Given the past 8 or so years in local government, however, I had heard she was going to be acquitted long before the trial. I'm not sure which court this was slated in but I'm guessing it was one of the misdemeanor/D felony courts, in which case there would have been very little if any prepwork done on the part of the officers. It's not difficult to get stories to conflict, any time people are confronted with a stressful situation each human body will react a given way, ranging from audio exclusion to visual distortion, etc. It's a documented fact often used by defense attorneys to fabricate the 'conspiracy defense,' and oftentimes prosecutors don't do a very good job of explaining how adrenaline works on/in the human body.

When I speak of judges acting politically, I'm referring more to injecting personal opinion. For years drug suppression court has widely been considered a wash, because the judges that have presided in there very commonly ruled outside of established case law. While I think it's a much easier extrapolation to claim judicial politicism than to deny it, quite frankly there are very few court cases that involve, for lack of a better word, a 'political insider' as either a defendant or a victim. Hence the proof you're looking for would be extremely difficult to come by. However, it's very easy to see who the judges are who regularly throw out cases involving consent to search, subjective stops/seizures, etc. Some judges to this day simply do not believe that anyone with contraband would EVER consent to search, and so routinely throw these cases out without looking at the circumstances…

Given the past 8 or so years in local government, however, I had heard she was going to be acquitted long before the trial. I'm not sure which court this was slated in but I'm guessing it was one of the misdemeanor/D felony courts, in which case there would have been very little if any prepwork done on the part of the officers. It's not difficult to get stories to conflict, any time people are confronted with a stressful situation each human body will react a given way, ranging from audio exclusion to visual distortion, etc. It's a documented fact often used by defense attorneys to fabricate the 'conspiracy defense,' and oftentimes prosecutors don't do a very good job of explaining how adrenaline works on/in the human body.

When I speak of judges acting politically, I'm referring more to injecting personal opinion. For years drug suppression court has widely been considered a wash, because the judges that have presided in there very commonly ruled outside of established case law. While I think it's a much easier extrapolation to claim judicial politicism than to deny it, quite frankly there are very few court cases that involve, for lack of a better word, a 'political insider' as either a defendant or a victim. Hence the proof you're looking for would be extremely difficult to come by. However, it's very easy to see who the judges are who regularly throw out cases involving consent to search, subjective stops/seizures, etc. Some judges to this day simply do not believe that anyone with contraband would EVER consent to search, and so routinely throw these cases out without looking at the circumstances…

I simply assume that they now expect the same sort of judicial outcome if/when the shoe is on the other foot.

Frankly, this should never have gone past the initial investigation by the prosecutor's office. Yeah, the councillor may be a piece of work, but it isn't against the law to be a jerk – not even to the police. Interpretations otherwise are reaching, petty and vindictive.

The officer involved should have “thrown some dirt on it” and moved on.

If anybody was using this as a political football, it was the prosecutor's office. At least they seemed to have moved on.

I believe your only experience is at The Democrat Machine social events.

Was there a sobriety test taken and properly recorded? Yes, Minton-McNeil URINATED ON HERSELF, yelled violent racial profanities, and all of it recorded on video and audio at the Arrestee Processing Center!

As for your wrongful assertion: “Judges don't ignore uncontroverted facts.” -They should not have ignored these facts. But this case was bought by The Democrat Machine. The “judge” should be removed from office and the bar!

Look, I don't like the outcome of this case either. High-profile cases don't require “an explanation above and beyond thinking the police set up some kind of elaborate conspiracy.” Courts should judge cases regardless of the litigants' standing or alleged offense.

I do think someone must've botched the evidence in some manner. That does happen, with fatigue, overworking, carelessness, whatever.

But I'd issue the same challenge to you, Ash: quit mouthing the oft-repeated diatribe about political activity from the bench. Research it and provide some factual examples. I did, above, and I don't necessarily agree with you in this matter. If you know of examples, point them out. I'd love to hear them. Otherwise your rant is just platitudes. Because this case has been decided.

And in the three days since it's been decided, I've heard nothing from the FOP, the prosecutor, or anyone on that side of the case, who complained. They certainly don't hesitate to step to the microphones if they remotely suspect one of their members has gotten the short end of the stick.

I don't necessarily want to defend judges in this county. But my extensive experience with courts indicates there's very little political activity from the bench. There is, as mentioned earlier, incompetence, DUIs, poor staff work, etc. Like most major corporations.

I did enjoy your tongue-in-cheek humor tho, Ash. Very nice.

1. Police break into DMM's home and make a bogus 9-1-1 call (impersonating her voice.)
2. They then go to her house and either forcefeed her 'two margaritas' so she has to admit to it, or waterboard her until she says what they want her to say.
3. Officers onscene stage an elaborate crime scene, culminating in one officer intentionally injuring herself a la Denzel Washington and his buddies shooting each other in 'Training Day.'
4. Officers also forcefeed a chemical compound to DMM, causing her to urinate all over herself (possible scenario: wagon driver, APC staff, etc. are also in on the conspiracy and the whole thing is made up.)
5. APC employees doctor video footage to hide the fact that they forced her to say hateful, racist comments (which, obviously if she said them meant she wasn't drunk and was thinking in a cogent frame of mind at the time.)

Does that sound about right? As for me, I'm good, I'll stick with the flat-Earth people because this one sounds too far-fetched.

Police don't give breathalyzers unless there's a DUI. Never have. The burden of proof for public intoxication is different than the burden of proof required for driving impairment. The judge knew this, and the judge also knew this was a high-profile political case which should have required an explanation above and beyond thinking the police set up some kind of elaborate conspiracy. If you don't think there has been blatant political activism from the bench, well, wow…
The list goes on ad infinitum. It's a political job.

The courts don't subpoena jail employees, wagon drivers, the neighbor down the street, etc. If they had she probably would have claimed bias and had the case thrown out anyway.

Oh, I forgot to another one: the police have also been collaborating with the community over the course of the past year making numerous false and fictitous 9-1-1 calls from and about DMM. In addition, the complaints that DMM had previously lodged against the police in the past were also fictitous, because they had never been to her place before.

But don't confuse that with voters' opinions. You were one of 30 or 40 people who were appointed/elected to vote on party matters. In no way does that substitute for voters' ballot box choices. I don't know the PC makeup of that council district. However, in too many of them, half or more of the PCs are appointed, not elected. I've participated in more than I care to remember, going back three decades. Every single one was rigged.

I do keep up with Council matters. She's been relatively invisible, but that's the price you pay if you're in the minority. I watch Ch. 16 often, and the few times I've heard her speak were lukewarm. She seems to vote the way I'd prefer. If you're happy, God bless 'ya. But don't for a minute tell me that she was elected by the people. Nothing could be further from the truth.