Elizabeth Fairfield "the whole shebang" trial

As I correctly noted on March 2, 2009 "The parties have until March 9 at 4:00pm to submit their proposed Findings. McClure will then rule that Meyer met his burden of providing evidence today sufficient to show that Fairfield was not indicted using her own testimony and there is no basis to dismiss the case."

Fairfield was compelled to testify before the grand jury through a grant of use immunity.

McClure acknowledged that "If a defendant demonstrates that testimony related to the prosecution was elicited pursuant to a grant of use immunity, the State then carries the heavy burden of proving that the evidence upon which the grand jury relied was derived from a legitimate source wholly independent of the Defendant's compelled testimony. Brown at 826." Thus, the State was then required to go forward and provide "by a preponderance of the evidence" that the grand jury returned an indictment based on information "derived from a legitimate source wholly independent of the Defendant's compelled testimony."

McClure acknowledged that the State did not present evidence to support the indictment of Fairfield from independent sources. McClure went on to say that "the Court cannot determine whether the grand jury relied upon Elizabeth's testimony or not when the indictment against her was issued." The state failed to meet the "heavy burden of proving that the evidence upon which the grand jury relied was derived from a legitimate source wholly independent of the Defendant's compelled testimony." It was clearly established that Fairfield had testified in the grand jury proceedings which were held in relation to the acts for which she was indicted for murder. It was also acknowledged that Fairfield was granted immunity to compel her testimony. Finally, the State did not present evidence at the hearing on Fairfield's Motion to Dismiss to show that the indictment was based upon independent evidence.

Thus, McClure did find that "sufficient evidence exists, independent of the immunized testimony of the Defendant, to support the murder indictment returned by the Boone County Grand Jury against Elizabeth Fairfield, and that the evidence and testimony admitted demonstrate that the indictment returned was based upon evidence independent of the Defendant's immunized grand jury testimony."

McClure stated that the court was without evidence to show that the indictment was based upon independent evidence which the State is required to show in order to go forward with the charge. If you are not seeing the logical connection here you are far from being alone. There is one reason why McClure ruled this way. She is prejudiced against criminal defendant's when it is not her. I was in Superior Court II telling her this on February 18, 2009 while she was violating another law. This is the judge whom I have photographs of partying with the prosecutor in this case.

So, if not having the case dismissed wasn't enough Boone County Prosecutor [party companion to McClure] Todd Meyer filed additional charges against Fairfield on Thursday March 19, 2009. These charges included "Neglect of a dependent resulting in death" as a Class B felony, "False reporting" as a Class A misdemeanor for saying she didn't murder her daughter, "Driving left of center while administering a lethal dose of painkillers to a minor" as an infraction and "J-walking to avoid apprehension by law enforcement" as a Class D felony. These carry a potential of an additional 24 years of incarceration and $15,025 in fines.

What is most interesting is that Meyer chose to violate Fairfield's due process rights by adding charges after a pre-trial conference has been held and without seeking court approval to amend the Charging Information. I can certainly understand why he wouldn't bother seeking court permission since it is already a given that McClure will approve whatever Todd wants regardless of the legality.

So now it is sit back, wait for the trial which is currently scheduled for May 4, 2009 and listen for McClure to give her final instruction to the jury, "Do what Mr Meyer has asked you to do."

www.InCRA.info