Court Related



Court-Related
\| Home Page \|Court-Related \| Getting Personal \| Images \| Sports Fans \| Contact Us \|

(click one to skip to that topic)

Preface. We do not propose that Lawrence Phillips is always pure and blameless nor are we insensitive to the grievances of alleged victims. We do assert that whenever possible both Phillips and alleged victims are taken advantage of, with personal professional objectives prevailing over fact-based, fair coverage, fair processes, fair treatment and fair outcomes. We offer the following in support of these claims.

Initial Legal Bias: One might say that Phillip's subsequent legal challenges started while a student at University of Nebraska. In a letter to NFL General Managers, Attorney Hal W. Anderson (Lincoln, Nebraska) explains an alleged assault that brought Phillips before Lancaster County District Court months before the alleged "head bashing" incident which wrongfully branded Phillips a "violent criminal".

Regarding a disagreement between two drivers, Attorney Anderson writes: "Mr. Phillips came to the aid of someone else who was being threatened. He literally stood between someone who was threatening the individual with whom he was riding and stopped an attack upon that person. The individual charged at Lawrence and Lawrence merely pushed him away, and he and his friend got into a vehicle and left. It was alleged that Mr. Phillips damaged or took a necklace that the other individual was wearing...The matter was referred to a Pretrial Diversion Program which is a method by which charges are dismissed and the individual becomes involved in a community service project.... He (Phillips) was not represented by an attorney at that time. Had I represented him, I would have suggested he not go into the Pretrial Diversion Program because he was not guilty of any crime."

Although Phillips threw no punches and simply stopped an attack by coming to the rescue of one in harm's way, he was already a highly recognized public figure based on his athletic achievements: third in the nation (USA) in collegiate football "rushing" yards and a likely Heisman Trophy candidate. Phillips was charged with "assault". The charges were briefly dismissed, re-filed and ultimately dismissed. When the later "head bashing" incident occurred click here for more, this prior charge significantly impacted how it was handled and reported. Of course, subsequent criminal and civil allegations built upon this initial branding is well known history.

Click here to return to top of page

Trial By Media describes how Phillips' (and many accused persons) capacity for fair legal treatment is impacted by the popular press (media) once such communication creates misleading perceptions. The failure of fair and honest reporting has systematically interfered with Phillips opportunity for equity on and off the playing field for more than a decade. Distorted reports concerning Phillips have reached a point that some deem it acceptable to dehumanize, persecute and wrongfully pollute his pursuit of a fruitful life through antagonism, hostility, and deceptions promoted in the public arena by those other than alleged victims. Public hatred, untruthful claims and misinformed legal proceedings must continuously be tackled, despite unacknowledged and unpublicized evidence and facts submitted to media that substantiate inaccuracies. This website is committed to correct the state of affairs misrepresented by certain sectors of media.

Click here to return to top of page

2006 Trial Overview. In Los Angeles County Superior Court, Phillips answered charges of alleged assault with a deadly weapon (car) after driving onto the perimeter of a playing field in August 2005. A bicycle pushed into the driver side wheel of the moving car sent it spinning out of control, striking 3 young men whose medically-documented injuries were non-life threatening, none required hospitalization. Phillips as well as alleged victims testified that Phillips asked them about "something" preceding the alleged assault, and that some of them (alleged victims) did not hear exactly what he said and others saw but took no special notice of him. Phillips declared that having just returned from playing in a recreational football game and found money missing while gathering his belongings, his drive onto the field was to gain the attention of game participants and onlookers regarding the money after unsuccessfully trying to question some onlookers. This point received no mention by prosecution and evidence that may have supported Phillips' claims was, according to prosecution, lost. (Prosecution claimed that all "at the scene" evidence was lost, requiring that it all be re-created months after the incident, and the existence of an audio tape that was noted (by checkmark) in the police report was claimed "an error".)

According to his attorney, Phillips' actions constituted reckless driving. According to prosecution, Phillips was angry over losing a recreational football game to youth and ran them over as a result. Four additional parties who were not struck nor made claims of injury related to the accident were later added as alleged victims after the trial commenced. The jury found against Phillips for (alleged) assault against 7 people--the car as a deadly weapon. Sentencing took two years. Why? Prosecution introduced a prior conviction against Phillips as evidence for imposing "strikes" legislation that would double the normal sentence for the alleged crime. Phillips' appeal contesting a hearing related to that prior conviction received initial credibility in 2007 when California Supreme Court reversed a lower court's ruling (2nd District Appellate Court) against Phillips. That appeal is on-going as the Attorney General continues its effort to prevent Phillips' appeal from proceeding click here for more .

