The Martin Chronicles almost feels sorry for Villa Hills malfeasant Mayor Mike Martin's attorney Todd McMurtry. Almost. But not quite. Yes, he has picked up a real sack of (EXPLETIVE) client in Martin. But putting that sack of (EXPLETIVE) into his basket of clients was McMurtry's own decision.
So what else did we learn from Friday's court hearing? You know. Martin and McMurtry's failed attempt to derail Shorty's removal hearing. We learned that Judge Summe is very displeased with Martin's flagrant disregard for her April 26 order to cease destroying City records.
Getting tossed in the clink for contempt of court would be bad for Martin. Being charged with tampering with physical evidence would be far worse. When did that happen? Perhaps we should look at the governing Kentucky Revised Statute.
524.100 Tampering with physical evidence.
(1) A person is guilty of tampering with physical evidence when, believing that an official proceeding is pending or may be instituted, he:
(a) destroys, mutilates, conceals, removes or alters physical evidence which he believes is about to be produced or used in the official proceeding with intent to impair its verity or availability in the official proceeding.
Let's take this one first. When might this have happened? How about January 5, 2012? That was the day when a truck load of City records was burned. Well, at least most of that truck load. Some documents were recovered. Suppose some of those documents were related to a pending court case that was entering the discovery phase? Why, that sounds a lot like KRS 524.100 (1) (a).
Let's look at more of the statute.
(b) Fabricates any physical evidence with intent that it be introduced in the official proceeding or offers any physical evidence, knowing it to be fabricated or altered.
Hello? What's this? Suppose a witness is prepared to come forward testifying that they were part of a January 6, 2012 meeting that also included the mayor, the interim city clerk and the temporary clerk? What if a document was cooked up at that meeting that falsely claimed to list all of the City records that were burned the day before? Suppose the mayor presented that document at a public meeting as the official listing of the City records that were burned on January 5? Why that sounds a whole lot like what's being described in KRS 524.100 (1) (b).
Yeah. We know. Some pinhead will say, "What's the big deal about burning some papers?" We would say that KRS 524.100 (2) explains what the big deal is.
(2) Tampering with physical evidence is a Class D felony.
Yup. 1 to 5 years in prison. Now that is a big (EXPLETIVE) deal.
[EDITOR'S NOTE: The Martin Chronicles is developing a list of Kenton County City Attorneys Martin HAS NOT hired with YOUR MONEY. The list keeps getting shorter every day.]
