• Jan 10, 2014
  • The Wichita Eagle
  • -
  • by Tim Potter

The Kansas Supreme Court, citing prosecutorial misconduct, has reversed child-sex-crimes convictions of a former Inman police chief and ordered that he get a new trial.

In 2011, Michael Akins Jr. was convicted of 15 sex crimes, allegedly committed in 2009 while he was police chief of Inman, a town between McPherson and Hutchinson on K-61. The alleged victims were three girls and a boy, ages 14 and younger. Akins was sentenced to two consecutive life terms plus nearly five years.

The high court’s finding was released Friday. Among other things, the court found that the prosecutor made improper comments to the jury. For example, the court found that the prosecutor, Assistant Attorney General Christine Ladner, was wrong to repeatedly refer to “grooming” of victims for future sex abuse when her comments were not based on evidence introduced at the trial. The state had argued that the prosecutor was referring to “grooming” only in its ordinary meaning, but the high court disagreed.

The Kansas Attorney General’s Office said Friday that it is reviewing the court’s decision.

Akins, who testified in his defense, denied the accusations. But the jury convicted him of eight counts of aggravated indecent liberties with a child, one count of attempted aggravated indecent liberties, one count of indecent liberties, one count of aggravated indecent solicitation of a child, three counts of indecent solicitation of a child and one count of battery.

Akins, now 42, is being held in prison out of state, according to Kansas Department of Corrections records. In the near term, Akins will remain in prison, said Dan Monnat, the Wichita attorney representing Akins in his appeal of his convictions. Monnat said Friday that he would also defend Akins in any future trial and would seek bond so his client would have a chance to go free pending trial.

The Supreme Court also found that the prosecutor improperly “expressed her personal opinion on the credibility of her own witnesses” and was wrong to “offer her personal opinion that the defendant’s testimony was untruthful.” Instead of citing specific inconsistencies in his testimony, she basically told the jury “that Akins could not be believed,” the court said.

The court added: “There was no physical evidence of Akins’ guilt, and he consistently and steadfastly maintained that he was innocent. So the jury was charged with deciding the case based on testimony of witnesses, making their credibility of paramount importance.”

In all, the court found three instances of prosecutorial misconduct. The state argued that the misconduct applied to only a small fraction of the trial, but Monnat contended that each instance of misconduct kept Akins from getting a fair trial.

“We agree with Akins that the prosecutor’s actions denied him a fair trial,” the court concluded.

In a statement Friday, Monnat said: “The court’s message to prosecutors in reversing Mr. Akins’ convictions is simple: If the state wants to send anyone to prison for life on grounds of sexual abuse, it must have the evidence to back up its accusations. Courtroom theatrics are not evidence.”

Read more at Kansas.com

The Wichita Eagle – By Tim Potter

  • Jan 10, 2014
  • KWCH TV
  • -
  • by John Boyd

INMAN, Kan. – A former Kansas police chief who was convicted of child sex crimes will get a new trial.

Michael Akins once served as Chief of Police in Inman.

In 2011, Akins was sentenced to two life sentences for sexually assaulting three children.

Friday, the Kansas Supreme Court granted Akins a new trial after finding prosecutorial misconduct.

Dan Monnat, Akins’ attorney, says he’s confident his client will be exonerated at a new trial. In the meantime, he’ll likely ask a judge to release Akins on bond.

Akins has been held at an out-of-state prison because he is a former law enforcement officer.

No date has been set for his new trial.

Read full story here

KWCH TV – by John Boyd

  • Jan 10, 2014
  • SFGate

McPHERSON, Kan. (AP) — The Kansas Supreme Court has ordered a new trial for a former police chief convicted of 15 counts of sexually molesting three girls.

Forty-two-year-old Michael Akins Jr. was convicted in 2011 and sentenced to two life terms. He was police chief in the central Kansas town of Inman when he was charged.

The Supreme Court reversed the convictions Friday, citing misconduct by the assistant attorney general who tried the case in McPherson County. The high court said the assistant attorney general improperly stated comments and opinions that the jury could have construed as evidence.

