Kathy Pinna
Esther's Criminal Background
The following information comes from multiple news reports and court records:
Esther B Kahut was indicted for robbery in the first degree in early 1983. The district attorney agreed to drop pending theft charges against her if she would supply information leading to the prosecution of another individual. According to the response to her 1984 appeal, "Following that agreement, defendant provided police with some information. " Apparently, the information was not sufficient to satisfy her obligation under the agreement. In March, 1983, the defendant informed Goodale, her police contact, that the original suspect's brother and another man were planning to steal weapons from a National Guard Armory. The district attorney told the defendant that her obligations under the agreement would be satisfied if she provided information leading to the prosecution of them.
Court record:
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case: Robert E. Barton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Atty. Gen., and James E. Mountain, Jr., Sol. Gen., Salem.
Wayne Mackeson, Portland, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Desmond Connall, P.C., Portland.
RICHARDSON, Presiding Judge.
Defendant was indicted for robbery in the first degree. ORS 164.415. She moved to suppress admissions she had made to the police on the ground that they were involuntary. The trial court granted defendant's motion, and the state appeals. ORS 138.060(3). We reverse.
In early 1983, defendant and her then attorney entered into an agreement with the Multnomah County District Attorney's office and the Portland Police Bureau. The district attorney agreed to drop pending theft charges against defendant if she would supply information leading to the prosecution of a certain individual.
The only evidence of the terms of that original agreement is the attorney's testimony at the hearing on the motion to suppress. The two persons from the district attorney's office with whom defendant made the agreement did not testify, nor did defendant. According to the attorney, defendant was to "provide information that would allow putting together a case for the prosecution of [the suspect]." He testified that at that time defendant was not offered immunity from prosecution for future crimes.
Following that agreement, defendant provided police with some information. Apparently, it was not sufficient to satisfy her obligation under the agreement. In March, 1983, defendant informed Goodale, her police contact, that the original suspect's brother and another man were planning to steal weapons from a National Guard Armory. The district attorney told defendant that her obligations under the agreement would be satisfied if she provided information leading to the prosecution of them.
At that point, defendant asked about the boundaries of acceptable conduct as an informant. According to the attorney, Goodale advised defendant that "so long as these people contact you and you are just passing along information [and] you don't actually participate in a crime, it's all right." Goodale testified that he probably told defendant that "she couldn't be directly involved in a crime" and, possibly, that she could not initiate a crime. He testified that he told her that she could tell the two men that she had found a buyer (the police) for the weapons. He also testified that he never gave defendant any basis for an impression that she was immune from prosecution for future criminal conduct. The record does not reveal what became of the planned robbery.
On April 5, 1983, defendant contacted Goodale and informed him that she was aware of a different robbery that had been committed that evening by the original suspect's brother and the other man. She met with Goodale throughout the night relating information about the robbery. During the course of those discussions she admitted that before the robbery she had made a phone call to the victim to make sure that a diamond ring advertised by the victim was still on the premises, that her car had been used in the robbery and that she had hidden one of the men in a motel after the robbery. Her discussions with Goodale took place over the phone and in Goodale's car. She was free to leave at all times. She was not advised of her Miranda rights, nor was she arrested that night. After her admissions, Goodale did not inform her that she had become a suspect in the robbery.
Defendant was subsequently indicted for her participation in the robbery. The trial court granted her motion to suppress her statements to Goodale on the ground that they were induced by an express or implied promise that the statements would not be used against her."
Esther has been involved in multiple crimes in the Pacific Northwest of the United States. The January 28 1994 Statesman Journal, Salem Oregon, reported that 5 people had been charged in a conspiracy to strip and 83 year old former hockey player of his life's savings.
Esther, accused of being the ringleader, was arraigned in federal court on 22 charges of conspiracy, mail fraud, and bank fraud. Other suspects arraigned were Lowell C. Smotherman, Darlene A. Armenta, and Sandra L. Bacos. The 5th suspect, Michael Lee Fox was a fugitive.
They allegedly forged documents that gave them power of attorney for Aubrey Webster, who played hockey for the Philadelphia Flyers and the Montreal Maroons. They took nearly $16,000 from his bank accounts and gained ownership of his Portland OR home and a rental property worth more than $260,000.
In September 1994, Esther was sentenced to nearly 4 years in federal prison.
