Baglin going too far with claims

Councilman Wayne Baglin’s supporters deserve kudos for sticking with

him all this time. But as much as we would like to congratulate the

councilman and move on, his recent actions demand a bit more

attention.

Baglin has made, most recently at a public City Council meeting,

claims about his recent court win. As we’ve said before,

congratulations on the victory. Baglin won and was vindicated. But

now he is saying City Atty. Philip Kohn should be fired because of

what the trial proved. All the trial showed was that the jury didn’t

have enough proof to say he did anything wrong.

We’re willing to leave it at that, but Baglin has decided to tell

the public that the judge gave the “unusual instruction” to the jury

that if they found there was entrapment, they should find Baglin not

guilty. This instruction was given at the request of the defense,

Deputy District Atty. Susan Schroeder said. The prosecution objected,

she said, because the jury would need to be instructed that mistake

of law was not a defense. The judge gave both instructions. He

explained entrapment by “estoppel” and that mistake of law is not a

defense.

But Baglin has taken the instruction his defense requested as

evidence that there was entrapment, and that was why the jury

acquitted him.

For clarification, Schroeder said entrapment by estoppel (the kind

in question in the Baglin case) is different than the more well-known

entrapment, as when a police officer pretends to be a john to entrap

a prostitute.

The judge gave the instruction submitted by the defense that

“entrapment by estoppel occurs when a government official gives the

defendant information that reasonably causes the defendant to believe

that certain conduct is legal. The defense must show:

1. He relied on the information and;

2. His reliance was reasonable. A defendants reliance is

reasonable if a person sincerely desirous of obeying the law would

have accepted the information as true and would not have been put on

notice to make further inquiries.”

This is one area where the defense and the prosecution differ.

Kohn said he gave Baglin information about eminent domain and told

Baglin he needed to research it and that he should consider hiring an

attorney.

But this doesn’t even go to whether Baglin knew the property

wasn’t being purchased under eminent domain.

This is where Councilwoman Cheryl Kinsman comes in. She said she

brought the issue up at the meeting to make sure he was aware of it.

But Baglin’s lawyer decided to make it sound like she brought it up

because she didn’t know herself. His attorney said outright of

Councilwoman Cheryl Kinsman, “Bless her ... clearly she didn’t know.”

She said she did know and she was making sure Baglin was aware

that the property was not being acquired under eminent domain. Was

the defense lawyer saying she lied? Should she now turn around and

sue Baglin and his attorney for defamation of character?

Of course not. And by the same rationale, Baglin should be letting

the issue rest. He has been vindicated in a court of law. That should

be enough.