Defense lawyer Dan Monnat  told KWCH-TV (http://bit.ly/1cLfPAw ) he expects to seek Akins’ release on bond pending the new trial. Akins has been held at an out-of-state prison because he is a law enforcement officer.

Read full article here

SFGate

  • Jan 10, 2014
  • The Pitch
  • -
  • by Justin Kendall

Citing prosecutorial misconduct, the Kansas Supreme Court has reversed 15 convictions and two consecutive life sentences of ex-Inman, Kansas, police chief Mike Akins Jr.

In 2009, Akins was accused of molesting, inappropriately touching and soliciting his stepchildren. Akins was convicted and sentenced in February 2011. The court remanded the case for a new trial.

Akins’ attorney, Dan Monnat, issued a response to the court’s ruling, noting that the court reversed the convictions due to Assistant Attorney General Christine Ladner committing “multiple acts of misconduct at trial. Specifically, the prosecutor posed as her own unsworn psuedo-psychological expert at trial, she misstated the law, and she expressed her personal opinion about the case, both praising the children who testified and calling Mr. Akins a liar.”

Akins denied all allegations at trial, and his defense argued that the allegations came out after Akins broke up with the children’s mother.

“The Court’s message to prosecutors in reversing Mr. Akins’s convictions is simple: If the State wants to send anyone to prison for life on grounds of sexual abuse, it must have the evidence to back up its accusations. Courtroom theatrics are not evidence,” Monnat wrote in a press release. “Mr. Akins is confident that he will be found not guilty at any new trial.”

Monnat added in the release that the Akins’ decision was “the fourth reversal of a life sentence for sex offenses under Jessica’s Law.”

Read full article here

Read the Court’s Opinion here

The Pitch – By Justin Kendall

  • Jan 10, 2014
  • McPherson Sentinel
  • -
  • by Cristina Janney

The Kansas Supreme Court reversed a former Inman police chief’s convictions on sexual abuse charges Friday, and a new trial was ordered.

A jury found Michael Akins guilty of 15 of 19 submitted counts of molesting some of his step-children in January 2011.

Under Jessica’s Law, Akins was sentenced to two consecutive hard 25 life terms for two convictions of aggravated indecent liberties with a child.

The court also sentenced Akins to 59 months in prison consecutive to the life sentences for one aggravated indecent liberties conviction and concurrent terms ranging from 6 to 63 months for the remaining 12 offenses.

In the appeal, Akins attorney alleged the assistant attorney general who prosecuted the case, Christine Ladner, made several errors that denied Akins a fair trial.

An interview technique called Finding Words was used to interview the children in the case. The technique is specifically designed for interviewing children in abuse cases.

The court determined Ladner incorrectly referred to Finding Words as the “gold standard” and cited a case in which the Finding Words was allegedly praised as such.

Ladner also repeatedly referred to Akins’ alleged “grooming” of the children in case, yet did not introduce an expert to testify about grooming as a practice in the sexual abuse cases.

Dan Monnat, Akins attorney, said the prosecutor “posed as her own unsworn psuedo-psychological expert.”

Further, the court determined Ladner improperly praised the children and their testimony as factual and asserted Akins was lying.

Monnat said Akins denied the allegations under oath and has continued to maintain his innocence since his conviction.

“The allegations were based on the statements the children made in response to leading questions by their mother after she separated from Mr. Akins,” Monnat said in a news release Friday.

A spokesman for the Kansas Attorney General’s Office said the office was reviewing the court’s decision today, but did not have a statement at this time.

No information was available as to when the case might be set for retrial.

Read full article here

McPherson Sentinel – By Cristina Janney

  • Jan 10, 2014
  • KSNW TV

LAWRENCE, Kansas – Freedom of speech. It’s in the First Amendment. Some say it’s been dampened in Kansas.

The Kansas Board of Regents recently announced that speech by University employees that is a detriment to the functions of the University, could be cause for discipline.

