The Garden City Telegram
Email this story | Add Your Comment
| Read (0) Comments
Headlines from 1989 — Phifer appeals for new trial
Published 8/8/2009 in History Page : Historical Page
By JANE NEUFELD
Staff Writer
An attorney for Garden City's former school superintendent is seeking a new trial or a reversal of his client's conviction on grounds that include the failure to move the trial out of Finney County.
The defense attorney for Jimmy O. Phifer, former superintendent, also alleges a judge erred when he denied probation for Phifer.
The prosecution contends the trial did not need to be moved to another county, and the judge did not abuse his discretion by denying probation.
Phifer, Tucson, Ariz., was superintendent from 1984 to 1986, when he resigned amid allegations that he had misused school district money. He eventually faced criminal charges for his handling of school money.
Last year, he was convicted by a jury of five felony counts of presenting a false claim, four counts of felony theft and two counts of misdemeanor theft.
He was sentenced in July 1988 to one to two years on each of the felony charges and one year on each of the misdemeanor charges. The felony theft sentences were to run consecutively.
Although District Judge Paul D. Handy would not grant Phifer's motion for probation, he allowed him to remain free on bond pending the outcome of the appeal in his case.
His attorney, Jack Focht, Wichita, filed an appeal brief on March 29. The Finney County attorney's office filed its legal brief in response on June 30.
The Kansas Court of Appeals is expected to hear oral arguments in the case sometime in October. The appeals court then will issue a decision.
Focht argues in his 48-page brief that Phifer could not receive a fair trial in Finney County and the trial should have been moved elsewhere.
"This case was the subject of the most massive publicity seen by this writer," the brief says. "At least 58 newspaper articles and editorials were published in The Garden City Telegram prior to this defendant even being charged with a crime. At least 16 more were written prior to the trial from which this appeal was taken."
The brief summarizes articles that appeared in The Telegram about the Phifer case, and contends the coverage was so pervasive and inflammatory it made a fair trial impossible.
The county attorney's office, in a 27-page brief, responds that a change of venue was not warranted in the case.
Found 0 comment(s)!
Twitter Updates
