January 19, 2015 at 4:31 p.m.
Special prosecutor defends plea agreement in England case
Special prosecutor defends plea agreement in England case
Last year, England pleaded guilty to two counts of felony misconduct in public office for taking human tissue and other body parts of deceased persons without permission. She used the remains to train her dog to search for corpses and for a law enforcement exercise.
Though she is nearing completion of a one-year term in the county jail, England filed a motion in court last month seeking to vacate her sentence, asserting Simono misrepresented how victims' families felt about the plea deal. Her sentence still includes three years of probation and 300 hours of community service.
England alleges Simono, who served as special prosecutor in the case, violated the terms of the plea agreement by encouraging family members of deceased victims to be openly critical of the deal.
The basis for that allegation stems from the deposition of a family member of a deceased person whom England is alleged to have taken tissue from. The deposition occurred in September as part of a lawsuit the family filed against England and Oneida County.
In the deposition, one of the plaintiffs claimed his family and other families of deceased victims "disapproved" of the plea agreement, and he testified that Simono told the families they could criticize the prosecution when making comments to the court in the sentencing phase of England's case.
Indeed, during the sentencing hearing last February, some family members voiced criticism about the plea agreement, in which the recommended jail term was 10 days.
Forest County Circuit Judge Leon Stenz increased the jail sentence to one year, and England contends Stenz did that partly because of the families' testimony.
In court documents, Joel Hirschhorn, England's attorney, argues that even though Simono promised to recommend the 10-day jail sentence, and while he made that recommendation at the sentencing hearing, Simono actually broke that promise by allowing the victims to testify in opposition to the agreement.
But Simono says otherwise. Last week, he filed a response defending his actions and asking the court to dismiss England's request to vacate her sentence.
Simono said the joint sentencing recommendation did not require the victims' families to agree to the recommendation, and he included two affidavits from family members of victims who said he did not tell them what to say at the sentencing hearing.
The family members indicated that although they did not like the plea agreement, they accepted it because they wanted the case to be over.
State law, Simono said, requires a sentencing court to consider the effect of crime on a victim. But the law does not require victims of crime to agree with a plea agreement offered by a prosecutor, nor are victims required to limit their testimony to the terms of the plea agreement.
"Under Wisconsin law, victims are not part of the plea agreement process and therefore are not bound to a bargained for agreement in the manner that the State is required," Simono wrote.
Simono added that despite the families' requests for a harsher penalty, he stood by the terms of the plea agreement during the sentencing hearing.
"The current motion before the court makes assertions with empty allegations regarding a breach of a plea agreement, however, the State clearly and accurately presented to the court the entirety of the agreement as bargained for by the defendant to which there is no dispute," Simono wrote.
Stenz is scheduled to consider England's motion at a hearing on Jan. 30. She is scheduled to be released from jail on Jan. 24.
Jonathan Anderson may be reached at [email protected].
Comments:
You must login to comment.