The issue stems from a controversy initiated by David Guth, a professor at KU who has been kicked out of the classroom by the University of Kansas. Guth tweeted a very controversial tweet last year about the Navy Yard shootings. Some took offense.

Now, some professors say the Kansas Board of Regents policy could have a chill on free speech. In fact, some say they wonder if they could be disciplined or even fired for talking to the media.

“Even having this conversation, if could come within, potentially, the Board of Regents policy,” says KU Law Professor Raj Bhala. “Of course, I am speaking strictly to you on a personal level now. I am not acting as a representative of the university in this conversation.”

Some attorneys in Kansas say this case, if it progresses, could land at the Supreme Court.

“The United States Supreme Court has long emphasized academic freedom under the first amendment,” says Wichita attorney Dan Monnat. “The issue involved in the Board of Regents policy here, brings up exactly the question that has not been decided by the United States Supreme Court. That is, whether the rule restricting speech of public employees applies in academic freedom and scholarship.”

The University of Kansas did respond to KSN requests for comment on the Board of Regents policy.

“The free exchange of ideas is vital to the success of all universities,” said KU Chancellor Bernadette Gray-Little. “We’re working with our faculty, staff and the Board of Regents to ensure the Board’s policy respects and preserves that freedom.”

See video at KSN

KSNW TV

  • Jan 07, 2014
  • KSNW TV
  • -
  • by Felix Rodrigues-Lima

WICHITA, Kansas – A drug abuse assessment form may become one of the factors that determines which welfare recipients will have to take a drug test to receive benefits.

The Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory, or SASSI, has been used for years by the Department of Children and Families to assess whether people receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, benefits. Until now, it had mostly been used to screen people who need treatment.

But starting in July, it could be one of the deciding factors in who will have to submit a drug test to continue receiving welfare benefits, raising concerns from legal experts.

“How many constitutional rights might a person be required to give up in order to feed her or his family?” KSN legal expert Dan Monnat said.

The assessment is a two-sided piece of paper that asks a variety of questions. Many of them are true or false questions, but it also asks about the reasons a person drinks or does drugs and the effects alcohol and drugs have on the person.

“Part of that is looking at underlying beliefs and attitudes that might be related to substance abuse disorders, and then there’s the overt, yes this person is doing something that is directly related to substance abuse disorder,” Chenoa Simmons-Daniels, a drug counselor at Higher Ground in downtown Wichita, said.

Simmons-Daniels and others use the SASSI assessment to help identify whether a client has a problem.

“No tool is perfect, so we definitely would hope that it not just be, you know, you walk into an office, do the SASSI, and that just determines your future,” Meredith Reuter, another drug counselor, added. “We would hope there would also be interaction with someone skilled and knowledgeable in substance abuse.”

When state lawmakers approved the program last year, they wrote into the law that people with established “reasonable suspicion” of drug abuse would be the ones subject to drug screening. Whether the screening establishes that is up for debate, Monnat said.

“The question is, will it be determined based upon a psychological test for substance abuse or is that itself a search requiring the predicate of reasonable suspicion?” he said.

Counselors like Reuter vouched for the assessment’s accuracy.

“We have had people take the SASSI where their results probably came out similar to what a substance abuser’s would look like, but for various reasons, there were other things that impacted the outcome of the test,” Reuter said. “So I would say it’s an accurate representation of a person, but there’s definitely other things that need to be taken into consideration.”

Although the process has not been fully determined, for those that have to test, if they test positive, benefits would likely be suspended until the person completes a treatment program.

See video at KSN

KSNW TV – by Felix Rodrigues-Lima

  • Dec 17, 2013
  • The Wichita Eagle
  • -
  • by Tim Potter

Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the government has mounted a number of investigations in which undercover FBI agents or informers have posed as co-conspirators with suspects who get charged with trying to carry out plots.

It has spawned a national debate about whether the suspects are really terrorists or just easily manipulated people who become victims of entrapment. With the arrest of Terry Lee Loewen at Wichita Mid-Continent Airport on Friday, that national debate has come to the Air Capital of the World.

