Was It Unethical For DA Patterson to Appear in “Mommy Dead and Dearest” Before Nick Godejohn’s Trial?

In Nicholas’ Godejohn’s 2022 appeal his new defense attorney, Jenny Young, questioned both of Nick’s original members of the defense team regarding ineffective assistance of counsel. Webster County assistant prosecuting attorney Andrew Mead, was Nick’s co-defense in 2018 along with Duane Perry. It’s pretty scary that an attorney that clearly provided no real defense for his client is now a prosecuting attorney. I can’t imagine the mistakes being made in that office.

Mead is unable to provide any type of acceptable answer to Young’s questions of why he did not provide Nick with the appropriate level of counsel. His answers flip between, “I don’t know” and “I don’t recall.

According to ky3.com, “Young asked about the defense trying to move the case to another county. Young asked him about the media attention the case got. Mead says the story made national news and changing the venue to get an unbiased jury may not have been possible. Young asked about Gypsy’s proceedings being streamed online. Mead says he was not aware of that. Young asks about the HBO movie, Mommy Dead and Dearest airing before Godejohn’s trial and if Mead saw it. He says he wasn’t sure when he saw it. Young refers to Mead’s statement during pre-trial about seating an impartial jury due to the media publicity and that most of the evidence was presented in the HBO show. Mead states that he was aware that evidence in Gypsy’s case, which is the same as in Godejohn’s case, was leaked to the media at her request.”

At the appeal hearing, Young showed 3 clips of Mommy Dead and Dearest, 5 clips from Gypsy’s Revenge, & 1 clip from 20/20, all released prior to Nick’s trial.

According to an article on KY3.com Young questioned both Mead and Perry, “about a motion to change venue though it was not filed and mitigated. Young asked about Mead’s knowledge of selecting a jury would be difficult due to heavy media coverage. He states that he was aware. Mead conducted potential jury questioning. He asked 80 people if they knew about the case, so many heard about it that the question was reversed and they were asked who didn’t hear about the case. Only 13 people said they didn’t not, and more than 80 percent of the potential jurors formed an opinion. Young asked why Mead didn’t ask to dismiss potential jurors or move the venue. He said he didn’t have a reason. Young asks about Mead’s opinion about the court’s statement to potential jurors that you will know more than what you already do by the time Godejohn’s trial is over. Mead says he thought it was helpful in that it would re-set potential jurors’ minds and that they would get the real story during Godejohn’s trial. Young asks if Mead has knowledge of judges avoiding the media to protect cases. He says yes. Young asks if Mead questioned 19 potential jurors if they saw any media coverage. He says he doesn’t remember. Young says the record states that he did not ask them. Young reads the record that states that most of the jurors who sat on the panel did see media coverage before the trial though the defense did not ask them. Young asked if Mead had a reason why he didn’t ask jurors if they formed an opinion. He said he did not.”

Of note Young also questions the defense team as to why they never presented Nicholas with not one but two plea deal offers from the prosecution and again he doesn’t know why. They failed to put in a change of venue despite telling their client they had. I can think of no more apparent case of ineffective assistance of counsel and yet Nick has had every appeal denied.

But today I really want to focus on Mr. Patterson. I wrote to Mr. Patterson in July of 2019 requesting any additional materials after Nick’s case was decided and if he would grant us an interview for the series we were putting together. His answer is interesting to say the least.

This brings us back to some of the questions Young had for Mead.

“11:15 am – A 3rd clip of Mommy Dead and Dearest is played.“

“It shows Prosecutor Dan Patterson’s interview. Young asks if Mead was concerned about potential jurors seeing it. He says he’s not sure.” Well, I can assure you I’m sure and I’m sure he knew at that time. I decided to look into how ethical this would be for a prosecuting attorney to appear in a documentary about a co-defendants involvement in the murder.

It is generally considered unethical for a district attorney (DA) or any prosecutor to participate in a documentary or public discussion about an active case before the trial. Here are several reasons why this practice is widely regarded as unethical and can raise serious concerns regarding fairness, objectivity, and the defendant’s right to a fair trial:

1. Prejudice to the Jury Pool

• A DA’s participation in a documentary can create pretrial publicity that may bias potential jurors. Prosecutors are expected to be careful with their public statements to avoid influencing public opinion or prejudicing the jury pool, as this can undermine the defendant’s right to an impartial trial. By presenting details, opinions, or even body language in a public medium, the DA may sway public perception in a way that could hinder an unbiased jury selection process.

2. Professional Ethics and Code of Conduct

• Ethical standards and legal codes, such as the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct, require prosecutors to avoid making public statements that could materially prejudice an ongoing proceeding. Rule 3.8 of the ABA Model Rules outlines specific responsibilities for prosecutors to ensure fairness, including limits on discussing active cases publicly to avoid compromising the integrity of the judicial process.

3. Risk of Appearing Unobjective or Biased

• A DA is expected to seek justice and approach cases with objectivity, representing the state and not merely pursuing a conviction. Participation in a documentary could suggest that the DA has already decided the defendant’s guilt, which can be seen as compromising their duty to fairly assess evidence. Public comments outside the courtroom may also make it appear as though the DA is trying the case in the court of public opinion rather than in the legal arena.

4. Potential for Appeal Issues

• If the DA’s public comments are deemed to have influenced the case, the defendant could later argue on appeal that they were deprived of a fair trial due to prosecutorial misconduct. This can lead to convictions being overturned, retrials, or other legal complications that cost time, resources, and undermine the confidence in the legal process.

5. Public Trust and the Role of a Prosecutor

• Prosecutors hold a position of public trust and are seen as representatives of justice rather than partisans. When they participate in media productions, especially on active cases, it can erode the public’s trust in the fairness and neutrality of the justice system. It also raises concerns about the prosecutor’s motives, suggesting that they may be prioritizing personal gain or public attention over their duty to pursue a just outcome.

Exceptions and Contextual Considerations

• There may be rare situations where public commentary by a DA on a case is deemed necessary for public safety or to clarify misinformation, especially in high-profile cases. However, any statements are typically limited to basic facts or are tightly controlled to avoid prejudicing the case.

In summary, it is generally considered unethical and potentially damaging for a prosecutor to participate in a documentary about a case that has not yet been tried. This type of conduct can jeopardize a fair trial and ultimately undermine the credibility of both the prosecutor and the judicial process. That is exactly what happened in this case. Let us know your thoughts in the comments.

Fancy Macelli currently owns The Good Wives’ Network, a streaming platform on Roku, Android TV, and Amazon TV that will premiere early next year, along with partners Mack & Sara with guidance from their late beloved friend and forever partner, Christina. The GWN provides a network for women by a network of women. From cooking to true crime and everything in between.

These ladies have also launched their own non-profit Stop the Cycle of Abuse Program to help prevent Intimate Partner Violence inspired by their work in the true crime sector.