Defense attorney sets record straight
As the defense attorney in the case in which teenager Ilaura Fleck was burned at a keg party in Boundary County, I am concerned about the continuing publication of false information and misunderstanding about this case.
Much of this misinformation concerns Magistrate Debra Heise, who presided over the case and who is constrained by judicial codes from defending herself or clarifying the record while the matter is still before the courts
Because I am not similarly constrained, I wish to stipulate for the public record the following facts in hopes that by doing so the most egregious misstatements will be corrected and not continue to be repeated.
? The police investigation of defendant Brian Todd Davis's actions at the July 27 party resulted in a charge that by "picking Ilaura up off the ground, holding her over a campfire, and while setting Ilaura A. Fleck down, stumbling and causing her to fall into the campfire …"
? The police investigation did not provide sufficient evidence to support filing charges of malicious harassment ("hate crime") under Idaho state law.
? Because no such charges were filed, the court proceedings conducted by Magistrate Debra Heise were not intended to address whether a hate crime occurred.
? The magistrate had no authority to try in court accusations that were not the subject of criminal charges.
? On Nov. 3, a preliminary hearing was held to determine whether there was probable cause for the defendant Brian Todd Davis to be bound over for trial on charges of aggravated battery.
? Contrary to news reports, neither at that hearing nor at any proceeding nor in the police investigation was there eyewitness testimony that Davis "tossed" or "threw" or otherwise propelled Ilaura Fleck into the bonfire.
? After the testimony on Nov. 3 from investigating officers, from the victim, from two prosecution witnesses who were unable to testify that the defendant acted with clear intent to cause great bodily harm to the victim, and from others, the magistrate called for a meeting in chambers with both of us.
? During that meeting, it was agreed by the prosecution and the defense that, in light of courtroom testimony and forensic evidence in the case, the defendant plead guilty to a reduced charge of misdemeanor battery.
? At no time during this meeting did Magistrate Heise threaten to dismiss the charges if the prosecutor did not accept this plea.
? At no time during this meeting did Magistrate Heise diminish the seriousness of the defendant's actions with the words "boys will be boys" or with comments that could be construed to mean that she held such a view.
? Both the prosecution and defense concurred in that meeting that the guilty plea to a charge of misdemeanor battery was the correct and appropriate disposition of the case given the evidence and testimony available.
? At no time have I refused to discuss this case or the allegations surrounding it with a member of the press. Reports that I have told any reporter "no comment" are not true.
Citizens concerned about the investigation and conduct of this case may review the case file in Boundary County and/or to purchase for review audio tapes of the court proceedings at the Boundary County courthouse.