Looking For The Best Outcome - Hire The Best Representation - The Kenney Law Firm
One doesn’t have to go far to find information on the importance of having legal representation for any legal battle you might face. Speak to anyone involved in any litigation, and you will find this, by and large, to be undisputed. A myriad of reasons are given in a myriad of publications and forums supporting this stance; however, in short, the answer is …
The legal system and the components of each case are oversimplified in the media; the focus is not on educating but on entertaining or enticing the viewers and readers. It becomes impossible for the parties involved or directly affected by the situation to separate factual “evidence” from emotional experience. Opinions are like excuses – “a dime a dozen.” The best way to ensure your case will not be caught in the battle of entertainment and emotion is the choice you make for representation in your case and/or situation.
Most people either know or know of an attorney. Choosing between the vast number of options and specialties can be overwhelming; however, the level and quality of education must be factored into the decision-making process. The advocate you choose should know the rule of law and its application. There are a seemingly infinite number of laws and statutes, but not everyone is applicable in any case. A trained and educated lawyer will be able to discern, identify, and apply those that are relevant in each situation. He will also be able to identify which laws the opposing parties have omitted or misrepresented. He has learned how to effectively research the mitigating factors and communicate their role in the circumstances of any legal matter. He does not overlook the lives involved; with thoughtful attention, he offers guidance and the ability to best advise you amid your legal circumstances.
The best compliment to education is a representative shrouded with integrity. Regardless of popular opinion, the sensationalized excerpts, and the emotional pleas, this person is one who looks without emotion through the eyes of the law, all the while separating “what we know for a fact” from “what we believe” or “what we feel.” It is not always an easy task, nor is it popular with those who find themselves on the outside looking in. Truthfully, hearing what we do not want to be true can be very difficult. An attorney conducting himself with integrity is one that moves past the speculation and potential backlash to look at all the evidence and all the circumstances that have played a part in the situation depicted in his/her cases. Compassion abounds but cannot override responsibility, and the attorney is responsible for representing and supporting the rule of law.
The factor that brings education and integrity to life is experience. The experience offered by your legal representative should never be overlooked. Here is where the adage “Practice Makes Perfect” comes into play. Though no one can boast perfection, the more experienced counsel has learned to navigate the matters of law not included in textbooks. He has developed a reputation and respect among peers as well as judiciaries and is well-versed in the courtrooms and their potential differences. Additionally, and perhaps most importantly, he has developed a skill level that allows him to confidently separate fact from fiction and relevant data from emotional opinion.
Though much of our population tries a case in the court of public opinion, an attorney cannot entertain this audience. His position, though not glamourous, is clear; it requires a firm commitment to his sworn oath and an unwavering code of ethics.
The recently aired 48 Hours (season 36/episode 15) – Death of an Officer’s Wife
perfectly depicts the necessity of educated, integral, and experienced representation.
In response to repeated questions regarding his belief in Seth Perrault’s innocence, Justin Kenney revealed the following matters of evidentiary facts omitted from the broadcast as a result of
CBS News/48 Hours editing:
(1) Amanda was a chronic drinker.
A. She, at the time of her death, had a Blood Alcohol Content of over .2.
B. She was known to be an angry, irrational drunk.
C. She had an alcohol tolerance.
(2) The state’s counter answer to Amanda’s alcohol tolerance
A. A jailhouse informant who claimed to have knowledge of Seth drugging Amanda with painkillers.
B. The same jailhouse informant admitted on the stand that he knew Seth was the defendant in a high-profile murder.
C. The jailhouse informant also admitted that he initiated contact with the state wanting to leverage information to secure a favorable disposition of his pending probation revocation.
(3) The search of Seth & Amanda’s home yielded properly prescribed medications:
A. Oxycodone (an opiate)
B. Cyclobenzaprine (muscle relaxer)
(4) The five-panel toxicology report conducted by the State showed no opiates in Amanda’s system at the time of her death.
(5) The Sheriff
A. Testified that the informant’s information had no impact on the outcome of the informant’s probation case.
B. After receiving information about the potential drugging and having knowledge of the drug substances found in the home, failed to request the GBI to further test Amanda’s blood for the presence of the drugs uncovered in the search.
