Brimhall wants to ban certain terms in criminal proceedings

JONESBORO, Arkansas (KAIT) – According to court documents, District Judge-elect Doug Brimhall hopes to have certain terms banned from being used in the case against him.

On Thursday, August 15, Brimhall's attorney, Bill Stanley, filed a motion to vacate the rules of procedure in Craighead County District Court, requesting that several issues raised in the case be banned, including terms and news publications.

In the motion, Stanley asks the state to refrain from using “any procedural guilt terms” that imply that a guilty verdict must be reached in this case, including references to or uses of the word “victim.” He claims that the use of the word “victim” presumes that a violent crime was committed and fails to protect and preserve Brimhall's right to a fair trial.

“The use of the term 'victim' in reference to the alleged victim before a jury has concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime charged constitutes an impermissible aggravation of the evidence by the State and its witnesses that disregards and violates the defendant's constitutional rights,” Stanley said.

The motion then asks the state to prohibit any reference to Brimhall as a “future judge,” “elected judge,” “attorney,” or any other terms by litigants “that would similarly impair the defendant’s professional standing in society.”

“The State should be prohibited from introducing such references because they do not tend to make any fact relevant to the outcome of the case more or less probable than it would be without the evidence and as such are irrelevant and inadmissible,” Stanley said.

Next, the motion prohibits the state from introducing or referencing statements, articles or claims from news sources. Specifically, it cites K8 News' May 21 coverage of Brimhall's arrest, as well as other media outlets. These stories contained “overly biased claims” that were “made without personal knowledge” and “irrelevant.”

Stanley then asks that the state be barred from presenting any testimony or evidence that would prove that Brimhall “walked to a gas station on the night in question.”

“The State should be prohibited from introducing such testimony or evidence because it has no tendency to make any fact relevant to the outcome of the case more or less probable than it would be without that evidence and is therefore irrelevant and inadmissible,” Stanley said. “Moreover, the probative value of such testimony or evidence, even if the State can show that it is somehow relevant, is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair bias, confusion of the facts, and misleading.”

The motion then asks that the state be enjoined from introducing any testimony or evidence that would portray the “broken windshield” from the incident “in a false light.” The motion states that witnesses to the incident agreed that the damage was not the result of “any violent act or inclination of the defendant” and claimed it was “an accident.”

“Because such an allegation would be untrue, it has no tendency to make any fact relevant to the outcome of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence and as such is irrelevant and inadmissible,” Stanley said.

The motion then asks the state to disallow testimony or evidence alluding to Brimhall “taking a television off the wall and throwing it on the floor” and damaging the alleged victim’s cell phone.

Finally, Stanley asks the state not to introduce any testimony or evidence regarding Brimhall's bar bill the night of the incident.

“The State should be prohibited from introducing such testimony or evidence without introducing further basic evidence as to what beverages the defendant personally consumed on the night in question, because such testimony or evidence does not tend to make any fact relevant to the decision of the action more or less probable than it would be without the evidence and as such is irrelevant and inadmissible,” he said.

Stanley adds that even if the state could prove the information was relevant to the case, its value would be “significantly outweighed” by the “risk of unfair bias,” alluding to the jury being misled at trial.

Brimhall is accused of aggravated assault on a family or household member as a result of an incident at his home on May 3. He was arrested on May 21 and spent 16 minutes in the Craighead County Detention Center before being released on bail.

Brimhall, a Jonesboro attorney, defeated Blytheville attorney Curtis Walker Jr. in the March 2024 election for Circuit Judge for District 2, Division 4.

Following the incident, Brimhall resigned from his position at the prosecutor's office on May 7.

Several judges have recused themselves from hearing the case. According to online court records, the case is being presided over by the Honorable Chris Robert Thyer and Special Judge Robert Edwards.

To report a typo or correction, please Click here.

All rights reserved.