June 1, 2023 at 11:07 a.m.
Judge: Racial prejudice is 'obvious' in Oneida County
Burns suggests racism in county could harm defendant's right to fair trial
The two individuals were both arrested on the same traffic stop and in the same car in 2022 and charged with various drug-related offenses. But Marcy Mains of Minnesota, who has been charged on three drug-related counts, one a felony, sought to have the court deny a state motion to join her case with that of co-defendant Baron Martin, also of Minnesota, who was charged with seven offenses, including two felonies.
Court records lists Mains's race as Caucasian; those records list Martin's race as "unknown," though Burns referred to him as black in her decision. In her objection, Mains did not raise the issue of race or potential racial bias, but Burns did just that in siding with Mains and denying the state's motion.
Indeed, Burns wrote, the local connection between race and substantial prejudice was plain to see.
"Moreover, although defendant has not raised the issue of racial prejudice due to Mr. Martin being black, the connection between race and substantial prejudice, at least in Oneida County, is obvious," Burns wrote in her decision.
As such, and given other factors including the more serious charges again Martin, the judge found "Ms. Mains would be substantially prejudiced should her case be joined with Mr. Martin's case."
Not only that, the judge wrote, that prejudice was substantial enough to defeat the motion even though the state had otherwise made its case for joinder.
"Thus, even though the state has met the standard for the court's granting its motion for joinder, defendant has overcome the presumption by showing that substantial prejudice would result against Ms. Mains, should the cases be joined," the decision stated. "For the forgoing reasons, this court denies the state's motion for joinder. The court orders that both cases shall be tried separately."
According to circuit court records, Burns also filed her decision on the rejoinder prior to a rebuttal statement from the state to Mains's objections. The judge apologized.
Motion hearings for both defendants have been scheduled for July 13. Burns was defeated in her bid for a full term in the spring election by Oneida County district attorney Michael Schiek, but she will be on the bench until July 31.
The case
A criminal complaint was filed in the case on July 1, 2022, with Mains being charged with three counts: possession of drug paraphernalia, as party to a crime (PTAC); possession of a controlled substance, specifically amphetamine/LSD/Psilocin; and possession with intent to deliver cocaine of between 15 and 40 grams, as party to a crime.
The date of the alleged offenses was June 26, 2022, and Mains was also issued a citation from the city of Rhinelander, charged with driving under the influence on the same date. At a June 27 hearing, a cash bond of $10,000 was set; the bond was posted on June 20.
"Because the Office of the State Public Defender had difficulties finding an attorney for Ms. Mains, she did not appear with counsel until October 10, 2022," the decision states. "Later, on November 1, 2022, Ms. Mains and her counsel appeared by Zoom video to waive her right to a preliminary hearing."
On March 14, 2023, Mains requested a jury trial, which was initially set for June 2, the decision states (the jury trial has been withdrawn and motion hearings are now set for July 13). The next day, the state filed a Motion for Joinder with Martin. On May 9, Mains filed her objection and, later in the same day, an amended objection.
She also filed a motion to suppress evidence found during a search of her car.
The events leading to the charges unfolded in the early morning hours of Sunday, June 26, when, according to the decision's recounting of the incident, an officer advised another officer at approximately 2:32 a.m. that she had seen a woman who appeared to be impaired getting into a Jeep that was parked on South Brown Street in Rhinelander.
"[The officer] parked near the Jeep Grand Cherokee, noticing that it had Minnesota plates," Burns wrote in the decision. "The officer also noticed that the woman had not yet started the vehicle, and knocked on the vehicle window. Finding the woman to be lethargic, slow and fumbling, the officer asked if she had been drinking."
Mains allegedly told the officer that she had only had one drink, the decision continues. The officer advised Mains twice that she should not be driving if she had been drinking at all. The officer left to assist with a different incident.
But that was not his last contact with the Jeep and its occupants.
"He soon noticed the Jeep's headlights flash and heard the vehicle start," Burns wrote. "As a result, [the officer] returned to his squad, followed the Jeep and initiated a traffic stop on the Jeep. [The officer] then spoke to Ms. Mains and the front seat passenger, Mr. Martin."
Another male passenger was in the back seat, the court decision continues.
"At this time, [the officer] detected the odor of marijuana and asked both passengers for identification, but they refused," Burns wrote. "When officers asked both Mains and Martin to step out of the vehicle, they both refused."
According to the decision, the officer reported that Martin's attitude was especially "resistive and combative."
"A struggle ensued, and eventually everyone was removed from the vehicle," Burns wrote. "A search of the vehicle revealed almost $6,700 in cash and various pills and controlled substances, including cocaine."
Mains was charged with three offenses, including one felony, while Martin was charged with seven offenses, including two felonies.
"Two of Mr. Martin's charges are exactly the same as Ms. Mains, including Possession of Drug Paraphernalia as PTAC, and Possession with Intent to Deliver Cocaine (>15-40G) as PTAC," the decision states. "But he is also charged with Possession of THC, Possession of Methamphetamine, Possession of Psilocybin, Possession of a Controlled Substance (MDMA), and Resisting an Officer."
Each side's position
In her decision, Burns observes that state statute 971.12(2) allows for charging two or more defendants in the same complaint "if they are alleged to have participated in the same act or transaction or in the same series of acts ... constituting one or more crimes."
"The state moves to 'join the defendants into a single criminal complaint, which in effect, would also consolidate said cases into a single case,'" Burns wrote. "The state argues that the evidence and witnesses in both defendants' cases are the same or substantially similar, and that the charges arise out of the same traffic stop."
Since the "joinder statute is to be construed broadly in favor of initial joinder," Burns continued, the state insisted that the court should grant its motion. In addition, Burns wrote, joinder is presumptively non-prejudicial.
"The state is correct that, in order to overcome the presumption, the defendant 'must show substantial prejudice to her defense; some prejudice is insufficient,'" Burns wrote, quoting case law.
For her part, Burns continued, Mains insisted that joinder of the cases would substantially prejudice her case, and outlined three specific objections.
"First, that, while Ms. Mains is charged with three offenses (one of which is a felony), Mr Martin is charged with seven offenses (two of which are felonies)," the decision states. "Second, Mr. Martin's combative attitude toward law enforcement at the time of the arrest could further prejudice her case. Third, defendant also argues that the cases should remain separate because a motion to suppress was about to be filed on Ms. Mains' behalf."
Burns wrote that she could see how a jury might be confused.
"Even though both the state and defendant could emphasize at trial that her charges should not be confused with his, the inevitable guilt by association could easily confuse the jury as to who did what," she wrote. "And, because Ms. Mains is charged as PTAC in two of her three charges, the jury could conclude that she was also involved in his offenses."
Then she made her broader claim about the consequences of tethering the case of a white woman to that of a black man in Oneida County, and how it could poison the jury against her.
"Moreover, although Defendant has not raised the issue of racial prejudice due to Mr. Martin being Black, the connection between race and substantial prejudice, at least in Oneida County, is obvious," Burns wrote.
Richard Moore is the author of "Dark State" and may be reached at richardd3d.substack.com.
Comments:
You must login to comment.