Loewen, a 58-year-old avionics technician, has been charged in an alleged plot to use his airport access to try to drive a car bomb onto the tarmac to inflict maximum deaths. Two FBI employees posed as people engaging him or helping him to carry out the attack, a criminal complaint said. Loewen didn’t find out he had been fooled until he tried to carry out the attack with what was inert material, not high explosives, the court document said.

A letter to the editor in Tuesday’s Eagle typifies the entrapment argument: “The FBI has a pattern of seeking out naive, harmless, disaffected individuals and using them to orchestrate a crime. … Terry Lee Loewen has been entrapped along with others in these phony plots,” wrote Don Anderson of Winfield.

A counter argument comes from the website of the Investigative Project on Terrorism, a nonprofit institute based in the Washington, D.C., area, commenting on the Loewen case: “Many national Islamist groups have criticized similar sting operations, arguing the FBI is manufacturing a terrorist threat where it might not exist. If Loewen’s correspondence in the complaint proves accurate, however, he was a man with the motivation and access to pull off a horrific attack. Left alone, he might have found ways to make his own bomb.”

John Henderson, one of the federal public defenders representing Loewen, declined to comment Tuesday. Jim Cross, Wichita-based spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office, said it “will reserve its comments for the courtroom” because the case is pending.

What is entrapment?

Wichita defense lawyer Dan Monnat says it involves two elements: law enforcement inducing someone to commit a crime, and the person having no predisposition to commit the crime.

“The defense of entrapment reflects the sound public policy that it is unconscionable for government officers to ensnare the innocent and law-abiding into the commission of crime,” Monnat said. Entrapment exists when the criminal idea originates with government agents instead of the accused and when the accused is persuaded by the officers to commit the crime, he said.

A January 2012 article by David J. Gottfried on the FBI’s website, titled “Avoiding the Entrapment Defense in a Post-911 World,” notes that since 9/11, there has been an emphasis on preventing attacks. “In other words, law enforcement must, in a controlled manner, divert someone determined to harm the United States and its people into a plot bound to fail from the outset, instead of one that might succeed,” wrote Gottfried, a legal instructor at the FBI Academy.

To avoid the defense getting an acquittal based on a successful entrapment argument, Gottried said, careful planning of the investigation and careful execution by law enforcement is key. Part of the test, he said, is that “defendants must show by a preponderance of evidence … that officers induced them to commit the crime. Assuming defendants make their showing of inducement, the burden of proof moves to the prosecution, which must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was predisposed to commit the crime.” So an entrapment defense can fail either by the defendant not being able to show inducement or by prosecutors proving the defendant was predisposed.

Only authorities know the whole case against Loewen. But they have laid out, in detail, some of their case against Loewen, in a 21-page, footnoted criminal complaint:

Loewen told an undercover FBI employee about his “desire to engage in violent jihad,” or holy war. About four months before his arrest, he said: “Brothers like Osama bin Laden … are a great inspiration to me.” He said he had a number of ways he could “perform jihad” and that “none of them are legal.” He read a magazine with terrorist ties. He said, “I really don’t see me living through any thing I have in mind.” As the months went on, he kept reiterating his commitment to jihad. He said, “Don’t you think with my access to the airport that I should put that to good use?” Around Sept. 21, he spoke of how “It would have been possible today for me to have walked over there, shot both pilots … slapped some C4 on both fuel trucks and set them off before anyone even called TSA.”

After the undercover FBI employee told Loewen he “could back out at any time,” he continued ahead, sending photos of gates to the tarmac and suggesting that a company logo could be painted on a vehicle, “allowing more time to modify said vehicle for an operation.” And this: “count me in for the duration.” The plot progressed to the point that Loewen was suggesting that another person could detonate a suicide vest in the terminal, the complaint said.

Finally, the court document said, about a month before the attack, Loewen “further expressed his desire to kill as many people as possible, and he explained where to park a vehicle full of explosives.”

In a letter to his family, he wrote: “I expect to be called a terrorist (which I am), a psychopath, and a homicidal maniac.”

