By MELINDA J. OVERSTREET
for Glasgow News 1
Defense attorneys for Cheryl Leighanne Bennett and her mother, Donna Cheryl Logsdon, both of whom go by their middle names, focused for the bulk of nearly four hours on attempting to demonstrate that the cases in which each is charged with murder should be dismissed before a trial date is even set.
The pair are accused of killing Michael “Mickey” Logsdon in July 2022. Bennett, one of Mickey and Cheryl Logsdon’s two daughters, was arrested in November of that year, but a grand jury returned indictments for Bennett and Cheryl Logsdon in January 2023.
According to the indictment for each woman, she, “acting alone or in cooperation with another, committed the crime of murder when she or an accomplice unlawfully killed Michael Logsdon by turning off his BIPAP machine, which he needed to breathe.”
BiPap is the abbreviation for bilevel positive airway pressure.
In the process, they also provided a preview of several of the issues that could arise should the case go to trial, such as whether the machine may have cut off on its own, either because a certain setting had been applied or because a threshold of air leakage had been reached that was then not corrected within some given, but unknown by witnesses, length of time. In the latter case, for example, if the tubing going into Mickey Logsdon’s nostrils had come loose or if his mouth was open, those things would cause air leakage.
John Olash, on behalf of Bennett, and Rob Eggert, on behalf of Logsdon, contend that information provided to the grand jury was “misleading.” Olash filed the motion to dismiss in June, and Eggert formally joined in the motion the following day. Copies of numerous documents intended as evidence to support the motion were filed in late July, and the current special prosecutor in the case, Blake Chambers, had responded in writing, refuting each of the specific examples Olash had put forward of testimony by Brian Starnes, lead detective on the case for the Glasgow Police Department, and a respiratory therapist who had worked with Mickey Logsdon.
For example, the defense stated that Starnes told the grand jury the BiPap machine had “oxygen hooked up to it,” when in truth it was never connected to an oxygen tank. Chambers responded that Starnes actually testified there was an “oxygen supply line” hooked up to the machine.
While some items were of a factual nature like that, others the defense took issue with were more so opinions stated by Starnes that Chambers said were based on the evidence he had compiled at that point. Circuit Judge John T. Alexander said that in evaluating whether any statements were misleading in the manner necessary for a dismissal, he could only really consider the fact-based ones.
First, though, Olash had two physicians who testified via Zoom. Kenneth T. Anderson discussed, among other things, the differences between the type of machine Logsdon had and one called a Trilogy, and he said he had seen “gaps” in machine usage – indicating powering off and on – with other patients as well, and that it could be related to air leakage or other factors.
Anderson acknowledged to Chambers that much of what he said could happen was contingent upon whether the “smart” feature was enabled, and Chambers said two people who had actually examined the machine said that feature was not enabled.
The defendants are accused of powering off Mickey Logsdon’s machine multiple times through the night.
Physician Camilo Ruiz covered some of the same ground but explained and emphasized that even if the “smart” feature is not enabled, the machine would turn itself off if that air leakage threshold is reached and not addressed soon enough.
Chambers asked him whether it could then come back on automatically later, and Ruiz confirmed it would stay off after that.
Neither of these physicians had ever met or treated Logsdon but had merely reviewed his medical records.
Olash then called as a witness Jerri Richard, whose work history included respiratory therapy itself as well as selling machines like the BiPap that Logsdon had. With the attorneys and the judge, she watched a video of a functionality test being performed on that machine after Logsdon’s death, and she explained the steps being taken. She also discussed the air leakage issue. Ultimately, in answering a question from Chambers, she said she believed the machine had been functioning correctly.
Starnes was also called as a witness as the defense attorneys tried to get him to discuss his testimony to the grand jury and why he said some of the things he did. Some of the details he said he didn’t recall, and Chambers repeatedly objected, saying the defense attorneys were going outside the scope of the issues mentioned in the written motion.
Eventually, Thursday’s hearing in Barren Circuit Court, Alexander told the defense attorneys that in order for the case to be dismissed using the premises they are, they would have to prove that the prosecutor presented fraudulent information or “outright untruths,” not just two characterizations or opinions that don’t match.
Olash and Eggert continued their questioning and Chambers continued objecting, but ultimately Alexander said, paraphrasing from a case precedent, that to dismiss the case he would have to find that the prosecution intentionally produced fraudulent or falsified testimony in such a way that it caused the grand jury to indict someone that it wouldn’t have otherwise.
“I haven’t heard anything that’s going to get us there,” the judge said.
Even if he were to be able to come to that conclusion, he said, then there would be the matter of determining an appropriate remedy. Dismissal of the case would be certainly appropriate, but “in almost no circumstances would a dismissal with prejudice be the appropriate remedy.”
A dismissal with prejudice would mean the case couldn’t be revisited.
He said it wouldn’t be appropriate especially in a case in which the current prosecutor isn’t the same one who presented the case to the grand jury. That was an assistant attorney general, and after he later left the case, a different special prosecutor was assigned and then recused herself before Chambers was then appointed.
He spoke briefly about what type of situation could warrant a dismissal with prejudice, and he said that was unlikely.
“This is an extremely difficult hill for you to climb,” the judge said before going on to compare the effort to climbing a mountain in the Himalayas – “perilous.”
Alexander continued, saying that it’s not a question of whether Starnes said something that was untrue.
“That’s not what the standard is,” the judge said.
The first question is whether the prosecutor did this, he said, and if that’s not the case, he didn’t see a way they could get to the questions that would be required.
After a little more questioning from Eggert, Chambers questioned Starnes, addressing several of the points he used in his response to the motion to refute the defense’s claims.
As testimony wrapped up, Olash asked for a schedule for them to file briefs.
The defense has until Sept. 20 to submit a brief specifying the grounds upon which he believes the case should be dismissed, and Chambers then has until Sept. 30 to reply to such briefs.
In addition to the matters directly related to the motion to dismiss and Thursday’s testimony, a few housekeeping/administrative matters were discussed more briefly. For example, the BiPap machine is to be transported to an expert in Georgia for the extraction of any data from the machine itself, versus information transferred remotely by it while it it was in use and information from the SD memory card; a gag order for Bennett, requested by Chambers because he sees it as witness intimidation, related to a complaint she filed about a respiratory therapist on her father’s case, appears unlikely to be granted based on the fact that the complaint has already been filed and is being adjudicated by the board to which the complaint was submitted; and certain evidentiary materials that have yet to be forwarded to the defense from the prosecutor are to be sent right away.
Another pretrial conference for these cases, and a pre-existing one in which Bennett is charged with possession of methamphetamine and other related crimes, is set for Nov. 1.
Meanwhile, Bennett, who has been permitted to go to Georgia again for substance-abuse treatment, was expected to return there after Thursday’s hearing.
