Missouri "law Thugs" Brought Bogus Criminal Charge Against Carol to "preclude" Her Federal Civil Claims, but Their Efforts Will Fail If the Law is Correctly Applied

Prof. Sheldon Nahmod

Why did Missouri "law men" bring a bogus assault of a law enforcement officer charge against my wife, Carol, when even their own "victim" admits in an incident report (and under oath in court) that she committed no such offense? The answer can be summed up in one word: preclusion.
How stupid were the Missouri thugs to pull such a stunt? That answer requires two words: very stupid. That's because the law on preclusion -- we'll call it "The P Word" -- does not accomplish what the thugs thought it would. That means they wasted their time and ours, while significantly enhancing their potential liability in a federal civil-rights lawsuit that Carol and I will file shortly.
Preclusion essentially means that, under certain circumstances, an issue that has been raised and litigated in one forum cannot be re-litigated in another -- in a case involving the same parties. For example, an issue litigated in a state criminal proceeding might not be raised in a subsequent federal civil proceeding.
"The P Word" is driven by two complex and confusing legal doctrines -- res judicata and collateral estoppel. Sheldon H. Nahmod, a professor at Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Institute of Technology, explains the issue in a blog post titled "A Section 1983 Primer (6): Claim and Issue Preclusion." Many federal civil-rights claims are brought under 42 U.S. Code 1983. Prof. Nahmod explains preclusion and its possible impact on claims in federal court:

This post addresses the important practical topic of claim preclusion (res judicata, which concerns claims that were or could have been raised), and issue preclusion (collateral estoppel, which concerns issues that were raised and adjudicated) in section 1983 cases. Preclusion concerns arise in section 1983 federal court litigation when there is a prior final state judicial or administrative proceeding that involved the same parties (or their privies) and implicated (or could have implicated) the same issues.

To what extent may those claims or issues be relitigated in a subsequent section 1983 federal court proceeding? As it turns out, the answer in each case depends, as a matter of federal law, on the forum state’s preclusion law.

That means we need to examine Missouri's preclusion law to determine its possible impact on our civil-rights claims that will be raised in Missouri federal court. We learn two things:

(1) Missouri preclusion law involves qualifiers that "law man" thugs in Carol's case likely have not considered;

(2) When we go beneath the surface to research the relevant law in some detail, we find that Carol's federal claims will not be precluded at all. And that does not even include my civil-rights claims, which are significant -- even though I was not wrongfully arrested and brutalized in a way that left Carol with a shattered left arm.

Bottom line: Missouri thugs brought a bogus criminal charge against Carol in an effort to "preclude" her federal claims arising from excessive force and a severely broken arm that required trauma surgery. We've called the assault claim a "cover charge" because that's exactly what it is -- an effort to abuse the criminal-court process to cover up police misconduct and ensure no one is held accountable for the abuse heaped on Carol and me.

Unfortunately for the thugs, they are relying on law that does not do what they think it does. They've wasted roughly 20 months on a bogus criminal case that does not preclude anything (if the law is applied correctly to our federal claims -- and that's a big "if") and only heightens their potential civil liability.

We've shown over and over on this blog that corrupt cops, lawyers, prosecutors, and judges aren't too smart. This is another example of a "justice system" that is infested with individuals who have little or no integrity and even fewer functioning brain cells.

As an example, consider this question: In the highlighted section above, preclusion is described as being limited to final state judgments or administrative proceedings. But what if there is no final state judgment? Hmmm . . . 

(To be continued)