Steve Emerson, executive director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism, said that based on the criminal complaint, “he had a predisposition.” Along the way, the undercover employees “provided him several outs,” Emerson said.

In most successful interventions to prevent terrorist attacks, authorities are using undercover people posing as co-conspirators, Emerson said.

He said he knows of no successful entrapment defense in a terrorism case after 9/11.

It seems that Loewen was mentally aware of what he was doing, Emerson said, adding that terrorists “might seem crazy to others … but they’re not crazy” even though others can’t rationalize terrorism.

The investigation of Loewen would have been authorized only after a “tremendous legal review,” Emerson said, adding that approval for “an operation like this comes out of headquarters.”

Mike German, senior policy counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union and based in Washington, D.C., said he wouldn’t comment on the Loewen case because not all the facts are known. But in general, German said, “The FBI has clearly been pushing the envelope in previous sting cases.” The situation has caused the current skepticism among the public, said German, a former FBI agent who said he worked undercover in domestic terrorism cases.

Questionable sting cases “exploit the fear” caused by terrorism, German said. Too many times, he said, the person targeted by the investigation doesn’t have the capability to carry out an attack even if he had intent.

There is a way to investigate a risk without intervening so much and “manufacturing the plot,” German said.

For the government, he said, building cases becomes a way to argue for more funding, resources and authority “rather than taking an honest assessment of the threats that exist.”

German said it comes down to politics – making it appear that government is tough on terrorism.

Read full article here

The Wichita Eagle – By Tim Potter

  • Dec 16, 2013
  • KSNW TV

WICHITA, Kansas – Terry Lee Loewen made national news when he tried to blow up his car on the tarmac at Wichita’s Mid-Continent Airport.

Court papers show Loewen reached out to people he thought were Al Qaida.  They walked him through the process of building a bomb and making the plan.

But those people were really FBI agents.

“He went forward, and he went forward right to the very end.”

Former FBI agent Daniel Jablonski says FBI agents are on the lookout for homegrown terrorism.

He also says it is very clear that FBI agents root out potential terrorists but do not entrap.

“You need to investigate and ask the questions. And our job was that of a fact finder,” said Jablonski.

Jablonski says court papers in the Terry Loewen case are clear.

It appears Loewen had the intent to do harm to a lot of people.

He says the FBI just got to Loewen before he found somebody else.

Attorneys say entrapment defense likely on tap for Loewen.

“For there to be entrapment, two ingredients are necessary. One, government inducement. Two, no predisposition by the accused to commit the crime,” said Dan Monnat, legal analyst.

Monnat says entrapment could certainly be argued.

Those who have gone after potential bad guys with the FBI say it appears the government has put together a pretty solid case against Loewen at least so far.

“We were not making judgements but to obtain the facts.”

See video at KSN

KSNW TV

  • Dec 14, 2013
  • Associated Press
  • -
  • by Roxana Hegeman

WICHITA, Kan. (AP) – The arrest of a Kansas man accused of trying to bring what he thought was a car bomb into a Wichita airport marked the culmination of a months-long undercover sting in what has become a successful and widely used domestic counterterrorism tactic.

Court documents detail Terry Lee Loewen’s alleged conversations with undercover FBI agents over six months. The discussions began with vague sentiments about his desire to commit “violent jihad” against the U.S. before turning into a detailed, concrete plot in which the agents recruited him to use his airport access to plant a bomb in a martyrdom operation.

Loewen, a 58-year-old avionics technician who worked at the airport for Hawker Beechcraft, was arrested Friday on charges including providing support to al-Qaida and attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction. He remains jailed, and prosecutors expect to take their case to a grand jury Wednesday.

The case resembles a string of investigations conducted by the FBI since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks that have prompted controversy over whether law enforcement’s tactics involve entrapment and violate civil liberties.

One such case involved an undercover agent pretending to be a terrorist who provided a teenager with a phony car bomb, then watched him plant it in downtown Chicago. In Boston, a man was sentenced to 17 years in prison for plotting with undercover agents to fly remote-controlled planes packed with explosives into the Pentagon and U.S. Capitol.

