hindsite maybe we should have rented a sailor suit for him to wear during the trial but I dont think it would have affected the outcome. It was just a kangaroo court.
I see in my notes, and now I remember, that our son's mother had objected to the behavior of the female juror in the seat farthest from us. She said this female juror kept running to the district attorney at every break and talking to her. I said, that was the jury foreman. She must have kept asking the district attorney if it was time to vote guilty yet. She was probably a campaign worker for the judge which was probably the reason she was put on the jury and given the foreman position in the first place.
Our so-called defense attorney kept the highway patrolman on the witness stand until the first break at which time our son impatiently asked the so-called defense attorney to put our son on the stand, saying, "let me get on the stand". Our son was impatient to finally get to tell his story. After the break our so-called defense attorney put the highway patrolman back on the stand until the lunch break, having a nice conversation with the highway patrolman while keeping our son off the stand. After lunch the district attorney put the highway patrolman back on the witness stand again. Again! This really got old. Same old crap over and over. Gobbledegook.
State's exhibit #1 was our slide of the falsified traffic diagram.
At page 39 Line 22 of the trial transcript (so-called defense attorney) Your honor we have made a slide and it's actually our exhibit but we are going to let the State use it and there it is. I made this slide of the falsified diagram and I made another copy of this slide with the intersection overlain in red.
They kept our Kodak Carousel Slide projector turned on all day projecting the falsified traffic diagram showing the non-existent curve, on our 3 X 3 foot screen for the jurors to see with NO REBUTTAL from this so-called defense attorney we were illegally required to hire. They were waiting for the bulb in the projector to burn out so we could not even show our rebuttal slides.
Finally in the afternoon, our so-called defense attorney's opening statement at Page 83 line 21 of the court transcript: We believe that the evidence in this case will show that what we've got here is a real difference of opinion between the trooper and Mr. Bowen as to the conclusion that they reached.
I paid for this? A difference of opinion? There is no difference of opinion. And our so-called defense attorney knows the highway patrolman falsified the traffic diagram. That curve he drew and which they have kept in the jury's face all day with our slide projector and screen, as you can see from the above pictures, does not exist.
I was put on the witness stand first, late in the day. This so-called defense attorney kept hammering questions at me mostly irrelevant or in assistance of the prosecution's false case.
Here is an example where the so-called defense attorney asked irrelevant questions and destroyed our defense. This questioning refers to the above picture.
At Page 91 line 13, (so-called defense attorney) Well, we'll call this defendant's exhibit 1
Question: Now tell us what that's a picture of?
Me: That's Mr. (other driver)'s vehicle.
Q: What direction is the camera facing when that picture was taken?
Me: It's facing eastbound. That's what (highway patrolman) referred to as the 145, 150 feet west of the scene parked off on the grass.
Q: Now, do you see that individual to the right and to the rear of the pickup?
Me: That's Mr. (other driver)
Q: (other driver) Okay. What's that object right there in front of his front bumper?
Me: It's a Coors beer can.
Q: Coors beer can Okay. Now, do you know what that is that's perched on his hood up there?
Me: No, sir. I don't.
Q: All right. That's looking east, correct?
Me: Correct.
Q: What is that stuff on his right behind (other driver) over there at the side?
Me: That's (highway patrolman's) vehicle.
Q: No; back over there. That green stuff.
Me: Weeds.
Q: Is that Johnson Grass?
Me: Johnson Grass. I believe it is.
Q: Okay. Was there a lot of it down there?
Me: Yes sir. There was. It was tall.
(((Here the so-called defense attorney who was holding the remote control to my slide projector switched slides)))
Q: All right. Now then let's go --- what is that a picture of?
Me: That's Mr. Bowen's Subaru at the point of rest.
Green stuff? Now let's go????
The object of this slide (defendant's exhibit 1) was to show the damage to the other driver's vehicle being on the wrong side of the vehicle. This picture, switched back and forth in comparison with the other pictures above showing no curve, and point of impact being outside the intersection, would place the other driver on the wrong side of the road.
You can see I was unable to say anything about the damage being on the wrong side of the other driver's vehicle due to answering the so-called defense attorney's irrelevant questions and his moving onto the next slide. You cannot think about two things at once. This slide was never shown again. This so-called defense attorney kept the remote control to my slide projector in his hot little hand the whole time and asked in a stupid manner, "what's that, what's that". Confusing.
This so-called defense attorney acted just like this all the through my color slides. I took all kinds of pictures and some slides were irrelevant. The so-called defense attorney would dwell upon the irrelevant ones in order to destroy my credibility to the jurors. He jumbled my pictures and never allowed any comparison whatsoever.
I realized we were being defrauded by this so-called defense attorney and that our son would be convicted and that we would have to appeal the decision. I now wish I had gotten off the witness stand at that point because I was not allowed to testify, but with all the shouting going on, and past history with this judge, the judge was shouting too, I knew I could be jailed for contempt of court so I was at their mercy.
At one point when I was on the witness stand the highway patrolman shot the spring from a pen or something across the courtroom and crawled on hands and knees in full uniform across the floor in front of the witness stand. I cant remember what I was trying to testify to at the time.
When our son was on the witness stand and made his statement that the other driver was coming at our son head-on and there was not room to go between the other driver and the fence post, the highway patrolman shot the district attorney with this spring. My wife and I were seated on the first bench in the spectator section just a few feet from the nearest end of the jury box. The female juror second closest to us was laughing loudly and her whole upper body was rocking back and forth. There was so much distraction we could not hear what our son was saying from the witness stand. We know this juror did not hear our son's testimony. We could not hear it.
