By Michael R. Moser | Editor emeritus
mmoser@crossville-chronicle.com
A man indicted for drunk driving should have a jury deliberating his evidence in his case Thursday when readers read this story.
Christopher Dean Thomas on Oct. 1, 2020, the grand jury approved an indictment charging Thomas with fifth offense DUI, reckless endangerment and second offense or higher driving on a revoked license.
However, much has happened since the indictment was handed down.
Thursday’s trial is for DUI only. The reckless endangerment charge was dropped and the revoked license charge severed from Thursday’s trial.
Should the jury convict Thomas, there will then be a hearing to determine if the DUI charge is raised to a higher degree of DUI.
An indictment is not a finding of guilt but recognizes accusations of criminal conduct. Defendants are presumed innocent until proven or pleads guilty in court.
Thomas was also cited into Crossville Municipal Court with failure to maintain a lane of traffic and that action raised Tennessee and U.S. law questions on the Thomas’ right to have a fair and impartial trial.
The charge stems from a traffic stop by Crossville Police Sgt. Keith Sadula on Dec. 4, 2019. In addition, Sadula cited Thomas into Crossville Municipal Court for failure to maintain his lane of travel.
While failure to maintain lane of traffic is not a lesser-included offense of DUI, it can be used as evidence to support a DUI conviction.
On May 20, 2020, Thomas pleaded guilty in city court — without benefit of counsel to advice him of the ramifications of a guilty plea — and paid a fine and costs.
That presented a problem for defense attorney Randal Boston, who filed a series of motions claiming Rule 9 of the Tennessee law had been violated by being charged in two separate courts with offense that are entangled.
Boston further alleged Thomas’ Sixth Amendment right to not incriminate himself was violated when he pleaded guilty in city court without benefit of legal advice.
In earlier hearings, Criminal Court Judge Gary McKenzie acknowledged the issue may be one the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals will have to sort out.
“The defendant was made to go into two different courts … not asked if he needed or wanted an attorney …,” McKenzie said. “ … city court does not have power to appoint legal counsel, as far as I know …”
The judge went on to state citing a citizen into Municipal Court and charging that person in state court for the same event was “poor policy.” It has been noted by state prosecutors that city officers are no longer citing and charging citizens in two courts.
Since the indictment was handed down, some things have changed. The reckless endangerment charge as dropped and, according to Assistant District Attorney Rachel Bateman, the state has agreed to make no reference to plea in city court.
If the jury learns of that plea, it will be because it was raised by the defense or an unresponsive utterance from a witness.
Tuesday, Boston made a motion to waive his client’s right to a jury trial and opt for a bench trial in front of McKenzie. For this to happen, the judge, defense attorney and state prosecutor(s) must all agree.
While McKenzie indicated he did not oppose Boston’s motion, Bateman said the state opposed the change and preferred a jury trial. Boston argued his proposal was made out of caution to ensure his client’s constitutional rights.
Boston also maintains the plea to failing to maintain lane of travel in Municipal Court removes probable cause for the traffic stop in Criminal Court. McKenzie ruled there was enough other probable cause to justify the stop.
McKenzie also denied Boston’s motion for an interlock agreement sending his arguments directly to the appeals court.
Should there be a conviction, Boston will have to opportunity to appeal based on his Rule 9 and Sixth Amendment arguments.