Court Watching: Judge Oakley again delays decision on Chapman’s DNA refusal

James Forrest Chapman, 57, of Van Buren Township, convinced 34th District Court Judge Brian A. Oakley to dismiss all three of the misdemeanors filed against him for refusing to give DNA samples for VBT Police.
Later, Judge Oakley reinstated two charges and set another session for 10 a.m., Aug. 2, the judge’s birthday.
All this happened at defendant Chapman’s complicated, two-hour court session on July 12. He was representing himself.
After everything appeared to be complete and the DNR charges dropped, Chapman was escorted back into the court lockup, and Judge Oakley adjourned court for the day.
Then Wayne County Assistant Prosecutor Greg Akaraz said in an informal statement to the judge that he will have to refile the charges again. When Judge Oakley said it is a waste of the state’s time and money, Prosecutor Akaraz said he has to refile because it’s the law and he has to do his job.
“The Prosecutor’s office didn’t brief us in 2015 when the first DNA charge was made,” Judge Oakley said from the courtroom floor after the session ended. He said it was a new law and he was interpreting it, which is what he is supposed to do.
“That poor bastard wouldn’t have been arrested three times on this Mickey Mouse shit” if the Prosecutor’s Office had written a brief, Judge Oakley said.
“If I hadn’t ruled the way I did in 2015, he might have given his DNA the next time,” Judge Oakley said of Chapman. He said VBT police have a vendetta against Chapman.
“I’m scared something bad’s going to happen and be in the headlines,” Judge Oakley said.
Then new details, presented by Prosecutor Akaraz and VBT Detective Michael Long caused Judge Oakley to put his court back in session and call for the officers to bring Chapman back out of lockup into the courtroom.
Judge Oakley told Chapman that Akaraz brought to his attention the proper statute and the prosecutor is going to refile again. Or, he said, he can look again at the Maryland vs. King ruling by the Supreme Court, that Chapman had cited earlier in the session. Judge Oakley had recessed the session to give him time to read the ruling.
Judge Oakley said the administrative statute presented by the prosecution is not the one written on Chapman’s complaint, but that’s the first statute he’s seen that talks about what is required of the individual.
“Adjourn the hearing,” Chapman said.
Judge Oakley then said he rescinded the dismissal of the DNA charges and reopened the issue. Dates were set and then changed after two hours of discussion.
Chapman began his court session that day by saying he didn’t think his court-appointed attorney David Lankford was prepared for this hearing. He said Lankford refused to read the transcript he wanted him to read.
“I have no problem with removing me,” Lankford said.
“I’m requesting another attorney,” Chapman said.
“If he’s not comfortable with me…,” Lankford said. “If you can find an attorney that meets his standards…”
“Anyone assigned to represent you is likely to have the same problem,” Judge Oakley said. “Most attorneys don’t do well when the defendant directs.”
Judge Oakley said he doesn’t know if Wayne County will appoint someone else.
Prosecutor Akaraz made a formal objection.
Chapman said they’ve said a police officer didn’t come to the jury trial to testify that led to a dismissal of the charges because he didn’t get a subpoena, but, “They’ve never issued subpoenas for officers to come to court.”
Judge Oakley said the reissue of the charges wasn’t the defendant’s fault.
“Never an excuse not to show up,” Chapman said.
Judge Oakley told VBT Police Officer David Champagne he would not be testifying. Officer Champagne was standing by to testify in the scheduled preliminary exam on Chapman’s reissued felony charge of resisting a police officer.
“I’m more than willing to adjourn the felony case and do the three DNA misdemeanors today,” Judge Oakley said, noting the DNA charges were filed on May 26, 2017, June 3, 2016, and Aug. 16, 2015.
Lankford, who defends felony cases at the 34th District Court, told Judge Oakley the misdemeanors are not his cases.
Chapman asked Judge Oakley to dismiss the last two of the DNA charges “due to double jeopardy.”
Judge Oakley adjourned the felony case to July 19. Later that was changed.