Phillips remained jailed in Los Angeles County jail in solitary confinement during the entire three years it took to complete the trial, having been denied bail in the playing field incident.

Click here to return to top of page

Jury Examinations

JURY MISCONDUCT: A juror in Phillips' trial recently gave a statement via sworn affidavit that certain jurors committed jury misconduct during the trial and during deliberation of the verdict. After receiving the affidavit and related motions, the trial judge, Judge George Lomeli, refused to give the juror's claims any consideration and stated that he would not permit any hearings related to it.
For more than a year preceding the trial, news headlines, sports reports, broadcasts and Internet articles blended reports of the alleged assault with negative rhetoric about Phillips, reaching back a decade to communicate much more than a neutral report of the alleged charges. Despite such publicity, Judge Lomeli refused Phillips' attorney the opportunity to include media coverage as evidence or as evidence that Phillips right to an unbiased trial was potentially violated
Approximately 27 of about 30 potential jurors stated they were aware of media surrounding the case and Phillips, in general. Most said they were aware of previous negative media concerning Phillips. More importantly, several admitted the influence that such publicity may have upon their capacity to base a verdict solely on the facts of this case. Since only a limited number of eliminations are allowed, all but one of the jurors professing prejudice beforehand remained on the jury. Media-promoted false images such as the fictional "head bashing", in which Phillips was maliciously exaggerated to have viciously beat his girlfriend, dragged her by the hair down several flights of stairs and banged her head into a mailbox - none of which happened but which continues to be reported as fact, had a likely impact upon this trial click here for more about "head-bashing" . Propaganda reported as fact regarding Phillips has been in media circulation for years and remains so, undoubtedly affecting jurors ability to commence the trial with impartiality.
Phillips improbable "jury of peers" included one lone African American female (apparent age 60-ish) who stated she was a retired professional. The only other "perhaps" was a (non-minority) male whose age appeared to approximate Phillips'.
Incredibly Phillips was not granted a change of venue nor jury sequester in an effort to ensure a fair trial with an impartial, unbiased jury (as much as possible).

Click here to return to top of page

Evidence

Law enforcement's alleged "crime scene" report and all evidence "mysteriously" disappeared and a "new" crime scene report was re-created months after the alleged incident by officers who "returned to the scene and approximated the original evidence" (their own testimony during the trial); the jury was not allowed to be informed of that fact
a bicycle was pushed into the passenger side of the car while it was in motion, causing the car to spin out of control, striking bystanders--the bicycle owner (one of the alleged victims) reported that he was ignored by police investigators at the scene when he attempted to tell them numerous times about the bicycle's connection to the incident and that his bicycle had been pushed into the car by someone else and had been damaged by that action
the "alleged crime scene" police report indicated the existence of an "at-the-scene" audiotape which law enforcement later declared to be an "error" on the part of the report preparer (claiming that the wrong check-box was checked accidentally), and that no such audiotape exists
according to all witnesses and alleged victims, Phillips at no time made verbal or other threats, displayed no anger or comments indicating in any way that he was upset over any matter and particularly not over the loss of a recreational football game (as prosecutor contends), nor did he demonstrate a pre-determined intention to harm anyone prior to the incident. The alleged victims testified during trial that they were surprised when they saw the car coming onto the perimeter and "thought Phillips was playing a joke"
prosecution withheld alleged "evidence", introducing it during the trial just before utilizing it; upon objection the defense attorney was forced to review during a short courtroom break without opportunity to examine it outside the courtroom or confirm its source or validity
numerous requests by Phillips' attorney (in the absence of jurors) to introduce defense evidence (such as negative news articles regarding Phillips) were denied although (see next paragraph)
despite the judge's forewarning, one of prosecution's witnesses introduced negative media into the trial, the prosecutor was told again to "caution" his witnesses
other non-courtroom interference in fair justice includes: cancellation of numerous scheduled visits between Phillips and his attorney at Los Angeles County Jail under the guise of "no sheriff available to accompany Phillips to the attorney visiting area"; highly-restricted opportunities to make telephone calls to his attorney and others since he has remained locked up in solitary confinement for 23-1/2 hours daily for three years; withholding incoming and outgoing mail for months (including holding a money order six weeks then returning it to the sender while it had not yet expired)

Click here to return to top of page

Witnesses.

