The materials below are provided solely for the interest and convenience of the reader, are not official Court records, and should not be quoted or cited as such. Once cases are docketed, the briefs filed by the parties typically are posted within a day or so. Summaries of the cases are prepared by the Court’s communications counsel and typically are posted the week before arguments. Audio files and information about attorneys who argued typically are posted within a day or so after arguments.  Further information about the cases may be available through Case.net.



SC96830
In the Matter of the Care and Treatment of Nicholas Grado a/k/a Nicholas R. Grado, a/k/a Nicholas Ryan Grado v. State of Missouri
Jackson County
Challenge to sexually violent predator commitment
Listen to the oral argument: SC96830 MP3 file
Grado was represented during arguments by Chelsea Mitchell of the public defender’s office in Columbia; the state was represented by Katherine Dolin of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City.

Nicholas Grado pleaded guilty in May 2012 to first-degree child molestation and was sentenced to a prison term in the department of corrections. At the time, he was 18 years old; his crimes were sexual acts over a several-week span involving several young children. In October 2014, the state filed a petition seeking to commit Grado to the custody of the department of mental health as a sexually violent predator. The circuit court appointed a licensed psychologist to examine Grado. At trial, the psychologist testified her diagnosis of Grado included pedophilic disorder non-exclusive type, which she testified is a lifetime, chronic disease. Another psychologist testified, because of the brain’s development, juveniles and adults differ in terms of impulsivity, psychosocial judgment, maturity and likelihood to act inappropriately. The jury found Grado is a sexually violent predator, and the circuit court committed him as such. Grado appeals.

This appeal presents several questions for this Court. One is whether Grado is eligible to be committed as a sexually violent predator for a sexually violent offense he committed when he was 18 years old. Other questions involve whether the state presented sufficient evidence to establish Grado suffers from the mental abnormality of pedophilic disorder and, if so, whether the state presented sufficient evidence to establish this disorder makes Grado more likely than not to commit predatory acts of sexual violence if not confined. An additional question involves whether Grado had a right to effective assistance of counsel; whether he was denied any such assistance; and whether such a claim is cognizable (can be considered) in a sexually violent predator case or under the statutory right to an appeal.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri Foundation argues, as a friend of the Court, that offenders facing confinement under the state’s sexually violent predator act have both a constitutional and a statutory right to counsel, and these rights guarantee effective counsel.

SC96830_Grado_brief
SC96830_State_brief
SC96830_Grado_reply_brief

SC96830_ACLU_of_Missouri_Foundation_amicus_brief
 
 

SC96851
In the Matter of the Care and Treatment of James Braddy, a/k/a James A. Braddy, a/k/a James Arnold Braddy Jr.
Iron County
Challenge to sexually violent predator commitment
Listen to the oral argument: SC96851 MP3 file
Braddy was represented during arguments by Chelsea Mitchell of the public defender’s office in Columbia; the state was represented by Katherine Dolin of the attorney general’s office in Jefferson City.

James Braddy was convicted of child abuse for sexual acts involving a young girl in the mid 1990s. He also was convicted of endangering the welfare of a child and statutory rape for acts involving a 14-year-old girl in 1998. There also were allegations he had engaged in similar conduct with other children, although he was not charged with crimes for this conduct. While in prison, Braddy completed the state’s sex offender program and continued community-based treatment after he was released on parole. Fewer than two years later, Braddy committed sexual acts against another young girl, was convicted of first-degree statutory rape in 2010 and was returned to prison. The state subsequently petitioned to have Braddy committed to the custody of the department of mental health as a sexually violent predator. At trial, a psychologist testified for the state she had diagnosed Braddy with pedophilic disorder, antisocial personality disorder and narcissistic personality disorder. She testified he had a mental abnormality and was more likely than not to commit another act of sexual violence if not confined. Another psychologist agreed Braddy had a mental abnormality and was more likely than not to reoffend, but a third psychologist and certified forensic examiner testified, from an actuarial standpoint, Braddy was not “more likely than not” to reoffend if not confined. The jury found Braddy is a sexually violent predator, and the circuit court committed him as such. Braddy appeals.