In June 1995, Esther appealed the sentence but the court upheld the original decision.
Esther B Kahut was indicted for robbery in the first degree in early 1983. The district attorney agreed to drop pending theft charges against her if she would supply information leading to the prosecution of another individual. According to the response to her 1984 appeal, "Following that agreement, defendant provided police with some information. " Apparently, the information was not sufficient to satisfy her obligation under the agreement. In March, 1983, the defendant informed Goodale, her police contact, that the original suspect's brother and another man were planning to steal weapons from a National Guard Armory. The district attorney told the defendant that her obligations under the agreement would be satisfied if she provided information leading to the prosecution of them.
Court record:
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case: Robert E. Barton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Atty. Gen., and James E. Mountain, Jr., Sol. Gen., Salem.
Wayne Mackeson, Portland, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Desmond Connall, P.C., Portland.
RICHARDSON, Presiding Judge.
Defendant was indicted for robbery in the first degree. ORS 164.415. She moved to suppress admissions she had made to the police on the ground that they were involuntary. The trial court granted defendant's motion, and the state appeals. ORS 138.060(3). We reverse.
In early 1983, defendant and her then attorney entered into an agreement with the Multnomah County District Attorney's office and the Portland Police Bureau. The district attorney agreed to drop pending theft charges against defendant if she would supply information leading to the prosecution of a certain individual.
The only evidence of the terms of that original agreement is the attorney's testimony at the hearing on the motion to suppress. The two persons from the district attorney's office with whom defendant made the agreement did not testify, nor did defendant. According to the attorney, defendant was to "provide information that would allow putting together a case for the prosecution of [the suspect]." He testified that at that time defendant was not offered immunity from prosecution for future crimes.
Following that agreement, defendant provided police with some information. Apparently, it was not sufficient to satisfy her obligation under the agreement. In March, 1983, defendant informed Goodale, her police contact, that the original suspect's brother and another man were planning to steal weapons from a National Guard Armory. The district attorney told defendant that her obligations under the agreement would be satisfied if she provided information leading to the prosecution of them.
At that point, defendant asked about the boundaries of acceptable conduct as an informant. According to the attorney, Goodale advised defendant that "so long as these people contact you and you are just passing along information [and] you don't actually participate in a crime, it's all right." Goodale testified that he probably told defendant that "she couldn't be directly involved in a crime" and, possibly, that she could not initiate a crime. He testified that he told her that she could tell the two men that she had found a buyer (the police) for the weapons. He also testified that he never gave defendant any basis for an impression that she was immune from prosecution for future criminal conduct. The record does not reveal what became of the planned robbery.
On April 5, 1983, defendant contacted Goodale and informed him that she was aware of a different robbery that had been committed that evening by the original suspect's brother and the other man. She met with Goodale throughout the night relating information about the robbery. During the course of those discussions she admitted that before the robbery she had made a phone call to the victim to make sure that a diamond ring advertised by the victim was still on the premises, that her car had been used in the robbery and that she had hidden one of the men in a motel after the robbery. Her discussions with Goodale took place over the phone and in Goodale's car. She was free to leave at all times. She was not advised of her Miranda rights, nor was she arrested that night. After her admissions, Goodale did not inform her that she had become a suspect in the robbery.
Defendant was subsequently indicted for her participation in the robbery. The trial court granted her motion to suppress her statements to Goodale on the ground that they were induced by an express or implied promise that the statements would not be used against her."
Esther has been involved in multiple crimes in the Pacific Northwest of the United States. The January 28 1994 Statesman Journal, Salem Oregon, reported that 5 people had been charged in a conspiracy to strip and 83 year old former hockey player of his life's savings.
Esther, accused of being the ringleader, was arraigned in federal court on 22 charges of conspiracy, mail fraud, and bank fraud. Other suspects arraigned were Lowell C. Smotherman, Darlene A. Armenta, and Sandra L. Bacos. The 5th suspect, Michael Lee Fox was a fugitive.
They allegedly forged documents that gave them power of attorney for Aubrey Webster, who played hockey for the Philadelphia Flyers and the Montreal Maroons. They took nearly $16,000 from his bank accounts and gained ownership of his Portland OR home and a rental property worth more than $260,000.
In September 1994, Esther was sentenced to nearly 4 years in federal prison.
In June 1995, Esther appealed the sentence but the court upheld the original decision.
