Episode 15 "Wenatchee Sex Ring Case-Part Four"

Episode 15 focuses on the sentencing of Linda Miller, her appeal and the final outcome of her case are shared by the judge. In Chapter 13 of True Justice Stephanie asks Arnie to be her co-counsel for Arturo Azul, the accused cop killer.

Transcript

SPEAKER_01 0:04

The Smoke and Gavel Podcast is now in session. I'm retired Judge Chip Small, presiding over this podcast with my bailiff, Madeline Rose. We welcome you and ask you to join us as we look at our justice system from a unique, candid, and inside view. Maddie, what's on the docket today?

SPEAKER_00 0:22

Well, Your Honor, today you will share with our listeners the ultimate outcome of the prosecution of Linda Miller, a person allegedly involved in the so-called Wenatchee sex ring, and we will continue the story of true justice. So, Judge, in our last episode you covered a couple memorable moments that happened during the trial of Linda Miller. She was found guilty, but what was her sentence? And did she win her appeal?

SPEAKER_01 0:46

As I mentioned in our last episode, Ms. Miller was found guilty on all eight counts of child molestation in the first degree. At that time, she was taken into custody and a presentence investigation report was ordered. At the time of her sentence on November 3, 1995, based upon her crimes and her lack of felony criminal history, she had a standard sentence range of 149 months to 198 months in prison, or roughly between 12 and 16 and a half years. What that means is that the court must sentence her within the range unless there are grounds for an exceptionally low sentence or an exceptionally high sentence. In Ms. Miller's case, the state asked the court to impose an exceptionally high sentence for several reasons. The defendant occupied a position of trust with regard to two of her victims. Based upon the very young age of two of the victims, they were particularly vulnerable. The abuse of each child was part of an ongoing pattern of sexual abuse over a prolonged period of time. The defendant would be unpunished for four of the counts if the sentences imposed were within the standard range, by operation of the multiple offense policy of the Sentencing Reform Act. After hearing arguments by the attorneys, I ruled that a standard range sentence was clearly too lenient and there were compelling reasons for the imposition of an exceptional high sentence. She was sentenced to a total of 396 months or 33 years in prison. Before reviewing what happened on appeal, the Spoken Gavel Podcast will now take a short recess.

SPEAKER_00 2:33

Before we take our recess, though, I've got a question. Tell us more about the Sentencing Reform Act.

SPEAKER_01 2:40

Okay. The Sentencing Reform Act was, in my opinion, again, we're talking just my opinion, was a result of the legislature not liking judges having the power to impose really severe penalties, which would cause the legislature to fund the construction of additional prisons, or severely low sentences, which would infuriate a lot of people if a judge was too lenient on a defendant. So what they did was they took away our discretion and set up a chart, basically. One lady judge once explained it to me as like buying pantyhose. And I don't know how you do that, but she said on one side of the chart is your weight, uh, and the other side is your height, and where they intersect, that's the size you buy. Well, that's the way it is now in sentencing criminals. On one side is their offender score, so it could be a zero if they have no criminal offenses, or and it goes all the way up to however many convicted uh felony offenses they have. And then across the other side is the seriousness of the charge. And then where those two intersect, there'll be a range. For me, remarkably, a lot of times that range is so narrow that it's less than 12 months between the beginning or the bottom and the top of the range. Uh in this case, with Ms. Miller, obviously, there was about a four and a half year area that the court had some discretion. But in most cases, uh the sentence is under 12 months because, again, the legislature doesn't want to build prisons. And if you're sentenced to more than 12 months, you go to a state-operated prison. But if it's less than 12 months, you go to a county jail. So they've consistently reduced the standard ranges more and more so that more and more defendants only go to jail and not to prison, because the legislature doesn't want to pay for prisons. Again, this is all in my humble opinion. Uh, but that's what happens. And it somewhat infuriates me because if you go to a district court where you're facing a gross misdemeanor charge, you can be sentenced to up to a year in jail. So the court in district court or the judge in district court can sentence from zero to twelve months. They have that discretion. If they're convicted of Class C felonies, if they which is higher than a gross misdemeanor, the max on a Class C is five years. However, the Sentencing Reform Act has a grid where a lot of times the court's discretion is limited to zero to ninety days or three to nine months, all less than what a district court judge has for discretion, less than a 12-month uh uh range. Anyway, so that's how the Sentencing Reform Act works.

SPEAKER_00 5:43

Okay, well, we will let our audience sit and think about that. And it finally is time for our recess. The Smoke and Gavel Podcast is sponsored by Judge Small Books and Gatekeeper Press. A full service publishing company empowering authors with complete creative control, professional guidance, and 100% royalties. Whether you're publishing your first book or your tenth, their team makes the process simple, transparent, and truly author friendly. Listeners of our show can receive 10% off any publishing package with Gatekeeper Press just by mentioning discount code ChIPSMALL when requesting a quote or during your free consultation at gatekeeperpress.com. So what happened on the appeal, Judge?

