Opinion ID: 1808114
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Lincoln Trip

Text: Rhodes and Speer drove to Lincoln on September 17, 1986. Rhodes testified that the purpose of the trip was for him to go to the law library and to show Speer the University of Nebraska campus. Rhodes paid the expenses of this trip, including transportation, meals, and two nights' lodging. Rhodes also bought school clothes for Speer, including shirts, pants, and socks, which cost approximately $160. Rhodes testified that he offered to pay Speer's college expenses because although Speer was not what you would call a nice person, he was Carl's brother, and Rhodes felt sorry for him working at the Tumbleweed. Speer testified that during the Lincoln trip Rhodes said it would be better if they did not mention to anybody that they were friends and going on trips because it could cause him (Rhodes) some problems. Rhodes denied telling Speer to keep their trips quiet. Speer said that Rhodes then showed him a newspaper article about an Omaha judge who got into trouble for fixing traffic tickets for his son-in-law. Rhodes testified (apparently regarding this conversation) that in the summer of 1986, he had a conversation with Speer about a judge who had gotten into trouble for trying to help his son. The purpose of the conversation was to tell Speer that he could not rely on the fact that his brother was a police captain to keep him out of trouble. At his September 23, 1986, arraignment in the criminal mischief case, Speer appeared pro se, pled not guilty, and waived his right to counsel. Rhodes appeared as county attorney. Speer testified before the referee that he kept expecting Rhodes to postpone the hearing date, and it was getting to the point that I was thinking ... he's made the whole thing up so that I wouldn't get an attorney. Rhodes explained to Speer that the hearing was just to set a trial date and told Speer that all he had to do when the judge asked for a plea was say not guilty. Then Rhodes said Speer could postpone the trial until the charge was dismissed. Speer testified that on September 23 Rhodes vaguely hinted at dismissing the charge. Rhodes' testimony indicates that he told Speer to just go up and ask the court for a postponement. Rhodes denied discussing a scheme or plan on how to get the case continued, stating that he merely told Speer that he could ask for a continuance if the case came up before the summer ended and that he would agree to a continuance. Rhodes and Speer left for Vancouver the following day. The record shows that the criminal mischief case against Speer was dismissed that day (September 24) because the plaintiff show[ed] the Court that the confession obtained from the defendant is not admissible as evidence for the reason same was induced by a promise. Rhodes testified before the referee that the case was dismissed because the arresting officer had made a promise and certain statements could have been suppressed. The police report attached to the State's motion for dismissal does state: Suspect Speer upon learning of no charges did fully admit his part in the incident and the painting [of the drive-in theater]. Rhodes also reiterated that his original agreement with Speer was that the case would be dismissed if Speer stayed out of trouble for the summer.