Andrew Fleischman Profile picture
Apr 10 28 tweets 6 min read Read on X
So my client is a paraplegic. One day, a Fulton County police department asked him to come down and answer a few questions.

A woman alleged that he KICKED her door down and assaulted her.

And they were calling him down to arrest him, not talk to him.
The client had some pretty good objections. For instance, he is paraplegic. He is physically incapable of committing the crime as alleged.

Also, he had not seen the woman in ten years.

Ahhh, the police officer said, then how did she pick you out of a lineup?
The client says "yes, we did date a number of years ago, but I have been married for ten years. We did not just break up as she said"
The client also says, quite reasonably, "I was at a dinner party at the time of this incident, and there are multiple guests who will say I was there"

Not my job to investigate that, the officer said.
So the client is really worried. Because if he goes to jail in Fulton County, there is a good shot he will be badly hurt. The jail is under DOJ investigation for dozens of deaths. It is violent and poorly run. Sometimes, the doors don't work.
More than that, while he's AT THE POLICE STATION they handcuff him, with his hands behind his back. That means he falls forward from his wheelchair onto the ground. He is hurt, and no one helps him up.

That does not bode well for what will happen at jail.
For whatever reason, the police decide to let the client go. But now he has this felony arrest warrant hanging over his head. At any time he could be taken down to the Fulton County jail for who knows how long.

He googles the name of the woman who accused him.
She is in the news! Because she is being charged with felony fraud for falsely saying that people have stolen things from her, or broken things at her home, and then filing false insurance claims.

If you google her name, it's the first hit.

Cops didn't do that. Image
I get in touch with the woman's parents. They concede that the woman is very mentally ill, and say they will go see her.

When they see her, she confesses that she made the story up. They go down to the police station together and try to recant. But no one will speak to them. Image
After weeks of calling, I finally manage to get in touch with someone at this police department. I lay out all of the evidence. I ask them to please dismiss the warrant.

I include an email from the woman, recanting.

Here is the response I got back:Image
In other words, they literally do not give a shit whether the client did it or not.

My recourse is to try to figure out anyone at the Fulton County District Attorney's Office who might give a shit.

This is why I am skeptical of government claims of guilt.
I am posting this with client consent in the hope that, with some media pickup, the College Park Police Department might reconsider its decision.

Feel free to DM me if you want to write this up.
I have to point out that I have now seen the video of this woman describing the crime, and she tells police that he kicked in the door, was of average height, and then "LEFT ON FOOT."

This did not set off a single alarm bell for the cop when the client was in a wheelchair.
The officer is talking to his supervisor, who says "this man is obviously paralyzed and could not have committed this crime."

The officer says "This is looking like a false report."

Yet they still went forward with this case.
Another supervisor confidently says "it's a ruse, man"

"It's an obvious attempt to not go to jail so"

Other supervisor says "yeah, but he is fucked up from the waist below so...." Image
"Well I'd better get the lawyers on stand by because I know he's going to make a big thing out of this" Image
explaining to my client that if she made a false report, that's on her, but he's going to have to take him in on a felony warrant Image
"I HAVE TO DO MY DUE DILIGENCE" is an expression the police officer uses while describing this decision.

Whether you're innocent "is going to be up to you and your courts and your lawyers." Image
the officer asks the client to prove that he's been paralyzed since 2001.

The client says "I can very easily do that, my driver's license has said so for 25 years"

Officer goes back to Major, who said client was faking.

Major says "well you can still punch someone" Image
The officer says, to his credit "well I'm not sure he could do the forced entry"

The major says "just call the DA's office and ask whether you should rescind the warrant."
The officer, to his credit, calls down to the DA's Office, but no one picks up.

The Major says "but the warrant's never going to go away, so."

"This has turned into a delicate situation."
These police officers are not convinced that the client is guilty, but they're too afraid to let the warrant go.

There is NO POINT where they discuss maybe further investigating this thing.
A thing I always tell juries is that the presumption of innocence doesn't really exist anywhere in our system of justice EXCEPT when they are deliberating.

In every other facet, we presume guilt.

And this is such a depressing example.
The one bright spot is that the client successfully persuades the officer, who has some mercy, not to transport him to Grady to be cleared for Fulton County Jail.

