Courage in the Court: Terrance R. Thomas

[XLFD]

After decades of new laws to toughen sentencing for criminals and broaden the base and basis for crimes, prosecutors have gained greater leverage to extract guilty pleas from defendants and reduce the number of cases that go to trial, often by using the threat of more serious charges with mandatory sentences or other harsher penalties.

Some experts say the process has become coercive in many state and federal jurisdictions, forcing defendants to weigh their options based on the relative risks of facing a judge and jury rather than simple matters of guilt or innocence. In effect, prosecutors are giving defendants more reasons to avoid having their day in court.

There is now an incredible amount of power in the hands of prosecutors that can derail true justice for those wrongly accused of crimes.  A common strategy is to overcharge the defendant, so that they can strongarm negotiate a plea to at least one aspect of the crime.  As few as 1 case in 40 of criminal cases actually make it to trial, as underfinanced public defense lawyers can try only a handful of their cases.

When the Attorney General of Michigan enters the picture to try a 'cold case' that recently happened to the south of us in Oceana County against Mark Coulier, the prospect looks rather bleak if you happen to be the defendant.  I don't know anyhting of his guilt or innocence, but to his credit, he did not take a plea deal.  And to the credit of Oceana County, they had a Circuit Court judge who did not let the stature of the prosecution team have a free pass on what amounts to a fairly weak circumstantial case, where motive seems to be the only incriminating factor working against the defendant.  He dismissed the case just after the prosecution presented its case, speaking 20 minutes about why he did so.

One can feel terrible for the family of the deceased, one can feel that Mark Coulier had motive and opportunity to do the deed, but in the end, there are just too many questions about whether she actually was murdered or not.

William Hill points to the defendant, Mark Anthony Coulier during Coulier's murder trial in Oceana County's 27th Circuit Court in Hart before Judge Thomas

Here is a synopsis of the prosecution's case, courtesy of the COLDNews:

http://www.ludingtondailynews.com/news/69211-prosecution-rests-in-c... 

And here is how the Judge ruled, who probably did not make the friends and family of the deceased any happier, or the State's Attorney General's Office, but it looks as if it was the right thing.

HART, MI -- Oceana County 27th Circuit Judge Terrence R. Thomas spent more than 20 minutes on Monday morning explaining how he reached his decision to dismiss the murder case against Mark Coulier.

On Friday, the prosecutors from the Michigan Attorney General’s office rested their case against Mark Coulier, the Hart man accused of murdering his wife late in the summer of 2000. Defense attorney Timothy Hayes then made a motion asking Thomas to give a directed verdict of not guilty to the jury that would end the trial.

Thomas spent the weekend considering all the evidence in the case.

When the trial resumed on Monday morning, the judge recapped all the testimony the Attorney General's Office, which is serving as the prosecution in the case, had used to build their case before the jury was allowed back in the courtroom.

Thomas methodically went over the facts of the case, including the physical evidence at the shallow grave behind a multi-unit dwelling where Joyce Douglas-Coulier’s partially decomposed body was discovered.

Judge: Case not proven

In the judge’s estimation there was no evidence that the prosecution had brought forward that linked Coulier to the scene of the alleged crime. Thomas ruled another aspect of the case that was inconclusive was whether or not Douglas-Coulier’s death was in fact a murder.

“(The) medical examiner could not determine a cause of death,” said Thomas listing one of the many factors that influenced his difficult decision.

According to Thomas, there was “evidence that she was drug addicted and an alcohol abuser” during the last days of her life. During this period she was out on parole and living on and off out of her car, said Thomas.

He reminded both sides of the room that on the last day anyone saw Douglas-Coulier alive the testimony of witnesses confirms that she went to the apartment where she was staying with her husband.

“Mr. Coulier was tired and he wanted to go to bed (but) she was celebrating her birthday and didn’t want the celebration to end,” said Thomas.

The story is that Joyce left the apartment in the early morning hours of July 30 in search of drugs and the door was latched behind her. This was the last time she was seen alive.

“What determination can they make based on your evidence?” Thomas asked the prosecution.

