By Krystal Smalley
ksmalley@wbcowqel.com
A jury found local criminal defense attorney Thomas Nicholson not guilty of theft in Crawford County Municipal Court Friday evening.
Six women and two men returned the verdict after an hour of deliberation. Nicholson shouted out “hey” as visiting judge John Ridge read the verdict in favor of the local attorney.
Nicholson’s misdemeanor trial was a day-long event full of heated arguments, anger, and frustration from all parties as special prosecutor Dean Henry attempted to prove that Nicholson stole three pairs of children’s tennis shoes from the Bucyrus Wal-Mart on Dec. 7, 2013.
Henry called only two witnesses to the stand, though those witnesses also provided the most factual testimonies of the day.
Tony Stover, who worked as an asset protection associate at Wal-Mart in 2013, testified to the fact that he was made aware of a shoplifting complaint from the service desk shortly after 7 p.m. on Dec. 7. Stover reviewed a bird’s-eye view video surveillance of the incident in which a man could be seen cashing a $500 check and purchasing a handful of grocery items before walking off with a bag full of tennis shoes. Stover used various cameras to determine the identity to be Nicholson, who Stover had interactions with as corrections supervisor at the Crawford County jail.
Stover gathered further evidence in the form of the cashed check and the return receipt for the shoes. He then contacted the Bucyrus Police Department and informed them of a theft.
In cross examination, Nicholson accused Stover of having an agenda against the attorney after the two had a dispute one time at the county jail over a dirty Kleenex.
“Are you saying you know I stole these shoes?” Nicholson asked as he accused Stover and the prosecution of trying to be mind readers.
“It appears it’s a theft on video,” Stover responded.
“What makes you say this was a theft?” Nicholson asked. “What makes you think I did this knowingly?”
Stover pointed that the Nicholson’s purchases were located to his right, but he reviewed the return receipt and picked up the bag full of shoes laying on his left before his own purchases.
Henry called Bucyrus officer Amos Wolfe as the second witness. Wolfe testified to being dispatched to Wal-Mart in response to the shoplifting complaint. He arrived nearly an hour after the alleged incident occurred and obtained the video and a copy of the check and return receipt as evidence and a statement from Stover. The evidence was presented to city prosecutor Rob Ratliff in order to determine how to handle the case due to the fact that Nicholson was an employee of the court.
Wolfe said he waited two days before talking to Nicholson in order to give him the opportunity to return the items. Wolfe arrived at Nicholson’s Bucyrus home on Dec. 9 and issued a summons to him. The discussion was recorded on Wolfe’s body camera, which Wolfe said he was not required to use at the time but did for the issuance of the summons.
Nicholson took exception to the fact that Wolfe never informed him that he was being recorded, to which Wolfe replied that the glow from the active camera was apparent on Wolfe’s face. He added that there also was not any protocol at the time to inform people that they were being recorded. Nicholson also objected to the video being unintelligible.
Wolfe said Nicholson handed over the bag of shoes after the officer questioned him about a possible shoplifting incident, though the officer never directly referenced the children’s shoes. Wolfe added that Nicholson never gave him an explanation for why he did not return the shoes when neither Nicholson nor his girlfriend, Samantha Matney, could identify where the shoes came from.
Nicholson pointed out that he made numerous defensive statements during his meeting with Wolfe, stating that he did not know he had them. He also questioned why Wolfe used the word “unfortunately” when he issued the summons.
“It’s because I’m empathetic to the situation,” Wolfe said. “Doesn’t mean the situation didn’t happen.”
Nicholson bemoaned the fact that it was difficult being a defendant, to which Ridge replied that was by his own choosing.
The local attorney called himself as his first witness of the afternoon.
“Nothing on the video shows I did any criminal activity,” Nicholson stated. “I did not do anything knowingly. I know somehow these shoes got in my bag.”
He questioned why he would need to steal roughly $30 in children’s shoes when he just cashed a $500 check. Nicholson repeatedly emphasized the fact that he had $25,000 in his bank that year and had thousands of dollars in gold and diamonds at home, inquiring why someone with the extra income would feel the need to steal.
“At 57, in a blink of an eye, I’ve become a thrill thief,” Nicholson said with incredulity.
Nearly an hour passed as Henry attempted to cross examine Nicholson, a period of time during which Nicholson came close to being held in contempt for mocking Henry and calling him a fool numerous times. Henry and Nicholson battled back and forth as the special prosecutor endeavored to trip Nicholson up.
“Your defense is based on some sort of conspiracy against you,” Henry accused. “Is that you that took the bag off the counter?”
“Unknowingly,” Nicholson replied.
“Is that you, sir?” Henry asked in a loud, hard voice as he moved in close to Nicholson when the defendant said he could not hear him.
“Unknowingly,” Nicholson said once again.
“So the answer’s yes,” Henry said.
“The answer’s unknowingly.”
At that point, Ridge interrupted the questioning and told Nicholson that he had given him great leeway for the proceedings, but he needed Nicholson to answer the questions. The judge became visibly frustrated as the questioning and belligerence continued before finally calling a recess and dismissing the jury from the room.
“This is going to end and this is going to end now,” Ridge warned Nicholson as the lawyer continued to avoid directly answering the questions. When Ridge said he would hold Nicholson in contempt if the actions continued, Nicholson let out a harsh bark of laughter. “I don’t know why I’m arguing with you,” Ridge said. “If it happens again, I’ll hold you in contempt.”
After Nicholson and Henry returned from a private conversation outside of the courtroom and the jury returned from the recess, Nicholson was somewhat subdued as the questioning continued. He admitted to discussing what to do with the shoes after he returned home with Matney later that night on Dec. 7. He added that, though Matney had a child, she did not live with them and the shoes would not have fit her.
The final witness called for the day was Nicholson’s girlfriend, Matney. The woman confirmed that she first saw the shoes when she helped Nicholson unload the groceries from the car after he picked her up in Galion. She asked Nicholson whose they were, but both of them denied knowing where they came from.
In cross examination, Matney testified to bringing bags of clothes with her after Nicholson picked her up. She denied purchasing anything from Wal-Mart that day despite the fact that Nicholson was heard earlier saying she had also made purchases from Wal-Mart.
Nicholson also called four character witnesses in his defense, all of which testified to Nicholson’s truthfulness. He also called Bucyrus captain Joseph Greathouse and Wal-Mart asset protection manager David Hall to provide video evidence from Dec. 7 and 9.
“It’s not the crime of the century,” Henry said in his closing argument, “but it’s still a crime.”
Henry appealed to the responsibility the jurors would feel if they suddenly discovered something in their possession that did not belong to them.
“You find a way to fix it,” Henry urged the jury as he pointed out that Nicholson did not do that until the police arrived at his door.
Nicholson impressed upon the jury the lengths the prosecution was going to in order to convict an innocent man.
“Mr. Henry is not speaking the truth,” Nicholson argued. “Every line on his face is untrue.”
He added that the prosecution was unable to prove that he had intended to deprive Wal-Mart of the possession of the shoes and insisted that his body language on Dec. 7 indicated that was not his intention.
After entering into deliberation just after 4:30 p.m., the jury returned a not guilty verdict exactly one hour later.