The FBI insists the stings are a vital, legal tool for averting potentially deadly terrorist attacks – and juries have returned tough sentences.

Dan Monnat, a prominent Kansas defense attorney who isn’t representing Loewen, said the 21-page criminal complaint against Loewen doesn’t contain enough information to find his guilt or evidence of FBI entrapment. But he questioned the FBI’s tactics.

“If the fragile mental state of an otherwise upstanding individual is exploited to commit a crime that the individual otherwise would not have taken steps to commit, how does that make us safe and why spend taxpayer money on prosecution?” Monnat said Saturday.

“If that is what happened here, we have to ask ourselves: Is grooming terrorists the best use of our taxpayer money for security? If the person otherwise would never have taken further steps in furtherance of terrorism, what is the point?”

But entrapment defenses have failed in various cases. In a 2009 case in New York, a federal judge said she was not proud of the government’s role in nurturing an alleged conspiracy in which four men were convicted in a plot to bomb synagogues and shoot down military planes with missiles. The men were each sentenced to 25 years in prison.

In an unsuccessful appeal, the defense argued the men were harmless dupes led astray by an FBI informant who infiltrated a mosque. With the encouragement of the informant, one of the men hatched the scheme to blow up the synagogues in the Bronx and to shoot down military cargo planes with missiles.

The appeals court found the government’s tactics didn’t rise to the level of “outrageous misconduct.”

Court documents don’t specify what initially led investigators to Loewen, though he allegedly told an undercover agent during one online exchange: “hey I read Inspire magazine; I believe in staying informed.” Inspire, an English-language online magazine, is produced by al-Qaida affiliates. It includes such things as bomb-making instructions and endorsements of lone-wolf terror attacks.

He also allegedly told the undercover agent he’d downloaded tens of thousands of pages about jihad, martyrdom operations and Sharia law, and printed out an al-Qaida manual – online activity that often draws law enforcement’s attention.

U.S. Attorney Barry Grissom declined to discuss the case Saturday. But in May, he told students during an event at Wichita State University that authorities monitor extremists groups’ websites, including Inspire magazine.

“Do not go to this website,” Grissom said. “You will be on our list.”

In Loewen’s case, court documents paint an undercover operation in which Loewen and two FBI agents posing as conspirators ultimately hatched a plot to place a vehicle full of explosives at the Wichita airport. He allegedly timed it to cause “maximum carnage” and death, according to an FBI affidavit.

In early October, one undercover agent told Loewen he’d just returned from overseas after meeting with individuals connected with al-Qaida, and that the “brothers” were excited to hear about his access to the airport. When the agent asked if he’d be willing to plant a bomb, Loewen allegedly told him the plans were “like a dream come true for me, and I never expect things this good to occur in my life.”

Over the coming months, he allegedly conspired with the agents. Loewen, who once claimed to know nothing about explosives, assisted an undercover agent assemble a bomb – but with inert explosives – using components he took from his employer. Two days later, an undercover agent picked Loewen up at a local hotel, went to another location to get the fake bomb and drove to Wichita Mid-Continent Airport.

Loewen was arrested early Friday as he twice tried to use his badge to gain entry to the tarmac.

In a letter dated Wednesday that prosecutors say Loewen left for a family member, Loewen said he expected to be martyred for Allah by the time the letter was read. He wrote that his only explanation was that he believed in jihad for the sake of Allah and his Muslim brothers and sisters, though he said most Muslims in the U.S. would condemn him.

“I expect to be called a terrorist (which I am), a psychopath, and a homicidal maniac,” the letter said.

The Wichita Eagle newspaper, citing police, reported Saturday that Loewen has had at least one brush with the law, a concealed-carry violation at the airport in 2009.

Loewen has been described by a relative and a neighbor as a good person who largely kept to himself. His wife attended his initial court appearance Friday but refused to talk with reporters, as did his attorney.

Read full story here

Associated Press – By Roxana Hegeman