Shelby Co. (ECWd) –

A recent Freedom of Information Act request that also included media questions to the Shelby County State’s Attorney resulted in what we believe was an improper denial of records and a very interesting statement that had nothing to do with our question but is worthy of this follow-up article.

The FOIA request is currently being reviewed by the Attorney General PAC office because of several alleged violations, one being the refusal to provide a police report which are public records and must be provided with applicable redactions.  We will update on the FOIA issue when the PAC issues its determination.

My question regarding Carlos Oberg, which we wrote about in this article was simple, “Can you provide your rationale for only a five-year sentence?”

Her response:  “As to your media questions: I do not have to provide you with a rationale for the negotiated plea agreement.”

We agree she does not have to provide anyone with her rationale for her plea agreements but how special is it that she refuses to do so?  It is her choice to agree to a 5-year sentence where the guy can walk in 1.9 years for 33 sex crimes tied to a minor, the worst being a class 3 felony.  Her silence results in people making assumptions that may or may not be accurate, such as claims she is soft on child sex crimes.

However, included in her above response, she chose to take what appears to be a cheap shot at the former state attorney and our reporting of things regarding cases he dealt with.

“I would point out that Mr. Hanlon, prior to tendering his resignation, felt it was appropriate to dismiss in its entirety the case against Mark Michael, which included 48 counts of child pornography. I do not recall seeing an article regarding his rationale for dismissing that case published by your “media” organization. Or the case of Tyler Davis, 22-CF-74 where Mr. Hanlon dismissed with prejudice 17 counts of child pornography, 15 of which were Class X felonies. Or the case of Donald Plunkett, 2023-CF-20, who was charged with 22 counts of possession and dissemination of child pornography, 8 of which were Class X felonies that were dismissed as part of a negotiated plea for a probation disposition.” (emphasis added)

We asked about past cases handled by the former State’s attorney that were dismissed or given what appeared a weak deal.  We know that in some cases the evidence was lacking, lost, or questionable, some of which we wrote about.  In some cases, the victim was unwilling to follow through making it all but impossible to get a conviction. And probably the worst response was tied to the law enforcement agency that handled, or mishandled things in the process making it harder for a prosecution.  Regardless of the reasons, anyone who thinks the former State’s Attorney did not want to throw the book at those people is sadly misguided. Another thing so many people do not realize, a Judge is in those hearings and making determinations to accept the deals brought before them but is under no obligation to accept them.  If the position is the Judge is soft on crime, then people should Vote No on the retention of those judges, which forces them to run an election campaign just like any other elected office.

Thanks to Woolery’s response, we raised new questions for her.

Mrs. Woolery,
In a prior response to a FOIA request and media question, you pointed out cases we have not written about.
Mark Michael, which included 48 counts of child pornography resulted in a Nolle Prosequi .
Are you going to charge Mark Michael and prosecute that case?
In the other cases mentioned have you reviewed the evidence and read court transcripts to know the details behind the action taken by the prior SA? 

We make a special note that Woolery has not responded to the above communication, which may or may not be an indication she got out in front of her skis attempting to impugn the reputation of her predecessor.

We asked her about the Mark Michael case because it was the first one she referenced in her response to us.  The case was Nolle Prose’d by the prior SA so there is no reason she can’t re-file on that case. It has been almost a month since we asked and since we do not see any charges re-filed on that case it appears, assuming she even looked into the case, she realizes doing so is a loser case for some reason or another.  If she does not prosecute that case does that mean she is soft on child porn as was alleged by the local propagandists in social media posts about the prior SA?  If she does not prosecute, we hope it is because the evidence does not support a prosecution.  If that is the case, why would Woolery choose to not tell people that?  Is it because that is the reason it was not prosecuted by the prior SA and disclosing that would make her comments to us inappropriate at best?

We asked the former SA about this case, and he was curious why I would ask about that particular case.  I shared with him the comments Woolery provided in the FOIA response.

Fast forward to Woolery’s numerous missteps in the County Audit “criminal” case she opened up and subpoenaed her own client, it turns out the former SA had some comments for Woolery in his communication to her that not only has ties to the issue in this article but other very troubling information which we highlighted in his response at this link.

As it relates to this article, this comment was telling.

“Its actually astonishing that you make public statements about what I did or didn’t do to justify your conduct when you have not properly investigated anything and you likely don’t know that in a few cases the evidence was missing! A professional looks at the matter before them and acts based on that matter, not what they think was done by way of analogy of another person and different facts. Did you familiarize yourself with the facts that were admissible at trial for each of the cases you referenced in your response to Mr. Allen? I think not! Your approach demonstrates weakness and incompetence. I say this not to be spiteful, but in the hopes that you will re-direct the negative energy and re-focus on the duties and obligations of your office and that you will decide not be beholden to friends/ political allies when you have a legal duty to do otherwise.”

As it stands, Woolery has not filed any charges on the Mark Micheals case that she raised concern about but that does not mean she is soft on child porn, any more than it did for the prior SA.

We will update in future articles key points in the above-linked email pertaining to former Shelby State’s Attorney Tom Fink’s recent questionable action and Woolery’s improper election petition signatures she turned in.