a police detective testifying against Phillips walked off the witness stand rather than answer a defense question regarding an "on-duty" offense that resulted in this officer's discipline; despite the judge's ruling that the question must be answered, the detective was not required to return to the witness stand and answer. This same detective was additionally, proven to have illegally and after hours entered the vehicle Phillips drove after it was officially secured as evidence, attempting to place false evidence (empty alcoholic beverage bottles) in the car after it had been officially searched and secured;
it was alleged that Phillips had a smell of alcohol on his breath; however there was no documented record of test results indicating the presence of alcohol for Phillips or the juice container from which he was drinking -- there was however, testimony indicating that a police detective attempted to illegally enter the car Phillips drove to plant alcoholic containers in that vehicle;
an alleged victim's testimony that he was knocked to the ground, unconscious, by the out-of-control car differed from the doctor's written report on the day of the incident which reflected this alleged victim's own statement on record: that he "was struck by the car but not knocked off his feet" and that he "suffered no injuries";
a police officer who testified that Phillips led him on a high speed chase following the alleged assault was proven to have perjured his testimony--the facts according to this same officers' testimony under cross examination: Phillips appeared unaware of the officer following directly behind him-Phillips was recorded as traveling at a slow speed -- " estimated at less than 30 miles an hour", so slowly that Phillips' speed may have indicated he was in shock following the incident
a witness who testified that as she crossed in front of the car Phillips was driving that she noticed a "grin" on his face admitted under cross examination to have crossed at the rear of the car where it was unlikely she could see Phillips face except in the rear view mirror, and she made no claims to seeing Phillips face from the rear either directly or in the rear view mirror
jurors having expressed prejudice prior to the trial led Phillips to witness on his own behalf, at which time prosecution introduced a prior 2000 conviction (which Phillips and his former attorney contends was unlawfully coerced) click here for more. The results of a hearing concerning that conviction are currently under appeal. Despite numerous attempts by California's Attorney General to stop the appeal, in April 2008, California Supreme Court overruled a lower appeals court's decision to deny Phillips' petition, thus allowing Phillips to proceed with the appeal.

Click here to return to top of page

California Supreme Court Impact Upon Sentencing .

As prosecution demanded a 20-year prison term, California's Supreme Court unanimously (all seven justices) agreed to allow Phillips' petition which contested a hearing related to the prior conviction in 2000 upon which prosecution had based his outrageous 20-year demand! Under California's "three strikes" criminal law, a person previously found guilty of certain felonies (a "strike") can receive double the usual sentence if convicted of certain crimes more than once. The problem with applying this law in Phillips situation is that according to Phillips and his attorney, the previous conviction was illegally coerced by the presiding Judge Bernard Kamins, the same judge who was dismissed from the Rodney King police beatings trial for bias. Prior to the Supreme Court ruling favoring Phillips, California's Attorney General representing Judge Kamins' vehemently argued to stop the appeal and since sentencing has resumed its wrongful attacks. On April 30, 2008 after the Supreme Court sent the case back for re-consideration, the 2nd District Appeals court which originally denied Phillips petition changed its position, declaring the petition irrelevant to Phillips' on-going appeal (2nd District Appeals Court case: Phillips v. Super. Ct. CA2/3 Case B201592; cross--referenced case: The People v. Phillips Case B200624; California Supreme Court Case S157088). The appeal is proceeding as of November 2008.
Before officiating the conviction against Phillips in 2000, Judge Bernard Kamins was removed from the Rodney King police beatings trial several years earlier for bias that was established by his own handwritten note. An appeals panel found that the judge "had abandoned judicial neutrality and become personally caught up in the case". In a related case, the same judge was also noted for failing to adhere to the "state shield" law (that protects reporters from "contempt charges") when the judge fined a reporter for refusing to reveal his source of a videotape of policemen brutally beating an unarmed African American man, Rodney King, during a traffic stop in 1991 (for more click below, then find "Related Articles" midway down the page to go to "When the Bench Uses a Club" http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,973715-2,00.html .
The California Supreme Court decision to remand the appeal case to the lower appeals court and that court's decision to abandon their original decision is promising and (according to Phillips mother) "...Divine intervention..." click here for more.

