When Zeal Becomes Criminal: “Snitches Get Stitches”

The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals has affirmed the witness intimidation conviction of an attorney whose license was annulled in March 2019

In July of 2016, petitioner—at the time, an attorney—was appointed to represent Shawn Weister in a criminal proceeding in which Mr. Weister was charged with robbery. The record is undisputed that petitioner called the alleged victim in Mr. Weister’s criminal case, Tammy McDaniel, at her place of employment in August of 2016. Additionally, petitioner recorded his conversation with the victim, during which he failed to identify himself as Mr. Weister’s attorney. During this initial telephone conversation, the victim was “clear that she believe[d] Shawn Weister was one of the individuals [who] robbed her in July 2016.” During the conversation, the victim agreed to meet with petitioner later that same day. After arriving at the victim’s place of employment, petitioner again failed to identify himself as representing Mr. Weister. According to the circuit court, petitioner informed the victim that Mr. Weister “would be less likely to come after her if she did not testify against him” and also told her that “‘snitches get stitches’ in an attempt to intimidate” her. Additionally, petitioner presented the victim “with a document that look[ed] like it originated from the Jefferson County Prosecutor’s Office.”

Despite never having indicated to petitioner that she wished to have the charges against Mr. Weister dismissed, the document petitioner presented to the victim was written to that effect, and petitioner pressured the victim to list her reason for dismissal as “misidentification,” because he asserted that “the courts would not be able to help her” if she indicated that she sought dismissal out of fear for the safety of herself and her family. It was only after the victim signed this document that petitioner identified himself as Mr. Weister’s attorney. That same day, petitioner sought a bond reduction for Mr. Weister by relying upon the victim’s supposed misidentification of Mr. Weister. He then filed several other pleadings on Mr. Weister’s behalf that relied upon the document in question.

Then

Following this conduct, petitioner was charged with one count of witness intimidation in magistrate court in September of 2016. Eventually, the magistrate court held a bench trial in July of 2018, after which the court found petitioner guilty of the lone count. The court sentenced petitioner to thirty days in the regional jail but suspended the sentence in lieu of eight hours of continuing legal education concerning how to properly interact with witnesses and victims or legal ethics.

On appeal here

the record shows that petitioner misled the victim as to his relationship to Mr. Weister and did not reveal his identity as Mr. Weister’s attorney until after the victim executed a document expressing her wishes that the charges against him be dismissed—a document she never requested petitioner to draft and that was not in keeping with her clear belief that petitioner’s client robbed her. In furtherance of this end, petitioner intimidated the victim by stating that “snitches get stitches.” In short, it is clear that the evidence below supported petitioner’s conviction and that the State proved petitioner possessed the necessary intent to intimidate the victim. Accordingly, he is entitled to no relief.

It appears that the license annulment was for the conduct here. (Mike Frisch)