Good on the cop for that.
But if there's a lesson here it's that police officers should feel like they have the discretion not to bring charges they aren't sure of.

Because this was "domestic violence," nobody felt they could just drop the damn thing.
Here is the body cam footage.

drive.google.com/file/d/1FR6WhD…
Some corrections:

1. The client was handcuffed in the front, not the back, when he fell over, as far as I can tell.

2. The officer really did have concerns over whether the client committed the crime. He just didn't really feel safe rescinding the warrant.

3. There was SOME discussion of further investigation--mainly calling the victim up to ask her to clarify. But she never picked up so the warrant stayed in place.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Andrew Fleischman

Andrew Fleischman Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ASFleischman

Feb 17
There was a NYT op ed claiming that there's a good argument that the children of illegal immigrants don't get birthright citizenship.

Before I get into why it's wrong, first, I want to talk about all the ways we know that the 14th Amendment DOES provide such citizenship.
First and foremost, there's the text of the 14th amendment:

It says that to become a citizen, you need only be born and subject to jursidiction.

And children of illegal immigrants can indeed be sued, jailed, or taxed, as needed. Image
So if we're just applying the plain text of the amendment, and the ordinary meaning of jurisdiction, it's very strongly in support.
Read 16 tweets
Feb 15
This is one of my favorite historical stories.

In 1938, a Polish Jew living in Paris, Herschel Feibel Grynszpan, learned that his family had been arrested and deported.

He entered the German embassy, claiming to be a spy with valuable information, and shot an embassy official, Ernst vom Rath.Image
The Germans, of course, claimed that this was an enormous outrage--just part of the historical plot of the Jews to destroy the Aryan race.

They planned a series of pogroms in response, to be carried out by government agents out of uniform, encouraging the public to join in. Image
Initially, he was to be tried in Paris. Once war began between Germany and France, the lawyer asked for an immediate trial, figuring that an acquittal was likely. But as the German army approached, Grynszpan escaped. Image
Read 7 tweets
Feb 3
Threatening to prosecute people for accurately reporting information about the government violates the first amendment.
In The Florida Star v. B. J. F, 491 U.S. 524, 526 (1989), a rape victim sued a newspaper for printing her name, arguing that it violated a Florida law protecting her privacy. Image
Even though the name of a rape victim is substantially less newsworthy than the name of a public official, the Supreme Court of the United States said that publishing that name was protected by the First Amendment. Image
Read 11 tweets
Feb 3
When a public official is corrupt, you don't need to doxx them. Who they are is publicly available.
And yet good reporters still often find out embarrassing, newsworthy stuff about these people.
Now as for these private citizens doing public work, I think they should be subject to scrutiny.

For instance, would you want to know if someone was a dual citizenship Chinese national? Had gambling debts? Was secretly woke?
Read 4 tweets
Jan 22
The problem is that there's no good faith definition of "jurisdiction" under which illegal immigrants aren't subject to US jurisdiction.

They have to pay taxes. They can be convicted of crimes. They can be sued. They can be deported.

That's what jurisdiction is.
When you say we don't have "jurisdiction" over them you have to come up with some tortured definition where if you can imagine a law does not apply to illegal immigrants (or people here on a visa), that means no jurisidiction.
But one problem with that is that children are also exempt from many laws, adult criminal responsibility, the draft, etcetera, and yet no one would argue that they aren't subject to American jurisdiction.
Read 5 tweets
Dec 5, 2024
A quick and dirty explanation for why Shannon Stillwell was acquitted of the murder of Shymel Drinks in the YSL case (in my view).

1. The victim was killed with a .40 caliber, and there was no evidence that Stillwell ever owned a .40.
The gang "expert," Viverito, tried to claim that she recognized the bottom of a Glock 27c in a video that Stillwell posted on social media, but she has no special expertise or training with firearms, and her whole basis is that she held one, once, at a gun store.
2. The State claimed that Stillwell shot the victim from a rental car as he pulled up alongside him at a light. But even though investigators carefully swabbed the car, they did not find any gunshot residue inside of it. It would be difficult to completely scrub the car.
Read 8 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(