Gregory R. Townsend, a prosecutor for the State Attorney General’s office, responded that there are “many occasions where you don’t have an eyewitness” in a murder. In this case, the jury has to make a decision based on a wealth of evidence that points to the one person who had a motive, he said.

“Who would want to kill Joyce? The defendant,” said Townsend. “Could the jury infer from that evidence that the defendant was responsible? And of course the answer is, yes.”

The judge disagreed that the prosecution had proven anything that would rule out all reasonable doubts regarding Coulier’s supposed involvement in the death of his wife. Considering the violence-prone drug abusers in the Couliers’ circle of friends and extended family, Thomas said almost anyone could have been capable of her alleged murder.

When he informed those present in the courtroom of his reluctant decision to throw out the case, sounds of disbelief and frustration emanated from prosecutors and Douglas-Coulier’s family members.

Douglas-Coulier’s mother and father were visibly grief-stricken as they exited the courtroom after hearing the judge’s ruling, they muttered a statement indicating that Coulier is free to kill again. They were not on the premises after the trial’s conclusion.

When the judge brought the jury back in, he explained that based on the lack of concrete evidence presented by the Attorney General's Office, the court was granting the defense’s motion to dismiss the case. He said even the testimony from Coulier’s estranged son that his father had told him about putting a sock in his mother’s mouth, beating her and throwing her down a flight of stairs stopped short of an admission of murder.

Thomas concluded that even though the circumstantial evidence pointed to Coulier, there was not a clear connection between the defendant and Douglas-Coulier’s death. The judge said there are still other potential suspects in this case if there indeed was foul play and Douglas-Coulier did not die of natural causes.

Thomas said he agreed with Hayes, the defense attorney, that the state did not present a strong enough case for the jury to deliberate on.

“Could have been the sister. Could have been a stranger… Given the circumstances, your duty to the court and to the State has come to an end,” Thomas told the jurors as he released them.

Reaction mixed

Outside the courtroom family members of Coulier celebrated the outcome of the trial. They surrounded him and showered him with hugs and kisses. Many could be seen crying with relief.

According to family members who spoke with the Muskegon Chronicle and MLive, they were standing by Mr. Coulier from the beginning and are glad it’s over but said they were saddened by what Douglas-Coulier’s family has gone through.

“I’d like to say that I feel bad for the family and the loss of their daughter. I want them to know that. I just want the family to know that I sympathize with their loss,” said Sandi, Coulier’s sister, who did not wish to give her last name.

Two jurors, who did not wish to be identified, remarked that they supported the judge's decision to throw out the trial based on the prosecution's case.

"I think the state could have done a lot better," said one of the jurors.

A press release from Coulier's defense attorney expressed his team's sincere sympathies to the Douglas family.

"This was a tragic situation, not only for the defendant, but for the family over the past 12 ½ years since their loss," Hayes wrote. "Our justice system is one that relies on the presumption of innocence. The facts were presented in Court. Both sides were given an opportunity to examine the State’s case, and at the end of the day the facts demanded that this case could not go forward."

The attorneys for the prosecution did not have any immediate comments they wished to share. Messages left with the Attorney General's Office in Lansing were not immediately returned.

http://www.mlive.com/news/muskegon/index.ssf/2013/01/judge_recaps_t...

The Attorney General's office will not seek to appeal the judge's decision.

http://www.mlive.com/news/muskegon/index.ssf/2013/01/judge_recaps_t...

[Willy]

No one can deny there was foul play involved with this case and that she was mistreated by her husband  but the evidence wasn't there to convict him of murder. Although if she had been my daughter or sister, I would have taken him out behind the shed and administered on him a good dose of justice. I can't stand people who beat on women or children. 

[XLFD]

Mark Coulier sounds as if he was guilty of domestic violence, and the evidence looks as if it might have been trial-worthy originally, but I didn't see anything compelling in the AG's case to charge him with murder now, barring the appearance of an eyewitness, new forensic proof, or an admission by Coulier. 

I think the AG's office must have noticed a problem in the original investigation of the case to go to these lengths to bring it up now.