Court Summaries
| Jurisdiction | Wyoming,United States |
| Citation | Vol. 37 No. 3 Pg. 52 |
| Pages | 52 |
| Publication year | 2014 |
P. Craig Silva Williams, Porter, Day & Neville P.C.
Michael Lee Cooper v. State of Wyoming 2014 WY 36 S-12-0215 March 12, 2014
This case involves ineffective assistance of counsel in a criminal trial for failure to call an expert witness. On July 9, 2011, Mr. Cooper and his friends Shantel Webb, Tom Hinckley and Colby Davis spent the afternoon drinking and then attended the Central Wyoming Fair and Rodeo in Casper, Wyoming. They were asked to leave the fairgrounds due to an altercation they got into with Josh Rodabaugh and Michael Sanchez. Later in the evening, Mr. Rodabaugh and Mr. Sanchez connected up with others, one of which was Mr. Rodabaugh's father, Kirk Rodabaugh.
Kirk Rodabaugh was driving a vehicle and Mr. Cooper and his friends were walking. According to Mr. Cooper, Kirk Rodabaugh attempted to hit him with his vehicle; therefore, Mr. Cooper shot at the vehicle a total of three times, resulting in Mr. Cooper being pinned between the car and a fence. Mr. Cooper reportedly requested that Kirk Rodabaugh release him, and when he refused, Mr. Cooper shot three more times from under the car hitting Kirk Rodabaugh in the calf. Law enforcement arrived and both gentlemen were taken to the hospital. Mr. Cooper suffered a broken collar bone, broken back, and punctured lung.
The State charged Mr. Cooper with aggravated assault and battery for threatening Krk Rodabaugh with a drawn deadly weapon. Mr. Cooper claimed he had acted in self-defense, and the case went to trial before a jury. The jury found Mr. Cooper guilty; Mr. Cooper appealed the jury's decision based on ineffective assistance of counsel. The case was then remanded for hearing on that issue. The Wyoming Supreme Court reversed.
The primary issue on appeal was whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call an expert witness. Mr. Cooper claimed he shot at Kirks car because he was about to be run over, and an expert witness could have been used to corroborate his version of events based on the angles of the shots and where the bullet holes were located. Mr. Cooper stated he was no more than 20 feet away from the vehicle when he fired the first shot and on the hood of the vehicle when he fired the third shot. Mr. Rodabaugh stated he was 40 to 50 feet away from the vehicle when Mr. Cooper started shooting and he began to accelerate toward Mr. Cooper as the shots continued. The Wyoming Supreme Court advised that Mr. Cooper had the burden of proof on an ineffective assistance claim to show an expert was available and the expert would testify consistent with Mr. Coopers theory. On remand, an expert was found to support Mr. Coopers theory; consequently, the case was reversed for ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to call an expert witness. The expert would testify the car was so close when Mr. Cooper fired the first two shots that his hand was already over the hood of the car. He would have further testified that the third shot occurred after he had been hit by the vehicle, all of which was in full support of Mr. Cooper's theory.
Powder River Basin Resource Council, Wyoming Outdoor Council, Earthworks and Center for Effective Government v. Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission and Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. 2014 WY 37 S-13-0120 March 12, 2014
This case involved a record request and the proper manner in which such request should have been dealt with in the district court. In 2010, the Oil and Gas Commission amended its rules requiring companies involved in hydraulic fracturing on groundwater in the state to disclose the identity of chemicals used for well stimulation. The intent of the amendments was to provide the Commission with information about the chemicals and to make fracturing activities more transparent to the public. Operators have the ability, however, to protect the propriety of this information from the public if the information amounts to a trade secret. To accomplish such, operators are required to apply for trade secret status and a commission supervisor determines the correctness of that designation. If actual trade secrets exist as determined by the commission supervisor, the chemicals are not disclosed to the general public.
In...
To continue reading
Request your trial