This appeal presents several questions for this Court. One is whether Braddy has a constitutional or statutory right to effective assistance of counsel in a sexually violent predator proceeding and, if so, if he was denied any such assistance. A related issue is whether such a claim can be raised in an appeal of a sexually violent predator proceeding. Another question involves whether evidence the circuit court permitted that Braddy had been arrested in a murder case – for which he ultimately pleaded guilty to hindering prosecution in exchange for his testimony against his codefendant – was relevant to determining whether Braddy is a sexually violent predator and whether such evidence was prejudicial. An additional question is whether the circuit court should have permitted a particular juror to serve on the jury. Related issues involve whether the juror had expressed opinions about the facts and matter in controversy that might have influenced his judgment or had beliefs precluding him from following the circuit court’s instructions and, if so, whether his additional answers rehabilitated him.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri Foundation argues, as a friend of the Court, that offenders facing confinement under the state’s sexually violent predator act have both a constitutional and a statutory right to counsel, and these rights guarantee effective counsel.

SC96851_Braddy_brief
SC96851_State_brief
SC96851_Braddy_reply_brief

SC96851_ACLU_of_Missouri_Foundation_amicus_brief



SC96752
In re: Brandon L. Williams
St. Louis
Attorney discipline
Listen to the oral argument: SC96752 MP3 file
The chief disciplinary counsel’s office was represented during arguments by Cheryl Walker, a special representative of the office and an attorney in Clayton; Williams was represented by Andrew Kasnetz of Sandberg Phoenix & von Gontard PC in St. Louis.

A woman hired St. Louis attorney Brandon Williams to represent her in her claim following an automobile accident. He settled the matter with the insurer for $3,750. Without authorization from Williams or his client, his paralegal executed a release agreement, endorsed the settlement check and deposited the funds into Williams’ operating account. Williams entrusted his paralegal to deliver the funds to his client and did not know the funds had not been paid until a new attorney his client hired contacted him. As a result, the client did not receive the funds for more than 18 months after they had been deposited into Williams’ operating account. Another woman and her minor daughter also hired Williams to represent them in connection with an automobile accident the daughter had caused. He settled the matter with the insurer for $7,500. Although the daughter had become an adult, her mother signed the settlement and release agreement. Without authorization from Williams or the clients, Williams’ paralegal endorsed the settlement check and deposited the funds into Williams’ operating account. He again entrusted the paralegal to deliver the funds to the clients and did not know the funds had not been paid until the mother called him. As a result, the clients did not receive the funds for 22 months after his office had received them. The chief disciplinary counsel instituted disciplinary proceedings against Williams, and after conducting an evidentiary hearing, a disciplinary hearing panel issued its decision finding Williams violated several rules of professional responsibility. The panel recommended that Williams’ law license be suspended, that the suspension be stayed and that Williams be placed on probation for one year. The chief disciplinary counsel and Williams accepted the panel’s recommendation and stipulate to the facts in the panel’s decision. The chief disciplinary counsel now asks this Court to discipline Williams accordingly.

This case presents two questions for this Court – whether Williams violated the rules of professional responsibility and, if so, what discipline, if any, is appropriate.

SC96752_Chief_Disciplinary_Counsel_brief
SC96752_Williams_brief



SC96939
In re: Eric G. Zahnd
Platte County
Attorney discipline
Listen to the oral argument: SC96939 MP3 file
Chief Disciplinary Counsel Alan Pratzel represented his office in Jefferson City during arguments; Zahnd was represented by Edwin Smith of Polsinelli PC in St. Joseph. Judge George E. Wolf III – a circuit judge in the 16th Judicial Circuit (Jackson County) – sat in this case by special designation in place of Judge W. Brent Powell.

