New trial for trooper's taser thief

GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. (WOOD) - A man convicted of stealing a taser from a Michigan State Police trooper in Van Buren County will get a new trial after a Michigan Court of Appeals ruling Tuesday.

The court ruled the trial judge in the case, William Buhl, made "objectionable statements" to the jury pool without the defendant or his lawyer present, violating his right to a fair trial.

Prosecutors said Toby Farley, 28, ran away from a November 2006 state police traffic stop in Bangor Township. The trooper chased Farley and tried to use his taser on him, but Farley grabbed the taser from the trooper.

The trooper then shot Farley twice. He survived.

Farley's attorney, Jacqueline McCann, told 24 Hour News 8 the prosecutor in the case has 56 days to decide whether to appeal the case to the Michigan Supreme Court. McCann said during that period, defendants in such cases typically stay in the state facility in which they were already incarcerated, rather than being transferred to the county jail where the re-trial would occur.

A three-judge appellate court panel ruled the trial judge erred by stating:

- The reproduction of transcripts of witness statements is "not instantaneous, so if youre deliberating and you say, well, wed like to see the testimony of John Smith, she [the court reporter] cant just hand it to you. Shes going to have to go produce it. It might take an hour or 2 hours, 3 hours. It depends on how long John Smith testified. So keep those limitations in mind." The appellate judges said the remark was "inconsistent" with law that states "a trial court may not refuse any reasonable request by a jury to review a witness's testimony."

- "[Y]ou have to understand, of course, that the prosecutor is going to want somebody thats kind of kind to law enforcement and looks upon it, you know, the law is the law. And the defense is going to want to have somebody who is going to be a little more understanding, maybe not so rigid. So theyre each looking for jurors that will favor their side at least." The appeals court ruled the statement that the defense was seeking sympathetic jurors implied Farley committed the crimes in question.

- "... [Y]ou need to understand that to understand why jury nullification is bad because you dont get to know these things." Jury nullification is the practice of finding a defendant not guilty despite believing in his or her guilt because the jury finds the law in question is invalid. The trial judge gave an example of a case in which a jury let a defendant go in an attempt to give him another chance, not knowing he was charged with other similar crimes. The appeals court said the trial judge's statement was "inconsistent" with the relatively unfettered power of juries.

- "Sometimes I have to direct a verdict, like todays case, if an essential element of the crime isnt established by the prosecutor, for some reason, then Ill direct you to find the defendant not guilty. But that doesnt happen too often. But occasionally it does." The appellate judges ruled that statement failed to recognize the proper standard in deciding a directed verdict.

The prosecutor was also not present for the remarks, according to the appeals court. The case returns to Van Buren Circuit Court for the new trial.