Topic: Former Waynesville coach's sexual misconduct case almost dismissed (Read 671 times)

darrellmaurina · « **on:** August 05, 2009, 11:50:50 AM »

VIENNA, Mo. (Aug. 5, 2009) — Following more than a year of no court action in the case of Scott Ballard, a former Waynesville High School assistant football coach accused of multiple cases of sexual misconduct with a female student, Circuit Judge Tracy Storie considered dismissing all charges in a Monday morning hearing. However, after Prosecutor Deborah Hooper drove more than 40 miles one-way in a trip to Maries County Circuit Court in Vienna for the dismissal hearing, which had been moved to that location due to extensive pre-trial publicity in Pulaski County, she and Storie agreed to schedule a trial setting date on Oct. 5. Ballard has pleaded innocent to three Class D felony charges of second-degree attempted statutory rape of a Waynesville High School student, then 16, in connection with a series of three incidents in late 2007 that were reported to the Pulaski County Sheriff’s Department on Jan. 16, 2008. None of the sexual activity alleged by prosecutors happened on school grounds, but happened at various locations in Pulaski County outside city limits. CAUTION: Contains graphic information from court records. Click here to read more on Pulaski County Daily News ...

Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/darrellmaurina/

igahmah at work · « **Reply #1 on:** August 05, 2009, 09:04:52 PM »

So due to the unaction of our prosecuting attorney, he almost got away with it. People please remember this in the next election.

Should that be inaction?

Ok, let me put it this way then the grammar won't be in question.
Due to the prosecutor sitting on her butt and not doing anything in a year, he almost got away with it.

blissfullybusy · « **Reply #2 on:** August 05, 2009, 09:25:19 PM »

Quote from: igahmah at work on August 05, 2009, 09:04:52 PM

So due to the unaction of our prosecuting attorney, he almost got away with it. People please remember this in the next election.

Should that be inaction?

Ok, let me put it this way then the grammar won't be in question.
Due to the prosecutor sitting on her butt and not doing anything in a year, he almost got away with it.

Ok wait a minute... I wouldn't say that, it is my understanding that the process is as follows..

Charges filed

arraignment in associate circuit court set for pre-lim

Preliminary hearing to be bound over to circuit court

arraignment in circuit court set for trial or motions...

usually defense attorney files motion to suppress any evidence (so date set for hearing on that motion) again time before a judge

then court sets date for trial depending what how the judge rules on the motion to suppress

So I have no idea why the judge didn't set a trial date. The Prosecutor doesn't request a trial date, the Judge does that. I don't really see fault with the prosecutor in this one.

darrellmaurina · « **Reply #3 on:** August 05, 2009, 09:48:12 PM »

So we're all aware of procedural issues, the judge is pretty much unable to explain why he did what he did. However, it was Judge Storie's direction that caused the circuit clerk (in this case, the Maries County Circuit Clerk, due to change of venue) to send his warning letter to Pulaski County Prosecutor Deborah Hooper.

Unlike the judge who basically can't comment on the reasons for his rulings apart from highly unusual circumstances, it's the prosecutor's choice whether to comment or not. Deborah Hooper was called and asked for comment. (I also contacted a representative of the defendant's law firm, but if I were him I wouldn't have commented either.) I waited almost two full days before posting my article to give Hooper the opportunity to explain the delay.

Perhaps Hooper will choose to explain herself at a later date.

blissfullybusy · « **Reply #4 on:** August 05, 2009, 10:23:48 PM »

Quote from: darrellmaurina on August 05, 2009, 09:48:12 PM

So we're all aware of procedural issues, the judge is pretty much unable to explain why he did what he did. However, it was Judge Storie's direction that caused the circuit clerk (in this case, the Maries County Circuit Clerk, due to change of venue) to send his warning letter to Pulaski County Prosecutor Deborah Hooper.

Unlike the judge who basically can't comment on the reasons for his rulings apart from highly unusual circumstances, it's the prosecutor's choice whether to comment or not. Deborah Hooper was called and asked for comment. (I also contacted a representative of the defendant's law firm, but if I were him I wouldn't have commented either.) I waited almost two full days before posting my article to give Hooper the opportunity to explain the delay.

Perhaps Hooper will choose to explain herself at a later date.

Perhaps, like you, she doesn't have an explanation for the judges actions or she's busy preparing for other cases. I'm not really trying to defend her on this, I just don't understand why she needs to explain anything... it's not in any way her place to explain why the Judge didn't do something.

tpgunbiz · « **Reply #5 on:** August 06, 2009, 12:50:54 AM »

Its her job to prosecute him, Its the judges job to see that its done right. If she hasnt filed anything at all in this case she is seriously lacking at her Job. Id like to see officials held accountable for their jobs as we are paying their salaries

dixonbob · « **Reply #6 on:** August 06, 2009, 01:58:19 AM »

My question would be why did she continue meeting him? I think lets not hang the guy till we know all the facts. It can ruin a mans life.

tpgunbiz · « **Reply #7 on:** August 06, 2009, 03:36:18 AM »

We all hashed that out last year or two. The issue here is wether the prosecutor is doing her job in that Situation. She has to present a case and if she does not, and the man IS guilty, then He walks. if he gets a fair trial and walks so be it, but if hes guilty and walks because she isnt competent then she needs to step down.

igahmah at work · « **Reply #8 on:** August 06, 2009, 08:51:02 AM »

"The case was transferred to Maries County on June 11, 2008. One year later, on June 12, 2009, Storie placed it on the dismissal docket after no action had been filed for twelve months." Quote from Darrell's article.