“All I want is the attorney to be prepared. He refuses to read the transcript of the testimony,” Chapman said of Lankford.
“I’ve known him for many years and he’s a good defense attorney,” Judge Oakley said.
“He hasn’t convinced me of that,” Chapman replied.
“He doesn’t have to,” Judge Oakley said.
Chapman said the May 17, 2017 case is the same as the June 3, 2016 charge.
Judge Oakley gave Prosecutor Akaraz a chance to review the cases.
Chapman read the Prosecutor’s response to his motion and then asked for a copy of his own motion. He said since he was abruptly arrested on a circuit court violation of probation warrant, he was not able to prepare himself for court.
Attorney Lankford left the courtroom at this point. Earlier he had said he was going on vacation to Chicago.
Prosecutor Akaraz said he has three files on DNA refusal. He said when the felony of resisting a police officer was dismissed and then refiled, Chapman refused DNA again. They were two different incidents, he said.
“It was one felony, one DNA refusal. Double jeopardy,” Chapman insisted.
“There was the reissue of the original charge. It was dismissed and reissued and he refused to give DNA again,” Akaraz stated.
Judge Oakley ordered the May 26, 2017 DNA charge dismissed.
Then there were the charges from 2015 and 2016. The motion filed by Chapman asking for their dismissals cited the Maryland vs. King decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.
“I have 11 reasons and he’s only concentrating on one and a half,” Chapman said of Akaraz.
Judge Oakley pointed out Maryland talks about serious felonies.
Akaraz read from the case, saying in line with past ways of using photos and fingerprints for identification, a DNA sample is more accurate. The Supreme Court referred to it as “standard expanding technology throughout the nation,” noting that the needs of law enforcement supersedes invasion of privacy concerns.
They discussed the Supreme Court case and Michigan law at length.
In his argument, Chapman said there is no Supreme Court case authorizing fingerprints. There’s a Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and they can get a warrant for DNA.
“If I’ve committed some unsolved crimes, make them get probable cause for a warrant,” Chapman said. “I die a Patriot without giving DNA samples.”
“Two years ago I ruled,” said Judge Parrott. “I interpreted that it did require a warrant. My interpretation was ‘Get a warrant.’”
Prosecutor Akaraz said the Michigan law tells police departments they must maintain the DNA records, which means they must get the DNA.
“My interpretation is this has never been argued in any other court but mine,” Judge Oakley said, referring to the new law on DNA samples for felony arrests.
He said circuit court said he abused his discretion when he dismissed Chapman’s DNA charge and circuit court sent it back to his courtroom. “I don’t understand that.”
Judge Oakley said there’s nothing that requires an arrestee to give DNA. They can’t find any wording in the laws saying that.
“I really am enjoying the arguments,” Judge Oakley added.
“It does say police have to keep the records, but it’s silent on a search warrant,” Prosecutor Akaraz said. He said there is no expectation of privacy in the Supreme Court decision.
“Even if I agree with you, this statute doesn’t say he has to say yes,” Judge Oakley said. “The statute may imply…”
He said it would have been such a simple matter for the law to be written to require submission of DNA. He said it now seems to say, “If you fellas collect some DNA in your investigation, you have to keep it.”
The argument continued and the subject of “serious offenses” was considered.
Finally, Judge Oakley said he was ready to rule. He denied Chapman’s motion to dismiss the DNA charge tied to the stalking charge, which he found a serious charge. He wasn’t so sure about the resisting a police officer charge.
The two DNA charges and the felony resisting an officer charge were set for 10 a.m., Aug. 2.
Judge Oakley also gave Chapman seven days from when he is released from jail after his violation of probation charge is heard before Circuit Court Judge Margaret Van Houten to bring in a plan for a new home for his dog Diesel.
Diesel has been in the Romulus Animal Shelter since mid May after biting a man.
“Van Buren Township will pay for all charges for Diesel,” Judge Oakley ruled.
VBT Ordinance Officer Bob Queener said the charge at the shelter is $25 for the first day and $5 every day thereafter and the cost is growing.