Click here to return to top of page

Background of Prior Conviction Involving Judge from Rodney King Police Beatings

Friends called Phillips after seeing a negative report about a missed court date on television. Phillips immediately turned himself into authorities, finding that his attorney had misled him about a change in the court date after Phillips had prepared to attend court on the correct date. Phillips was immediately taken into custody upon presenting himself to authorities. When Phillips appeared before Judge Kamins with his attorney, the attorney attempted to explain that the missed court date resulted from misinformation he had provided Phillips. Judge Bernard Kamins then threatened both Phillips and his attorney with contempt. The attorney later stated that this was the most coercive court that he had ever appeared before.

During the hearing/trial Judge Kamins never disclosed a letter (that is part of the official court record) from the alleged domestic violence victim that supported Phillips' defense. The letter to the judge explained that the alleged victim "wanted to get back at him (Phillips)" after finding that Phillips was leaving for Canada to play football and she believed he had not made provisions for her to accompany him to Canada. In the letter to Judge Kamins, the alleged victim wrote that after the two argued, she initiated a physical assault against Phillips with a knife, kicked and hit him several times, pounded and scratched him and refused to leave when Phillips' asked many times that she either calm down or leave his home. The story told to the hotel staff (where she went from Phillips' house), the police, and during the preliminary hearing were outrageously different from what she noted in the letter as "what really happened".
The alleged victim indicates in the letter to Judge Kamins that she personally told then Los Angeles District Attorney Robin Sax (Katzenstein), a sex crimes prosecutor, university instructor, legal analyst for an internationally recognized television news station, author and featured writer in news publications -- that the allegations were false and that she desired to sign a paper withdrawing the charges...three months before they were prosecuted in Judge Kamins' court. Calling the prosecutor by name in her letter, the alleged victim writes: "I did what the DA (identified as Robin Sax earlier in the letter) told me to do. I went into the pre-trial and went with the story I gave on the police report because I felt there was no turning back. I was scared of the trouble I will be in if I tell everyone that it is not all his fault. I was scared of what my mom would think".

Among the alleged victim's false accusations under oath during a preliminary hearing of evidence against Phillips (before a female judge prior to transfer of the case to Judge Kamins): Phillips held alleged victim at gunpoint; Phillips beat alleged victim, choked alleged victim and dragged alleged victim by her hair down several flights of stairs. As a result of the allegations, Phillips received a now very well-publicized felony domestic violence conviction which was unduly pressured by Judge Kamins when Phillips unintentionally missed court, and a felony weapon gun charge that labeled him with gun law violations that sanction those who commit domestic violence using a gun. Again, these are the same charges that prosecution used to support his request for a 20-year sentence and the conviction related to the hearing which California's Supreme Court unanimously remanded to a lower appeals court, with that court subsequently changing its position opposing Phillips.
According to the alleged victim, when she realized the seriousness of her dishonesty and tried to correct it by personally appearing before "District Attorney Ms. Robin Sax...to drop all charges in writing" (from alleged victim's letter) , she thought this was the end of the matter. When she found otherwise, the alleged victim wrote the letter confessing and appealing to Judge Kamins not to proceed with prosecution.
Neither the letter to Judge Kamins nor the alleged victim's request to District Attorney Robin Sax dropping charges were disclosed to Phillips, although they took place at least three months before Phillips' hearing, which resulted in the allegedly coerced plea.
In the coerced plea, Judge Kamins gave Phillips an ultimatum: change his plea from not guilty to guilty, or pay another outrageous bail. The original $500,000 bail had been somewhat reduced but Phillips was required to pay BOTH a non-refundable cash bail AND provide a homeowner's deed by the bonding company. Having already paid this excessive bail and posted a homeowner's deed, an additional bail was prohibitive. Phillips and his attorney had earlier explained that an extended absence due to incarceration while awaiting trial would cost Phillips his means to earn a living. Phillips pleaded "no contest". Judge Kamins placed Phillips on several years' probation, stating he would "personally oversee" Phillips' probation.
a hearing referencing the involuntary plea was challenged in 2007 by Phillips present attorney (a public defender) since prosecution introduced it in the 2006 trial to invoke a double sentence for Phillips under Californi'a "strikes" law. Phillips' former attorney, who caused Phillips to miss the prior court date in 2000, testified at the hearing. Judge Kamins presided over the hearing. During the hearing, Judge Kamins described courtroom tactics he uses to intimidate accused persons "to test them" or "get a certain reaction" from them. He then apologized "if this seems coercive". The hearing concluded with the judge finding that he never acted unlawfully. The California Supreme Court and 2nd Appellate court decisions preliminarily give Phillips momentum in differing with Judge Kamins' innocence.

Click here to return to top of page