Eric Zahnd has served as the elected prosecutor in Platte County since 2003. This disciplinary case arises out of matters relating to his office’s prosecution of Darren Paden, a prominent member of the Dearborn community in northern Platte County. In December 2012, the prosecutor’s office charged Paden with two counts of first degree statutory sodomy, alleging he had admitted to sexually assaulting one of his daughters. Paden posted bond and was released from jail, after which he made statements to various members of the community, causing his daughter to feel ostracized. In August 2015, when Paden pleaded guilty as charged, he admitted he had lied to people in the community. Before Paden’s sentencing hearing, held in October 2015, the circuit court received a number of letters directly from individuals referencing Paden’s character, apparently upon solicitation of Paden’s father or attorney. Some letters questioned Paden’s guilt, the victim’s character or both. The letters were placed in the court’s public file, with copies sent to the prosecutor’s office. Zahnd or his assistants contacted several of the letter writers. Zahnd alleges his office did so to advise the writers their letters were part of the public record, to apprise them of the full facts of the case and to consider whether to call them as witnesses during the sentencing hearing. The chief disciplinary counsel alleges the prosecutor or his representatives told the letter-writers their names would be included as supporters of child molestation in a news release the office was preparing to send to media if the writers did not withdraw their letters. The day before the sentencing hearing was scheduled to be held, Zahnd permitted an assistant prosecutor to post to the office’s Facebook page that: Paden would be sentenced the next day, a number of people had submitted letters to the court in support of Paden and anyone wishing to show support for the victim could attend. During the hearing, the defense did not mention the letter-writers or ask the circuit court to consider the letters when imposing sentence, and the assistant prosecutor referenced the letter-writers only as a group. After the circuit court imposed two consecutive sentences of 25 years in prison, the prosecutor’s office distributed to the media a news release with a headline and quotations from Zahnd expressing disappointment about community members supporting a defendant who had confessed to sex crimes against a child over the victim. The news release listed the names and current or former employers of certain individuals who had written letters in support of Paden. Three of the individuals named in the news release allege they were harmed as a result.

The chief disciplinary counsel instituted disciplinary proceedings against Zahnd in July 2017. A disciplinary hearing panel conducted an evidentiary hearing. During the hearing, Zahnd denied any wrongdoing or any violations of the rules of professional responsibility and said he included information about the letter-writers in his news release to show the public that criminal defendants supported by prominent community members will not receive preferential treatment. In December 2017, the panel issued its decision finding Zahnd violated certain rules of professional responsibility but not others and recommending he be reprimanded. Zahnd rejected the recommendation. The chief disciplinary counsel asks this Court to suspend Zahnd’s law license with no leave to apply for reinstatement for at least six months.

This case presents two primary questions for this Court – whether the evidence shows Zahnd violated rules of professional responsibility and, if so, what discipline, if any, is appropriate. Related issues include the extent to which Zahnd’s public statements are protected by the First Amendment or within the “safe harbor” of the rule governing trial publicity; what purposes the news release identifying certain letter writers served; and whether the rules of professional conduct are vague, overly broad or otherwise failed to provide notice of the conduct required.

Several organizations filed briefs as friends of the Court. The Missouri Association of Prosecuting Attorneys argues prosecutors have a First Amendment right and an ethical duty to communicate truthful facts to the public and should be permitted to continue doing so. The Missouri Press Association argues the rules of professional conduct permit statements of information contained in the public record, and speech regarding matters taking place in court impact the public’s trust in the judicial system. The Missouri Victim Assistance Network argues prosecutors have a responsibility to crime victims and should be permitted to advocate with zeal on behalf of crime victims. Synergy Services Inc. argues prosecutors should be permitted to speak the truth about child sexual abuse to encourage other victims to come forward and to deter future crimes of this nature

The national and state associations of criminal defense lawyers argue the conduct of Zahnd and his subordinates violates the rules of professional responsibility and professional standards for prosecutors and undermines confidence in the justice system; his contacts with the letter writers was to threaten or intimidate them into retracting their letters; and the content of the news release mischaracterized events, included information that was not part of Paden’s criminal case and did not constitute protected speech under the First Amendment.

SC96939_Chief_Disicplinary_Counsel_brief
SC96939_Zahnd_corrected_brief

SC96939_NACDL_and_MACDL_amici_brief
SC96939_MO_Victim_Assistance_Network_amicus_brief
SC96939_Synergy_Services_amicus_brief
SC96939_MO_Ass'n_of_Prosecuting_Attorneys_amicus_brief
SC96939_MO_Press_Association_amicus_brief
Supreme Court - Dockets