C. Was aware the blood sample was still available for testing.
NOTE: The cyclobenzaprine would not have shown in the original five-panel test.
(6) The State’s toxicologist expert
A. Admitted that they could test for the presence of cyclobenzaprine but did not do so.
B. Testified that a chronic drinker could maintain some of her faculties with .2 Blood Alcohol Content.
(7) The State relied solely on the tainted testimony of a jailhouse informant while attempting to prove Seth had drugged Amanda before shooting her.
(8) The State’s own firearms expert
A. Admitted, during cross-examination, that a weak tension spring on the magazine release button could account for the magazine being found separate from the gun.
B. Admitted that if the magazine were ejected after the slide moved forward and the gun was fired, it would account for a cartridge being in the chamber of the gun though the magazine was dislodged.
(9) The only blood found on Seth’s clothes which he was seen wearing earlier in the day on the date of Amanda’s death, was a single drop.
A. It was found on his pants between the legs but behind the inseam of the crotch.
B. No blood or blood droplets were found on the front of his clothes.
C. The State emphasized Seth’s clothing being found in the washer though there was no evidence the clothes had been washed.
1. The clothes were not wet.
2. The clothes were not pressed against the sides of the washer as they would be after the wash cycle was completed.
(10) The Blood Spray Analysis
A. The State’s forensics experts testified that given the blood spray pattern on the wall, Amanda had to be sitting up at the time the firearm went off.
B. When a bullet enters a body, blood will spray in a conical shape and generally in the opposite direction of the direction of the bullet.
C. The blood spray pattern of Amanda’s blood found on the wall lacked a void that would indicate that a person was between the wall and the body.
1. Some blood would hit the shooter, not the wall, assuming he/she was holding the gun in front of him/her.
(11) The Medical Examiner
A. Did not find stippling on the wound - Stippling is a tattooing of the surrounding skin from hot gunshot residue that occurs when the gun is close to the body upon firing.
B. Noted the lack of stippling, combined with the nature of the wound, indicated that the gun had to be directly on Amanda’s temple at the time the gun was discharged.
C. Took seven months to render her final report awaiting information from the crime scene investigators that would offer any refute of her preliminary finding of suicide.
1. No such evidence of refuting was given.
(12) The Bullet’s Direction
A. The travel of the bullet in Amanda’s head was from her right temple, with a backward trajectory and without deviation up or down.
B. Basically, it went from her front right temple toward the back left of her head.
C. The State’s theory then was that Seth would have had to…
1. Get behind her on the bed.
2. Prop her up.
3. Put the gun to her head and pulled the trigger in order to avoid getting blood on himself.
4. This theory would require Seth’s hand to be at an unnatural angle at the time the trigger was pulled.
5. It would also require Amanda to be catatonic, putting up zero fight even though the gun was directly against her temple when it fired.
(13) Amanda’s hands were not tested for gunshot residue.
(14) The firearm was not tested for gunshot residue.
A. The State offered an explanation that multiple people were in the home and had access to the firearm.
1. Thus, refuting the statement made by Sheriff Sill during the CBS episode that the gun was produced from thin air.
(15) Amanda knew…
A. Seth’s ex would seek custody of his daughter after the domestic violence charge (which she did).
B. Seth would likely seek a divorce from her to keep his daughter.
(16) The officer who showed up at the door was there to serve a subpoena.
A. Amanda did not know why the officer was there.
(17) Amanda was legally intoxicated at the time of her death.
A. Being Intoxicated interrupts rational thought and the logical thought process, thus opening a gateway to paranoia, fears, and flawed judgment.
B. While drunk, she made the decision to shoot herself.
(18) “Why would she kill herself?”
A. Why does anybody decide to kill themselves?
B. The answer to that question is unknown and could only be definitively answered by the one person who can no longer offer that answer – Amanda
Justin Kenney notes that he would like nothing more than to be able to provide family and friends with Amanda’s exact reasons or thought processes at the time of her death; unfortunately, there is no certain answer to those questions, and as a criminal defense attorney, he cannot rationalize the irrational. Furthermore, he finds it disappointing that though this episode’s CBS News and 48 Hours team were provided the complete information, they chose to broadcast an incomplete depiction of the case and its evidence, misleading the viewers and causing further anguish to those involved.