KANSAS CITY, Mo. — Setting Aaron Fisher free was the right thing to do, according to the Missouri Court of Appeals.

In a unanimous decision, the Missouri Court of Appeals Western District has affirmed the decision of Judge Patricia Joyce to dismiss the case against Aaron Fisher for the crime of Statutory Sodomy in the First Degree, just the latest judicial action in what is one of the most momentous and far-reaching cases in recent memory within the 26th Judicial Circuit of Missouri. The case went before the appeals court when the current Miller County Prosecuting Attorney (PA), Ben Winfrey, who took office in 2014, appealed Judge Joyce’s decision to dismiss. He has more recently refiled charges against Aaron Fisher, who has been arrested again for crimes dating from 2009.

Fisher was arrested after his infant daughter was found with wounds indicating physical trauma, rape and sodomy, authorities say. Investigators have a written confession from Fisher in which he admitted to the crimes; Fisher also pleaded guilty and confessed to the crime in open court. But prosecutors say the case hit myriad hangups over its six-year journey, with Fisher changing his plea, both 26th Circuit judges recusing themselves, Fisher’s attorney requesting continuances and delays, and discrepancies in Fisher’s testified confession. Ultimately the case was moved to Judge Joyce, who granted Fisher’s new state-appointed attorney’s motion to dismiss the entire case, based on the alleged violation of Fisher’s constitutional right to a speedy trial.

19th Circuit Judge Patricia Joyce

The Appellate Court upheld Joyce’s decision, citing controlling court cases as well as statutory and constitutional language. The controlling case for speedy trial issues for Missouri courts is Barker v. Wingo, a U.S. Supreme Court case from 1972 that outlines a four-part test for damage from trial delay. These are (1) the length of delay, (2) reason for delay, (3) defendant’s assertion of right to speedy trial, and (4) prejudice to the defendant’s case by the delay.

The justices determined six years was too long and the PA’s argument that the defense was responsible for the delay did not hold merit based upon records (or the lack thereof) from the 26th Circuit. Those records showed various continuances being granted, but did not always note whether the prosecution or defense had asked for a continuance. Both 26th Circuit judges who had handled the case and would have been familiar with its trajectory recused themselves after the majority of the continuances had happened, and the case went to Joyce in early 2015.

In Miller County, not all court proceedings and hearings are recorded. According to staff at the Circuit Clerk’s office, there are typically neither written nor audio recordings made of the kinds of hearings and conferences in which a continuance might be requested and granted. Therefore, little evidence exists to prove whether the prosecution or the defense made the bulk of the continuance requests.

However, one record does exist. Early in the case’s history, Fisher had filed a handwritten request for a speedy trial. That was granted, but on the trial date, Fisher’s state-appointed counsel asked for a continuance. That exchange was documented by a court stenographer, and depicts Judge Stan Moore explaining to Fisher that the delay requested by his attorney, Keith Halcomb, would impede the speedy trial he requested. Fisher said he understood. The prosecutor asserted that Fisher relinquished his right by filing for that continuance. But the Appellate Court noted that during the exchange in court that day, Fisher’s attorney had noted the defendant was not giving up his right to a speedy trial but understood that some delay would be inevitable if the continuance were granted.

The official transcript of that exchange reads:

THE COURT: Mr. Halcomb, are you requesting a continuance of this matter?

MR. HALCOMB: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Mr. Fisher, you understand your case is set for jury trial this week?

MR. FISHER: Yes.

THE COURT: Your attorney requested a continuance, do you have any objection?

MR. FISHER: No.

THE COURT: You filed some sort of a speedy trial request. You understand that your request for continuance today is a waiver of that request?

MR. FISHER: Yes.

MR. HALCOMB: Not waiving his request so much as asking for a continuance. He understands it will impact the speedy trial request for the period that this is delayed.

THE COURT: All right. Show the matter to be reset for pretrial and trial. Thank you.

The final section of the Appellate Court opinion contains the conclusion reached by the court, and it reads: “We conclude, therefore, that the facts of this case establish that Fisher suffered a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial and the motion court correctly ordered the dismissal of his charges with prejudice…. We affirm the ruling of the trial court dismissing the case.” The opinion was signed by Judge Anthony Rex Gabbert and the statement “All Concur” to indicate a unanimous opinion by all three justices.

Case History

In Fisher’s written confession, he acknowledged that in 2009, he committed sexually deviant acts with his infant child. His crime drew universal outrage from family members, child abuse advocate groups, and the general public when it occurred. Those same groups were confounded and infuriated once more when, six years later, Judge Joyce dismissed the case.

Fisher’s case drew continued interest throughout the years as it moved through the court system, first being handled by former PA Matt Howard in Miller County and then by PA Ben Winfrey. Not only did two different prosecutors handle this case, Fisher was represented by two different defense attorneys.

According to court documents at the time of the initial filing, Fisher admitted to investigators during the interview and interrogation that he had committed sexual acts against the child. Later, the record of an early appearance in court by Fisher contains Fisher’s agreement that he did commit the acts in question. The factual basis for any plea of guilt must show that a defendant knowingly committed the criminal act to which he or she is entering a guilty plea.

But on a subsequent statement for the Sentencing Assessment Report, Fisher claimed that he did not remember committing the acts for which he was charged. Based upon the contradiction between the court appearance and the sentencing report, the court would not accept the guilty plea previously entered by Fisher. At that point, the presiding judge recused himself because he had presided over both the plea arrangement and the subsequent events of the rejection of that plea. The Missouri Supreme Court appointed a special judge for the case, Judge Patricia Joyce of the 19th Circuit in Cole County.

At that point, Defense Counsel filed a Motion to Dismiss based upon the statutory and constitutional right to a speedy trial. Judge Joyce, after considering the facts and the record from the previous court proceedings, issued an order sustaining Fisher’s motion and dismissed the case with prejudice. Judge Joyce’s order outlined a prolonged failure on the part of the State to bring this defendant to trial over a nearly six-year period. The State argued that delay after delay was caused by the defendant. But Joyce pointed out that the court records did not support that contention. The State, through PA Ben Winfrey, then appealed Joyce’s decision to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, in October of 2015.

Through subsequent filings of briefs by all parties and oral arguments on Aug. 31, 2016, the case was officially submitted to the court in Division 1, consisting of Justices Gabbert, Newton and Ahuja. On Nov. 22, 2016, the court issued a Signed Majority Opinion which affirmed the ruling of Judge Joyce’s Motion Court dismissing the case against Fisher.

The Miller County Prosecutor has filed a new charge of First Degree Assault instead of Statutory Sodomy in the First Degree against defendant Fisher based on the facts of the 2009 case.


0
0
0
0
0

(0 Ratings)