I'm just going by what is in the article and it looks to me like in a one year time period 'NO ACTION" had been filed by the prosecutor since June 11, 2008. If this is true, sounds to me like she's not doing her job.

blissfullybusy · « **Reply #9 on:** August 06, 2009, 09:39:04 AM »

What I'm saying is that there is nothing she SHOULD have filed. This is not like civil cases where the attorney's dictate court settings... criminal cases are GIVEN a court date and you show up when the court says too. The COURT failed to set a date for plea or hearing this really wasn't her fault. The moment that Maries county received the case the clerk's office should have set it for a hearing on something even if just for review. Furthermore, why hadn't the defense attorney filed a Motion to Suppress? This is standard procedure in a criminal case. If I was Mr. Ballard I would be wondering if I had adequate representation.

I'm not on her "side" because she has done so many things that are questionable, but this particular incident is not her fault.

What_The? · « **Reply #10 on:** August 06, 2009, 09:52:57 AM »

Quote from: blissfullybusy on August 06, 2009, 09:39:04 AM

What I'm saying is that there is nothing she SHOULD have filed. This is not like civil cases where the attorney's dictate court settings... criminal cases are GIVEN a court date and you show up when the court says too. The COURT failed to set a date for plea or hearing this really wasn't her fault. The moment that Maries county received the case the clerk's office should have set it for a hearing on something even if just for review. Furthermore, why hadn't the defense attorney filed a Motion to Suppress? This is standard procedure in a criminal case. If I was Mr. Ballard I would be wondering if I had adequate representation.

I'm not on her "side" because she has done so many things that are questionable, but this particular incident is not her fault.

Unless you know for sure, you shouldn't speak for Hooper.

Unless you know for sure, you shouldn't claim you know what happened in this case.

blissfullybusy · « **Reply #11 on:** August 06, 2009, 10:03:35 AM »

Quote from: What_The? on August 06, 2009, 09:52:57 AM

Unless you know for sure, you shouldn't speak for Hooper.

Unless you know for sure, you shouldn't claim you know what happened in this case.

Having worked in the prosecutors office for years (in a different county) I know how the process works quite well. I don't know this case or anything about it, but I don't really like people being accused of things that are not in their control.

What_The? · « **Reply #12 on:** August 06, 2009, 11:11:25 AM »

Quote from: blissfullybusy on August 06, 2009, 10:03:35 AM

Having worked in the prosecutors office for years (in a different county) I know how the process works quite well. I don't know this case or anything about it, but I don't really like people being accused of things that are not in their control.

So you do not know what was or was not in her control, or what the circumstances are behind the clerk's actions, right?

So you don't really know if the accusations are on point or not.

blissfullybusy · « **Reply #13 on:** August 06, 2009, 11:18:51 AM »

Quote from: What_The? on August 06, 2009, 11:11:25 AM

So you do not know what was or was not in her control, or what the circumstances are behind the clerk's actions, right?

So you don't really know if the accusations are on point or not.

You seem to think you do, feel free to share...

PCW Boards - The Free Voice of Pulaski County Missouri

News:

Author Topic: Former Waynesville coach's sexual misconduct case almost dismissed (Read 671 times)

darrellmaurina

Former Waynesville coach's sexual misconduct case almost dismissed

igahmah at work

Re: Former Waynesville coach's sexual misconduct case almost dismissed

blissfullybusy

Re: Former Waynesville coach's sexual misconduct case almost dismissed

darrellmaurina

Re: Former Waynesville coach's sexual misconduct case almost dismissed

blissfullybusy

Re: Former Waynesville coach's sexual misconduct case almost dismissed

tpgunbiz

Re: Former Waynesville coach's sexual misconduct case almost dismissed

dixonbob

Re: Former Waynesville coach's sexual misconduct case almost dismissed

tpgunbiz

Re: Former Waynesville coach's sexual misconduct case almost dismissed

igahmah at work

Re: Former Waynesville coach's sexual misconduct case almost dismissed

blissfullybusy

Re: Former Waynesville coach's sexual misconduct case almost dismissed

What_The?

Re: Former Waynesville coach's sexual misconduct case almost dismissed

blissfullybusy

Re: Former Waynesville coach's sexual misconduct case almost dismissed

What_The?

Re: Former Waynesville coach's sexual misconduct case almost dismissed

blissfullybusy

Re: Former Waynesville coach's sexual misconduct case almost dismissed