Spradling: Yes, sir.
Justice Rosen: And then ther~e -"I don't want you to do that in this case. I don 't want references to folks here at all." d then during your closing argument you do exactly what the trial court emphatical1y told yo )Jhat not to do. JAnd the on1y reason I mention that is because the extremes to which the trial judge went/to inform you not to do that, and you did it anyway. Why isn't that misconduct? And why isn't that something we should look at? And what is your answer to that? Spradling: I can give you the history to that if you'd like, your honor.
Justice Rosen: I don't want to hear history. You were warned not do to that, and you did it anyway. Spradling: And actually, let me disagree with you, please. In the case that Judge Parrish was talking to me about, there was a closing argument in a case, I think it was Dimick, although I can't promise you that that' s true. And at some point during my closing argument I looked at the galley, and I said something about the- the jury's verdict being important to everyone. And almost all of the people behind the state took up. That is not what happened in the Chandler case. There was no one who stood up in the Chandler case. I didn't request anyone to stand up in the Chandler case. ' J~tice
Rosen: Any reference to it, you said, " I'm getting a look. I'm getting a look from what I'in talking about." And you were referring to the defendant's sister, I believe.
Spradling: Yes. Shirley Riegle, that's right.
Justice Rosen: And so you were referring to someone in the gallery and the court told you not to do that. Spradling: And let me disagree with the analogy if I could please. I do not believe that saying that the defendant's sister who was mean mugging the state is akin to asking half of the galley to stand up during closing argument. So I respectfully disagree that I did the same thing that the court asked me not to.
Justice Dan Biles: Let me jump on the point that I started with, with defense counsel. You' ll agree that there was no Protection from Abuse Order. Spradling: I'll agree that there was no Protection from Abuse Order. There was a ...
Justice Rosen: Even though you said there was. Spradling: Yes, sir.
Justice Dan Biles: And, in the -I was reading the closing argument again last night, and when that comes up it seems like you hit it hard, fast. No. 1, you said something that wasn 't true, that 6
there was a Protection from Abuse Order. No. 2, you said that that means that the judge agreed that the defendant was, urn, a danger, because that would be the foundation for entering an order for protection from abuse. And No. 3, you said that the defendant ignored the order. Spradling: Yes, sir. Justice Dan Biles: And, none of that' s true.
Spradling: It is true. Justice Dan Biles: How is it true of there was no Protection From Abuse Order?
Spradling: Because what I should have said, your honor, was that there was a Protective Order. A Protective Order as this court knows is an umbrella... Justice Dan Biles: Entered at the beginning of the divorce proceeding against both parties, and concerning, I think in her case, the residence. That's a whole lot different than a Protection From Abuse Order, isn't it?
Spradling: Yes, but there were two orders in this case, your honor. Justice Dan Biles: Okay, what do I need to look at?
Spradling: There was a Protective Order in October of 1998 that is different from the Protective Order that was originally given in 1997 which fits the definition that you described. However, after the divorce was over in September of 1998, the defendant had still not signed the divor~e journal entry, and she had filed the day after the last hearing multiple motions to reopen the entire case. It was after this, in October of 1998 that Mike Sisco requested a Protective Order and a case manager. Justice Dan Biles: And the court didn't- the District Court didn't give that Protective Order that was requested in 1998.
Spradling: 1 can tell you'- ifl'm limited to the Record on Appeal, I cannot point to it. Justice Dan Biles: You entered into evidence the entire divorce file.
Spradling: No, sir. I did not. Justice Dan Biles: Or, a ton of it anyway, I mean, we've got a huge exhibit.
Spradling: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Justice Dan Biles: That's the divorce file, and there's no order in it.
Spradling: There is no order in it; you're exactly right. There's no 19... 7
Published on Oct 29, 2017
Published on Oct 29, 2017
In the 2016 oral argument of Dana Chandler's appeal before the state Supreme Court, Justices Dan Biles and Eric Rosen challenge Shawnee Coun...