SPEAKER_01 6:23

The first issue on appeal was whether the evidence supported a finding that her confession was knowingly and voluntarily made. As you may recall, it was a hotly contested hearing. The defendant argued her mental health was a factor, but the Court of Appeals ruled there was no evidence that the officers who questioned her had any knowledge of that, such that it could not be said that they unfairly exploited her to obtain the confession. She also argued that repeated interrogation can result in excluding her confession. However, the appellate court ruled that the questioning was not egregious enough to exclude her confession. The second issue was whether there was sufficient evidence to support the verdicts. The court ruled there was ample evidence. Finally, the court did find error in my ruling that denied the defendant an expert regarding why people in general falsely confess. The court also found error when I permitted prior and consistent statements by a witness to be admitted, and when I denied the admission into evidence the verdicts of other cases involving other defendants in another county.

SPEAKER_00 7:30

So were her convictions reversed?

SPEAKER_01 7:33

Not exactly. The court ruled that the errors were not serious enough to warrant a reversal. So they ordered a new trial instead.

SPEAKER_00 7:41

But I thought you ruled in favor of the defendant on all the 50-50 objections.

SPEAKER_01 7:46

I did. Obviously, I did not consider the rulings they disagreed with were even close to 50-50, especially when they didn't even find them serious enough to warrant reversal. But what bothers me the most is that the Court of Appeals did not publish its decision.

SPEAKER_00 8:03

What does that mean?

SPEAKER_01 8:05

Back in those days, the appellate court had the option of whether to publish its decision or not. If the decision is published, then every superior court in the state would be obligated to follow its ruling in all cases with similar issues. However, if it's unpublished, then the ruling only applies to that particular case alone. In other words, the court's ruling that an expert witness be appointed to explain why people in general falsely confess only applies to Ms. Miller and no other cases where a defendant has confessed.

SPEAKER_00 8:40

You know, that's really interesting. People confessing to things that could be just life-ruining, right? Like especially assaulting a child. And she confessed to assaulting her own children. So it just it almost makes one wonder if she's trying to was trying to backtrack a bit and use this expert witness. Yeah. I I I don't know. I don't know. It's just it's very interesting to me.

SPEAKER_01 9:10

Well, on the legal side, uh, what I disagree with is under the law, when I had that 3-5 hearing to determine whether or not her confession was voluntarily and knowingly given, the burden of proof on the state is simply a preponderance of the evidence. In other words, more likely than not it was voluntarily and knowingly given. Why I disagree with that burden of proof is because after 27 years on the bench, I see that confessions are overwhelmingly agreed to by the jurors. I mean, it's the most damning evidence that the state can introduce against the defendant. So, in in my humble opinion, I think the rule should be rather than the state prove the confession was voluntarily and knowingly given by a preponderance, they should have to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. So the court has to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that it was knowingly and voluntarily given, and then it can be admitted in front of the jury.

SPEAKER_00 10:12

Okay, that's fair. That's fair. So was there a new trial?

SPEAKER_01 10:17

No. On March 4, 1998, the defendant, Linda Miller, pled guilty to three counts of communicating with a minor for immoral purposes. Gross misdemeanors punishable by up to 12 months in jail on each count. She agreed to pay standard court costs and be sentenced to 36 months total and was given credit for having served 36 months and released.

SPEAKER_00 10:42

Well, well, well, I guess we have a little bit more information than what Miss Nancy Grace, who's never been to Winatchie, has said on her little TV show.

SPEAKER_01 10:50

All I can say is she never talked to me.

SPEAKER_00 10:53

Yeah, well, no nobody ever did, right?

SPEAKER_01 10:55

No, none of those No, I had I did have one interaction. Well, no, more than one. I had two. I had an interview by uh Der Spiegel, uh, an in-depth interview, and another attempted interview uh by a reporter from the PI. But we'll get into that when we do the pastor's case.

SPEAKER_00 11:16

Okay.

SPEAKER_01 11:17

We'll let our listeners decide if what happened in Linda Miller's case was true justice. In the meantime, let's continue reading my novel, True Justice. Chapter 13. The Country Inn is a family restaurant known for its relaxed atmosphere and old-fashioned comfort food. Arnie chose it for his date with Stephanie because he believes her down-to-earth personality will appreciate it. You look particularly radiant tonight, Arnie Beams. There's something different about her. Maybe it's the makeup and attractive outfit she's wearing. She's always pretty in her work clothes, but wow, she's Thank you, Mr.

SPEAKER_00 11:59

Adams. You're not so bad yourself. He really is a hunk. Nothing like Clay.

SPEAKER_01 12:06

After reviewing the menu, Stephanie asks, How did things go at New Dawn?

SPEAKER_00 12:10

Hopefully not well.