I did not see our so-called defense attorney give the highway patrolman a signal to shoot the district attorney but it was no coincidence that this theatrical production covered up our son's statement that he did not have room to drive between the other driver and the fence post.
The real question is why the District Attorney pursued such an obviously false charge and harassed and threatened our son with jail. What was the point? Why did he do this? Why did they trouble our son so with all their crooked behavior?
I had called the head district attorney prior to trial so he knew our son was innocent but still he went ahead with this malicious prosecution, stacked this jury of older women, and convicted our son of failing to yield to a drunk driver. This district attorney is still in office and no one will run for election against him. At the Rogers County Grand Jury committee everyone says that if these defense attorneys do not prosecute their own clients they wont work in this district anymore.
At Page 156 line 11 (district attorney) The defendant is the one trying to blow smoke. The Officer has testified that there's nothing significant about where the asphalt ends.
OH YEAH!?!?!?! Compare the end of the asphalt with the Officer's falsified diagram. Where is the curve. Without the curve the other driver is off the roadway which is exactly the way it was.
On Page 135 of the trial transcript, The district attorney asked the highway patrolman if he knew either our son or the other driver to which he replied no. The district attorney did not ask the highway patrolman if he knew me. The highway patrolman definitely knew me from when I was on the Tulsa Police Department and he was on the Broken Arrow Oklahoma Police Department. I did have a couple of ferocious enemies on the Tulsa Police Department but dont know if the highway patrolman was friends of my enemies. I know the highway patrolman recognized me at the scene before looking at my son's driver license with the same name.
Re: the blowing smoke remark by the district attorney above. The district attorney kept mentioning this and then tried to act like the defense was bringing up the blowing smoke remark. We were blocked from saying anything and our so-called defense attorney only had pleasant conversations with the prosecution.
Page 135 line 17 not drunk? Contrary to the testimony of our son who testifed that the accident occurred at 6:00 pm, the accident happened right at 5 pm and not 6 pm. Our son had gotten off work at 4:30. The highway patrolman did not arrive until 6:30, an hour and a half later and the other driver had sobered up. At least he had calmed down and had stopped running at our son and shouting.
This discrepancy of the time factor was not cleared up by the defense attorney. This was one of the points I had made sure the so-called defense attorney was aware of. Then this so-called defense attorney got our son to testify erroneously about the time and let it stand.
A person can sober up in an hour and a half especially when they keep running at my son and shouting. The other driver was drunk when I arrived at the scene. He was crazy. I was afraid he would try to stick something into my son.
We were not allowed to put on our defense. Our son had to go back to court another day, I guess for sentencing, and I went with him. In the courtroom I told the judge we wanted our day in court. The judge shouted, "YOU HAD YOUR DAY IN COURT!", to which I replied, "No. We did not." End of discussion.
This so-called defense attorney did nothing but confuse and obfuscate. You cannot think about two things at once. You cannot keep your train of thought while someone is in your face asking irrelevant questions, Some totally rediculous. Weeds???? This one shows the so-called defense attorney was desperate for crap with which to confuse us.
When I was on the stand, the District Attorney would "huf" every time I answered a question. "HUH" "HUH'. Then the district attorney switched to what I would describe as snickering and moved on to snorting loudly. It became automatic for me to jerk my head around everytime I answered an irrelevant question from this so-called defense attorney, I guess, to see if she was going to throw something at me. It was a circus.
The below is copied word for word from a sheet of paper the district attorney fraudulently distributed to the jurors. There could be no point to this sheet other than to confuse the jurors further.
..................................................................................................................................
NO.12
NO PERSON MAY BE CONVICTED OF FAILURE TO YIELD TO A VEHICLE ON THE RIGHT UNLESS THE STATE HAS PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT EACH ELEMENT OF THE CRIME.
THESE ELEMENTS ARE:
FIRST: DRIVING A MOTOR VEHICLE,
SECOND: APPROACHING AN INTERSECTION AT APPROXIMATELY THE SAME TIME AS ANOTHER MOTOR VEHICLE, and
THIRD: FAILING TO YIELD THE RIGHT-OF-WAY TO THE VEHICLE ON THE RIGHT.
.................................................................................................................................
What about the fact that the P.O.I had to be within an intersection which, as you can see above, it was not. This was a totally wrong charge to start. The district attorney intentionally misled the jury all day long by word and by a printed misleading sheet of paper which they typed up.
I could go on an on about all the shenanigans pulled by the District Attorney in this railroading. I still have the trial transcript if anybody wants to see.
I cannot remember when I started getting angry at the mistreatment of our son by the Rogers/Mayes County District Attorney. I think it was when I realized the court was a kangaroo court and we were being defrauded in an official Oklahoma Court of Law. Unbelievable.
They destroyed my son's car, blocked his insurance, made him take off work, harassed him, threatened him with jail, made him post bond, and eventually convicted him in their kangaroo court and fined him. I had to stand by while the officials of Oklahoma's Twelveth Judicial District criminally abused our son.
The Mayes/Rogers Counties District Attorney wilfully and knowingly, maliciously prosecuted our son on a false charge. The so-called defense attorney we had been forced to hire, and who wrecked our defense, refused to appeal the conviction and we could not find another attorney to appeal it. We complained to other state officials but got nowhere. No checks and balances in this government.
P.O.I.
Where is the highway patrolman's curve in the asphalt pavement?
The asphalt pavement does not extend into the intersection P.O.I. was on pavement.
P.O.I.
