CLEARFIELD – Conflicts with a case involving a shooting incident last year in Osceola Mills have uncovered additional problems with the district attorney’s office.
On Tuesday, a hearing was held regarding a motion filed by the district attorney asking for a judge to be removed from the case against the former mayor of Osceola Mills.
District Attorney Ryan Sayers stated during the hearing that he felt President Judge Fredric J. Ammerman was “forcing” the case against Ida L. Reams, 52, of Osceola Mills to trial.
Reams is charged with two counts each of simple assault, terroristic threats and recklessly endangering another person as well as driving under the influence in relation to an incident when she allegedly shot at two men playing Pokemon Go in an Osceola Mills parking lot on March 14, 2022.
In January, Reams was before Ammerman to plead guilty to misdemeanor terroristic threats and two counts of recklessly endangering another person in exchange for a time-served plea of seven days to one year in the county jail. This was rejected.
Reams was before him again in March, to plead guilty to two misdemeanor counts each of terroristic threats and recklessly endangering another person with a sentence of four months home detention. This was also rejected and the case scheduled for jury selection.
In court Tuesday, Ammerman stated that in 29 years, he has never seen a motion from the DA’s office asking for his recusal.
Sayers explained that multiple people have asked him if the judge was “out to get me” or Reams because of the plea rejections.
He went on to say that Ammerman had mentioned that Reams, who has some health problems, would have to be sentenced to state prison.
“I think you have pre-determined her fate,” he said, adding that Reams had no previous record.
The guidelines for the top four counts in this case would give her a maximum sentence of four months, which because of her health, the Commonwealth was allowing her to serve on house arrest, as outlined in the last plea agreement.
He noted that with probation, Reams would be on supervision for the rest of her life.
“We offered a plea to the top four charges with the maximum sentence,” Sayers said.
When Ammerman asked why Sayers brought up what people in the community are saying, Sayers responded that this shows the appearance of impropriety in this case.
Ammerman started reading the allegations saying this is a “very serious case” with the shots fired but two counts of aggravated assault were dropped at the preliminary hearing.
According to the affidavit, Reams called police saying she was in a parking lot at the corner of Curtin and Lingle streets. She claimed two men there looked “suspicious” so she asked where they were from and why they were there.
She explained that she was “receiving a lot of harassment in this town” and she was “done”, adding that “it’s gonna be bad.”
The two individuals told police they were playing Pokemon Go in the lot when they were approached by Reams. They described Reams as “clearly intoxicated.” She allegedly fired a gun four or five times.
Ammerman pointed out that the victims were not at the preliminary hearing and Sayers had not subpoenaed them to possibly testify.
He also questioned why the DA’s office didn’t follow up on her health issues.
At the last sentencing court, Reams’ defense attorney, Joshua Maines provided a one-page letter outlining her problems. Ammerman asked for more information.
“It was up to me to say we needed to talk to her doctor,” Ammerman noted.
He went on to say that over the past few years, both he and Judge Paul Cherry have noticed that the cases coming into court were already beyond their Rule 600 (speedy trial rule) date before the plea was done. Then if the plea is rejected, it goes back into the system.
“By the time we get to trial, two years have gone by,” he said.
Then once they finally get to trial, the Commonwealth says they can’t find a witness or the victim.
“Cases are going stale,” Ammerman stated.
This has led to both judges signing a court order in February stating that after a plea is rejected, the case will be scheduled for the next criminal jury selection and no case will be removed from the jury selection list without approval of the assigned judge.
He emphasized again that there is “too much delay” in getting cases to trial and the DA’s office is not able to prosecute cases because of the passage of time.
“I don’t know if this is on purpose,” he added.
Ammerman commented that the order was not done because of this specific case, and it applies to all cases following a plea rejection.
After this, Ammerman asked to see counsel in his chambers.
When they returned to court, Sayers withdrew his motion to remove Ammerman from the Reams case.
A second motion to continue the trial scheduled for May 16 and 17 was granted.
The reason for the delay in this trial is a scheduling conflict with one of the involved troopers and a lab technician on these trial dates.
Maines said the defense had no objection to the continuance. The case will be scheduled for jury selection in June.
Earlier this month, Ammerman clashed with Sayers over another plea agreement and mentioned that he and Cherry had issued another order regarding a lag in time over information being filed after preliminary hearings.
That order requires the DA file the information within 15 days after the preliminary hearing.
If the information is not filed in this time period, “the matter shall be scheduled for a hearing before the Court at the next session of Motions Court, before the applicable Judge.”
At that hearing, the DA will have the burden to show why the information has not been filed and the court has the option to dismiss the case.
