This response is to the most recent article in the Maries County Advocate concerning Tony Skouby, in which Mr. Skouby made a number of statements about me and the Maries County Sheriff’s Office that I believe the citizens of this county deserve to have addressed with accurate information.
On the claim of fewer cases being referred
Mr. Skouby states he is frustrated that I have not followed his advice and that his office is receiving fewer cases to prosecute. I am not sure what specific advise Mr. Skouby is referencing that I have ignored. Regarding fewer cases Mr. Skouby has made this claim repeatedly and he has reportedly made similar statements in open court on multiple occasions. I would simply note that fewer case referrals can reflect several things to include, a lower crime rate, or a deliberate effort by this office to ensure that the cases we refer are supported by sufficient evidence to warrant prosecution, rather than charges with little realistic chance of conviction. If Mr. Skouby has more time available because of fewer referrals, one might expect that time to be used thoroughly preparing cases for trial rather than resolving matters through weak plea agreements.
Mr. Skouby also references the high number of cases filed under the previous administration, without mentioning how many of those cases actually resulted in successful convictions. I can think of more than one high profile case that remained pending for over a year, only to be dismissed by the prosecution shortly before a scheduled jury trial. In my view, the evidence in those cases was known to be insufficient well before the dismissals occurred, yet the cases were not dismissed until there was no other option. That delay came at real cost, to taxpayers who funded the prosecution, and to the accused individuals, who were publicly scrutinized and incurred substantial legal expense defending charges that, in my assessment, should not have been filed in the first place.
On the BAR Complaint
Mr. Skouby also discussed in the article a BAR complaint I filed against him concerning ethical matters related to the Vienna Pointe Fire and the handling of a case involving a Belle Police Officer. Under Missouri Supreme Court Rule 5, disciplinary complaints remain confidential unless and until the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel reaches a determination. I have honored that confidentiality and have made no public statements about the substance of the complaint.
However, as the respondent in this matter, Mr. Skouby is free to release the complaint in its entirety if he chooses. I believe the public would benefit from seeing the full complaint rather than hearing only his characterization of it. I will note that I filed this complaint in the hope that experienced members of the bar could help him recognize and correct the conduct at issue.
On the Belle Police Officer Case
Mr. Skouby stated to the newspaper that, after reviewing footage related to a Belle police officer’s arrest of an individual, he advised me not to hire that officer. That is not accurate. Mr. Skouby and I have never had any discussion regarding whether I should hire this officer. The prosecutor is not involved with the hiring process at the sheriff’s office.
I am also concerned that Mr. Skouby continues to publicly discuss an open case scheduled for jury trial next year, and that his public comments present only selected portions of that case. For example, Mr. Skouby has not mentioned that the officer involved was attempting to execute a lawful arrest, or that Missouri law permits a reasonable amount of force when a person resists that arrest. He has not mentioned that the individual being arrested was resisting arrest or detention in a manner addressed under RSMo 575.150. He has also not mentioned that no distraction strikes, pepper spray, batons, or Tasers were used during the arrest facts relevant to the amount of the force used.
Mr. Skouby has likewise not mentioned that a second Belle police officer was present at the scene, participated in the arrest, and authored a report describing the same individual as resisting arrest. That second officer was never charged regarding the incident.
I have been told directly, on two separate occasions, by the Marshal of Belle, that Mr. Skouby pressured him wanting a probable cause statement submitted on the officer in question. Most prosecutors, when faced with a potential conflict involving law enforcement officers within their own county, will request the appointment of a special prosecutor to avoid exactly this kind of situation. To my knowledge, that did not occur here.
On the County Law Enforcement Restitution Fund
Mr. Skouby also discussed the County Law Enforcement Restitution Fund in the article, noting that he has grown the fund significantly during his tenure. He is quoted stating that a defendant will pay into the fund as part of court costs, “often as part of the deal,” and gave the example of a driver caught speeding paying into the fund to avoid a point on his driving record.
RSMo 50.565.6 (CLERF Statute) states, in relevant part, that “no court may order the assessment and payment authorized by this section if the plea of guilty or the finding of guilt is to the charge of speeding, careless and imprudent driving, any charge of violating a traffic control signal or sign, or any charge which is a class C misdemeanor or an infraction,” and further caps any authorized assessment at $300 per charged offense. Based on the statute’s plain language, I question whether the funding example Mr. Skouby described to the newspaper is consistent with what the law actually permits.
Mr. Skouby also stated that the fund has provided $50,000 over each of the last three years to help support his salary. RSMo 50.565.3 sets out the permitted uses of the fund, including narcotics investigation and prevention, law enforcement equipment for the sheriff’s office, matching funds for federal or state grants, crime statistics reporting, and county law enforcement related expenses including those of the prosecuting attorney that are approved by the board of trustees and reasonably related to the investigation.
Submitted by Sheriff Mark Morgan, mmorgan@mariescountymo.gov
