JD Feltz who was originally convicted by the Hill County Attorney team of Lorang and Dahl had his conviction overturned Friday after the Montana Supreme Court ruled 7-0 to set aside his January 15, 2009 conviction and sent the case back to district court. Feltz was originally convicted by jury trial but maintained that the jury should have been allowed to consider a lesser charge of misdemeanor assault instead of the assault with a weapon count which was a felony. The district court originally sentenced Feltz ten years and designated him a persistent felony offender. Hill County was represented by Deputy County Attorney Lindsey Lorang in Friday’s reversal and Feltz was represented by public defender Frank Picos.
Why are these cases getting overturned? It is apparent that the county attorney’s office is dropping the ball in some of these cases. Every District Court decision that gets over turned costs Hill County taxpayers additional money.
You can read the Supreme Court’s decision here http://fnweb1.isd.doa.state.mt.us/idmws/docContent.dll?Library=CISDOCSVR01^doaisd510&ID=003828932 or read all the briefs on the State Supreme Court site by searching the name of FELTZ here http://fnweb1.isd.doa.state.mt.us/idmws/custom/SLL/SLL_FN_home.htm
It is rather ironic that this loss comes 2 days before the election for a new county attorney
ReplyDeleteI agree with overturning it. Defendant's counsel requested the jury instruction, it was denied when it should of been allowed.
ReplyDeleteIts a technicality, but the defendant has a right to a fair trial. This trial was not fair.
I agree with dandelion but if the county attorneys office hadn't been so gung-ho for a felony and had prosecuted this correctly in the first place the taxpayers wouldn't of had to pay for two trials as well as a supreme court appeal
ReplyDeletePerhaps prosecutor Dahl can get a job in Saudi if she loses the election. This looks like some of her handi-work.
ReplyDeletehttp://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/03/09/saudi.arabia.lashes/index.html
If anyone is not familiar with the adult breast-fed relative thing here is a new fatwa issued on the subject. (One more reason you home-gamers out there should appreciate separation of church and state)
http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/saudi-clerics-advocate-adult-breast-feeding/19504280
Holy prarie dogs DeConstructor you are getting more detached from reality every day
ReplyDeleteWhat does this have to do with the blog story?
Is is possible that this case was not a felony and the head CA (aka Dirty Dahl) insisted on a felony? (I could be wrong on this, just throwing it out there...)
ReplyDeleteDahl has earned her nickname the Felony Queen....and I am sure she is not exactly giving Lorang her slam-dunk cases.
Again I say, God help this county if we are stuck with Dahl again.....but my fear is Lorang and Randolph will split the vote.....givng Dahl a very slim margin of victory....
Stephen
VOTE FOR RANDY RANDOLPH
If he was charged with a felony, which he initially was, he has to go to trial for a felony.
ReplyDeleteHowever, for his defense he submitted a jury instruction asking his case to be considered a misdemeanor. They refused the submission of this instruction, meaning the jury had no way of knowing they could have charged him with a lesser sentence.
If you read the actual Supreme Court Opinion, its quite interesting. He threw a beer can at a woman and got charged with felony assault. He proceeded to get kicked, hit, and attacked by multiple women. I wonder if they got charged with anything...
I wonder why the local newspaper chose not to cover this verdict? Could it be because they are hiding the truth from those that haven't had the chance to vote on the county attorney race yet?
ReplyDeleteIf the court refused the submission to consider this a misdemeanor. Then isn't the mistake on the judge, not the CA office or the defense. In all fairness during a trial the judge controls the hearing, so not every mistake can be blamed on the county attorney's.
ReplyDeleteIs anyone else having trouble with the court links in this thread? I can't get either of them to load....
ReplyDeleteI sure hope when all these attorney's are blogging on this site they aren't billing the county or clients for their time. Ever heard of keeping clients information confidential there is obviously a little too much insider information with cases. The local attorney's wonder why people leave Havre for legal advice. Clean it up!
ReplyDeleteHowever, the county attorney's office filed it, had it overturned, re tried it and lost it. That is not up to the judge. It never should have been charged on a felony level to begin with.
ReplyDeleteVOTE TOMORROW!!!!!!!!!!!!
To Nancy: Court records are public information. Anyone can access this information. There's hardly a breach of some attorney client privilege when what is printed here appears to be the facts as presented in court....
ReplyDeleteI am quite aware of public records, the language used by a few of the bloggers comes from a legal standpoint, and I think it is unethical. Have you ever went to an attorney here, and the next thing everyone in town knows your business. Even if this is Anon. they should watch it. Clean it up.
ReplyDeleteIf someone is discussing a public opinion and reiterating what the Supreme Court said, I do not see how that is using legal language.
ReplyDeleteAnd perhaps some of us follow what goes on in the legal system of Montana. Couple that with some legalese one can pick up in a college business law class, its really not difficult to sound like you know what you are talking about.
It is not hard to learn how to differentiate from a felony or a misdemeanor. Or how the legal system works in a state.
And honestly, I could go to the Courthouse and pick up Mr. Feltz file and learn all the proper things to say from reading said file. That's not spreading his information around town, its already available for anyone who wants to read it.
I will admit, I am taking online paralegal classes. So, I guess if its unethical for me to use what I have picked up from that class to discuss a public record, I apologize.
DeConstructor, the link appears to work but the one is to a pdf file that loads slow. You can just go to the Montana Supreme Court website and search the name Feltz or any other court case.
ReplyDeleteNancy, Everything discussed here is in the case files which are online and public record
Yeah, 69 Corvette, you get it--I was wondering out loud whether this was a case of Gina Dahl insisting on a felony when it was not warranted adn then handed it down to Lorang.
ReplyDeleteThat is Dah's M.O. The Felony Queen is, in my opinion, off her rocker and needs to go.
STEPHEN
VOTE FOR RANDY RANDOLPH AND HE WILL STOP THE OIL SPILL
(okay that's a lie but he will be a better county attorney!)
Clearly Nancy has had a bad experience. Sorry to hear that but nobody's "busniness" is on here. There is absolutely nothing unethical about what has been discussed here. There's nothing to "clean up"... if it's too "dirty" for you you're welcome to hit the red X in the upper right hand corner of your screen.
ReplyDeleteI agree with those that say the judge is also to blame in this. I would vote agains't him but no one ran against him last time
ReplyDelete