SPEAKER_01 12:12

She thinks to herself. Good and bad, Arnie replies. I agreed on a case, but the facts are ugly. Without going into detail, I'm going to try to enforce the provisions of a parenting plan on behalf of an abused ex-wife and her children.

SPEAKER_00 12:29

Sounds typical for a family law case.

SPEAKER_01 12:32

She states, thinking of her own nasty divorce. I'm actually looking forward to sinking my teeth into this one. The woman obviously needs help, and her ex is a piece of work. Sounds like fun, Steph says sarcastically. Just then the waitress steps up and takes their orders. Changing the subject, Arnie asks, Did you hear they caught that cop killer?

SPEAKER_00 12:55

As a matter of fact, I did.

SPEAKER_01 12:57

Steph states knowingly. Seeing the look in her eyes, Arnie asks, Tell me that's not your case. Hesitating, she states, It is. And looks at Arnie to gauge his reaction. Shaking his head and seeing the look on her face, he says, Well, at least he has a good lawyer. He grins. How can she represent a person like that?

SPEAKER_00 13:21

In fact, I'm hoping he has two good lawyers.

SPEAKER_01 13:24

What do you mean?

SPEAKER_00 13:26

The state has charged him with aggravated murder, and they're asking for the death penalty. Under the rules, the court must appoint a death qualified attorney and a second attorney to assist.

SPEAKER_01 13:35

You will have to find a death qualified co-counsel then?

SPEAKER_00 13:39

No. When I worked on the West Side, I assisted in a capital case and was a death qualified counsel in a second. This will be the third, and so I am the designated death qualified attorney.

SPEAKER_01 13:50

I knew you handled some serious cases there, but I didn't realize you had some death cases, too.

SPEAKER_00 13:56

How did you know that?

SPEAKER_01 13:59

Using his fork to idly play with his salad, Arnie admits. I may have Googled you. He smiles up at her.

SPEAKER_00 14:07

You did, huh?

SPEAKER_01 14:08

Steph says gleaming. The waitress appears with their orders. As she sets out their meals, Arnie digests what Steph just told him about needing co-counsel. Who in the world would agree to be your co-counsel?

SPEAKER_00 14:23

It will have to be someone who knows his way around the courtroom, has an excellent reputation with the trial judge, has the courage to represent an accused murderer, and who can work well with me.

SPEAKER_01 14:34

Enjoying his sirloin steak, between bites, Arnie states, That's a tall order.

SPEAKER_00 14:40

Actually, I already have someone in mind, and he is tall.

SPEAKER_01 14:44

She looks deeply into his blue eyes and smiles longingly. Almost coughing up his half-swallowed baked potato.

SPEAKER_00 14:56

Why not?

SPEAKER_01 14:57

Steph looks at him adoringly.

SPEAKER_00 14:59

You definitely fit the bill and it will give us an opportunity to work together.

SPEAKER_01 15:04

I don't know, Steph.

SPEAKER_00 15:06

Look, I'm not asking you because I like you a lot. I'm asking you because I know you're the best attorney in town, and Arturo deserves the best.

SPEAKER_01 15:15

But what if he's guilty?

SPEAKER_00 15:16

What if he's not?

SPEAKER_01 15:17

What do you mean?

SPEAKER_00 15:18

What if hypothetically, mind you, it was an accident? Do you think he deserves a death penalty?

SPEAKER_01 15:24

She implores. Well, no, of course not. Arnie's mind is conflicted. I would love to work with Steph and get to know her better. But a cop killer? What would that do to my practice? This is a small town. Would I lose all my clients and potential future clients? Law enforcement witnesses are key to my success in most of my personal injury cases. I know how Kate would react. I have feelings for her too. I need time to think about it, he tells her frankly.

SPEAKER_00 15:55

I understand.

SPEAKER_01 15:56

In fact, I I would have to meet with him before I made my decision.

SPEAKER_00 16:00

That's a great idea.

SPEAKER_01 16:01

Steph replies, relieved he didn't say no.

SPEAKER_00 16:04

He's not a killer, Arnie.

SPEAKER_01 16:06

We'll see.

SPEAKER_00 16:07

Is next week okay?

SPEAKER_01 16:09

She asks anxiously. Sure. That will give me the opportunity to mention the possibility to Kate and perhaps speak with my dad about it too. Listeners, you've now heard Stephanie asking Arnie to be co-counsel with her for Arturo Azul, the accused cop killer. Will Arnie agree?

SPEAKER_00 16:29

In our next podcast, we will discuss whether a truly innocent person may plead guilty to a crime they didn't commit and continue our reading of True Justice.

SPEAKER_01 16:37

Thanks for listening today. We hope you enjoyed this episode of the Smoke and Gavel Podcast. To learn more, visit judgesmallbooks.com. Don't forget to like, subscribe, and share to stay connected. Also, don't hesitate to send us questions. Until next time, God bless.