I wrote last week that David Jungerman’s hiring of a lawyer to represent him in a southwest Missouri attempted burglary case would likely significantly complicate the state’s attempt to gain a conviction.
That has begun playing out. Last week, Jungerman’s attorney filed a motion to dismiss the felony charge on grounds that Jungerman owned the house he allegedly attempted to break into and, thus, could not be charged with attempting to enter it.
Judge David Munton has set a hearing on the motion for next Tuesday.
Although routine motions and hearings can be tedious and distracting for those of us who want to see justice served as expeditiously as possible, this is the way it is in our legal system. Moreover, every twist and turn of this particular case is worthy of being sliced and diced because — as we all know — it’s very possible that David Jungerman gunned down and murdered Kansas City lawyer Thomas Pickert outside his Brookside home last Oct. 25.
The Jackson County Prosecutor’s Office does not have adequate evidence to bring charges — at least in the opinion of prosecutors — and the southwest Missouri case appears to hold out the best chance of getting Jungerman convicted and behind bars.
…It’s important to say here that none of the mainstream media outlets, including The Star and the local TV stations, has been following the attempted burglary case. I firmly believe those media outlets have steered clear of the case because they are afraid of being sued for libel. But it is absolute nonsense to cower from this case: It is a fact that police interviewed Jungerman, who will turn 80 next month, and searched his white van, which is similar to a van two witnesses saw at the scene of the crime. One witness reported seeing an elderly white man with gray hair standing next to the truck, and another reported seeing an elderly white man with gray hair driving away from the scene.
The block where Thomas Pickert lived with his wife, Dr. Emily Riegel, and their two young sons is dotted with “Hate has no home here” signs.
Moreover, Jungerman had a powerful motive — Pickert had represented a client who won a $5.75 million verdict against Jungerman — and Jungerman has a history of solving problems his own way, that is, with gunfire and without summoning police. He has said several times, including in court, “I always carry a gun.”
So, “the media,” in my opinion, is doing the public, including Pickert’s widow and their two young sons, a terrible disservice with its “non-reporting.”
But that’s the way it is, and I assure you I am going to continue dogging this case until it is resolved.
That said, I do not intend, at this point, to cover the hearing next Tuesday. The main reason is the hearing is scheduled to take place in Greenfield, MO, which is northwest of Springfield, and a two-and-a-half-hour drive from Kansas City. (I have previously made trips to Lamar and Nevada for hearings, and both those cities are significantly closer to Kansas City.)
The case is scheduled to go to trial in Lamar on April 3, and I am definitely planning to attend, assuming the case is not dismissed and the current schedule holds.
**
Although I have no legal training, I do not expect the dismissal motion to be upheld. It is very likely that Judge Munton will take the motion under advisement after the hearing and will rule later. He would post his ruling into the public file on the case, which is available for viewing on Missouri Case Net. That is where I intend to get the result. (The case number is 16B4-CR00187, and it must be entered precisely that way.)
As I said above, Jungerman’s attorney, S. Dean Price Jr. of Springfield, contends it was not illegal for Jungerman to enter his own property.
The charge relates to Jungerman’s confrontation, on June 28, 2016, with a man who was renting a house Jungerman owns outside Nevada. The state alleges Jungerman kicked at the door, entered and, with a hand on a gun in his waistband, approached the tenant and demanded to know, “When are you getting out of here, you mother fucker?”
Two other people besides the tenant were in the house at the time, and they, like the tenant, are slated to testify at trial.
Besides being charged with attempted burglary, which could get Jungerman a prison sentence of up to seven years, he is also charged with misdemeanor harassment. (The maximum penalty for a misdemeanor is up to a year in jail.)
In his dismissal motion, Price says:
“As a matter of law, an owner cannot unlawfully enter his own property without some pre-existing order denying entry…There was no pre-existing order denying Jungerman entry into his property. Jungerman believed he had a right to enter the dwelling.”
…I could not find any Missouri case law pertaining to breaking and entering a house that one already owns. I’m sure there is some case law; I just don’t know how to access it.
However, the Criminal Defense Lawyer website offers some interesting background on the subject.
“You might be surprised to learn,” it says, “that in most states, in certain situations, people can be charged with trespassing or burglarizing their own property. Burglary is committed by going into a building without permission in order to commit a crime inside. The issue most often comes up in cases involving domestic violence or during landlord-tenant disputes.”
And this…
The law recognizes different kinds of property rights: a person can have an ownership right, or a possessory right, or both. For example, a landlord owns a house, but does not have the right to be there any time he or she pleases. The right of possession belongs to the tenant…In trespassing and burglary cases, a person who both owns and possesses a piece of property cannot be charged with these crimes because, absent unusual circumstances, the defendant always has permission to be on the property. However, a person who has an ownership interest in a property, but not a right of possession, can be charged with trespassing or burglarizing his or her own property in some states.
The core issue, then, will probably be whether Jungerman had “right of possession.”
That sounds different to me than a “pre-existing order denying entry.”
My prediction: Motion denied. Next!
I’m not a lawyer either, but as a Realtor I can tell you that I don’t consider a house that’s been rented out to really be on the market simply because the tenant is in control of the property. At a minimum, they can insist on a 24-hour notice before allowing a showing. And I question whether a landlord could willy nilly enter a property even if he feared some form of damage without notice. I can’t even conceive of a landlord being able to simply show up on your doorstep and demand immediate entry. If ever there was a right to privacy certainly it would exist for your home whether rented, or not.
PS Thanks for keeping on this. I keep saying that your best work has been done since you left The Star.
Thanks, John…Jungerman wasn’t attempting to oust the tenant to rent to someone else; he just wanted the guy out, supposedly because he had damaged some of Jungerman’s farm equipment.
But that’s the same as shooting people instead of calling the cops. If they damage your equipment you call the cops, it doesn’t give you the right to barge into someone’s home. And, if you want them gone, you file a notice of eviction and let the Sheriff kick them out. Actually, both this case and shooting the trespassers reinforces the probability of his guilt in shooting the lawyer because all three are the acts of a vigilante seeking revenge for an alleged personal offense.
To the extent resources are in short supply, do a GoFundMe and I’ll buy you a tank of gas. Or two or three.
No help needed on any front, Bob. But thanks. (When I give, I try to go straight to the recipient to avoid the 8 percent, Go Fund Me lug.)
OK, consider yourself entitled to go straight to me, if you want. In any event, I really appreciate you getting to the end of this affair.
Can one burgle without an intent to steal, in Missouri law?
bg
The applicable law is in Chapter 569 of Missouri statutes. A law firm’s website describes burglary like this:
A person commits the crime of burglary in the second degree when he or she knowingly enters unlawfully or knowingly remains unlawfully in a building or inhabitable structure for the purpose of committing a crime therein. This is a class C felony in Missouri.
I hadn’t thought about it, but I suppose a big question in Jungerman’s case could be if he entered the house with the intention of committing a crime. Note, however, that he is also charged with harassment, so it sounds like intent to harass, if that’s what a jury deemed it, would satisfy the burglary criterion.
The statute reads “enters unlawfully” OR remains for the purpose of committing a crime, two separate criteria. In this case, I would argue that he met both criteria for committing a violation. First, owner, or not, you can’t go barging into someone else’s home so I’m going to assume here that by that standard alone he had entered unlawfully and burglary had been committed. Then, once inside, he remained to commit the crime of harassment.
If they invited him in, it becomes a different story.
Aw, Jim, you’ll miss lunch at the Intermission Cafe, where the owners are renovating the old Opera Housel