Court Watching: James Chapman found guilty of not providing DNA sample to police

After a bench trial before 34th District Court Judge Brian A. Oakley on Dec. 6, James Forrest Chapman, 57, was found guilty of refusing to provide a DNA sample to police after being arrested on a felony charge, as required by law.
But, Judge Oakley stated, “I’m not ordering DNA,” and then left the courtroom for lunch. That was about 12:42 p.m.
Wayne County Assistant Prosecutor Phoebie Longnecker told Van Buren Township Police they could try to get a DNA sample from Chapman or they could arrest him on a violation of probation charge, since he has just been found guilty of of a misdemeanor.
VBT Det./Lt. Charles Bazzy said he would have to think it over.
The bench trial was almost an hour in length, starting at about 11:52 a.m. Chapman, who regularly shows up late for his court cases, arrived in the courtroom at about 11:45 a.m. for his 11 a.m. trial.
John Day, a Belleville attorney who was representing Chapman, started off with a motion to dismiss the case since it was not a speedy trial, “starting 28 months ago.”
He said there have been two or three different prosecutors on the case and the case has been “adjourned, adjourned, adjourned.”
Day also said Chapman has suffered tremendously because of the Independent newspaper stories written about him that have ruined his reputation.
He said 20 months ago Chapman was charged with a felony, which was shifted down to a misdemeanor. Any sample taken would have been destroyed, he said.
Day said this case was dismissed once and has been pending trial for over a year.
Prosecutor Longnecker said Chapman still has a pending case which has a DNA sample charge attached. She said her records show the case before them was dismissed once and remanded back to Judge Oakley on June 7, 2016, which is not 28 months ago.
She said there have been delays in the case and she highly doubts most were due to the prosecutors trying to catch up. She said a number of motions were filed on behalf of Chapman.
After Judge Oakley dismissed the charge, it was remanded back to him and, he said, “We’re starting over.”
She said there has been no prejudice to Chapman by the delay and no reason not to proceed.
Judge Oakley said the evidence looks like the first time, when he dismissed the charge. Since that time, it has been plugging along, he said.
Judge Oakley said he doesn’t adjourn a case unless both parties agree and Day shouldn’t hold the prosecutor responsible for those delays.
Judge Oakley referred to the delays around the “global settlement” they tried to reach by attaching this DNA refusal to the other DNA refusal attached to Chapman’s other felony charge at circuit court.
Judge Oakley said the clock started running once it was remanded back to him by circuit court and that still is not at 18 months.
Judge Oakley said he has to have a legal reason to dismiss it and not just because he thinks it’s a “stupid case” to go forward. He said the DNA sample would have to be destroyed if Chapman was found not guilty.
“The law is pretty clear,” Longnecker said. “You get arrested, you give DNA.”
“I deny the motion to dismiss, as much as I want to,” Judge Oakley said.
The prosecution’s first witness was VBT Police Officer Patrick Wehrman, who has served on the VBT department for 10.5 years. He testified he picked up Chapman on a warrant at the Clare County Jail on Aug. 16, 2015 and transported him back to VBT.
He said Lt. Ken Floro gave him a copy of the warrant for felony stalking and he booked Chapman, taking fingerprints and entering information into the computer. He said Dispatch gave him a printout from LEIN (Law Enforcement Information Network) saying that he was required to get a DNA sample.
“I told Mr. Chapman the state requires his DNA,” Officer Wehrman testified.
Day objected, saying the printout was heresay. He asked whose opinion was it that DNA needs collecting.
Wehrman said in his police training they were told after the new law went into effect, they had to get DNA.
Longnecker said the LEIN printout is part of the business record and doesn’t qualify as heresay.
Judge Oakley over-ruled Day’s objection.
Officer Wehrman testified after he spoke with Chapman, Chapman said he couldn’t give his DNA without a court order.
Under cross-examination, Day asked Wehrman if he read Chapman his DNA rights and Wehrman said he didn’t.
The next witness was VBT Detective Donovan McCarthy, who said on Aug. 16, 2015 he was advised that Chapman was in the lock up. Det. McCarthy was the officer in charge of the aggravated stalking charge against Chapman.
Det. McCarthy said at about 2:30 p.m. he went into the booking room and asked Chapman if he would be willing to give a DNA sample.
Det. McCarthy paused before describing Chapman’s reply and Prosecutor Longnecker said he could repeat exactly what Chapman said.
Det. McCarthy said Chapman said, “If Lt. Bazzy wanted it, he could suck it out my (expletive).” McCarthy said he laughed and left the room. He said he told Chapman the refusal would be an additional criminal charge.
McCarthy said the next morning he talked to Lt. Bazzy, who went to the holding cell to talk to Chapman and Chapman told him to go to hell.
“I submitted the DNA refusal to the prosecutor’s office, which came back signed,” McCarthy said.
Under cross-examination, Day asked McCarthy if he advised Chapman of his DNA rights and McCarthy said he hadn’t.
Final witness was Det./Lt. Bazzy, who has been with the VBT police department for 27 years and before that six years with Detroit PD.
Lt. Bazzy said on Aug. 17, 2015 he was in the area outside cell #2 and he advised Chapman that the DNA sample was required by law.
“I gave him one final opportunity to give a sample and I advised him he could be charged with a criminal offense,” Bazzy said. “He told me to go to hell. I left the room.”
Day did not wish to cross-examine Bazzy.
Day said there is no legal authority cited that the DNA is “required by law” to be taken. A protracted argument took place, with the law that requires police to retain the DNA cited as MCL 28.176 and to take it in as MCL 750.520m.
Day said the 750.520m wording is part of the rape statute. But Judge Oakley said it doesn’t limit it to rape.
Day said police failed to inform Chapman that if not convicted his DNA would be destroyed. He made a motion to dismiss the charge.
Prosecutor Longnecker said 128.176 reads that at the time the sample is taken the defendant has to be given notice it will be destroyed if not convicted. It was never taken.
Judge Oakley denied Day’s motion.
Judge Oakley then declared he found Chapman guilty, and suspended sentence.
“Go away,” he said to Chapman.
But, Judge Oakley was advised that Chapman had to be arraigned after missing a court date on a misdemeanor charge of driving while license suspended in Sumpter Township on Sept. 29. Judge Oakley put a personal recognizance bond of $1,000 on Chapman and told him to meet with the Sumpter Township prosecutor on Dec. 26.