That’s not what it says ma’am
by Marty Carlson
The afternoon session started with the judge immediately saying my basic feeling is that this recording is not relevant. As in all cases some conversations are not relevant, and character assassination is not appropriate. So the judge ruled that she is only allowing a partial piece of this particular conversation.
Mme. DA immediately started disputing the judge’s ruling and the judge gave her one of those judge like looks and immediately shut her down and stated “don’t ma’am I have ruled.”
They went on to the next wiretap that was recorded on June 28 of 2012, and the judge looking at the transcript of the recording agreed that it could be played but only allowed certain parts of the recording in to be considered.
They moved onto the next wiretap that was on June 29 of 2012 which was a conversation between Frank Carson and his caretaker Ryan Schmidt.
That immediately brought an objection from Percy muttered Martinez stating to the relevance of the conversation which most of the conversation on the recording was a discussion about Frank Carson’s father who apparently was very ill and they were making arrangements for him in fact he passed away the next day.
The DA said that showed information about been approached by an officer, and that Frank Carson was desperately trying to keep an ongoing deception with his caretaker. The term that is constantly being used by the Dist. Atty. in this case conscious of guilt was used again in addition to state of mind, and that shows the Frank Carson was not wanting to cooperate with law enforcement. She also stated that this was a conspiracy being hatched between Frank Carson and the caretaker, which struck me personally funny because anybody that had any type of activity that they thought was suspicious has been charged in this case in his caretaker has not.
The judge inquired with the DA White talking about a case that’s being investigated by the police makes it a conspiracy or co-conspirators. The DA claimed that they were talking about people were going to Frank Carson whenever they had a problem for him to deal with it. I guess that’s what happens when your good attorney. The DA went on to say Frank Carson is directing all people to him and obstructing justice. She also stated that he should be held accountable for his comments that he did not make to investigators or anyone else. Try to figure that one out
the DA went on to say that Mr. Schultz had assisted in the baiting up the pipes and deceiving the police when they came to investigate. Again I must say that Ryan’s Schmidt has not been charged in this case. Mme. DA then proceeded onto a long narrative about some things that I felt was non-evidence only what she believes but has nothing of substance to show for.
Percy Martinez said that Frank Carson had reason to talk about securing his property and more than enough reason to be talking about the need to take care of his father.
Jessica Garcia stated that there was testimony by Robert Cooley that the irrigation pipes that are in question about using as bait, were on the ground and not TB or put up on the fence as the Dist. Atty. is trying to make people believe. In addition, in the recording Frank Carson said he had no idea what this investigation was all about at that time.
Again the Dist. Atty. get a long narrative about many things that were not related to this wiretap as if she was trying to make her whole entire case to the judge right then and there, as she does many times when things get understanding that seems to happen very easily.
And as usual these long narratives and sometimes accusatory tones get objected to like Martha Magana saying that was a mischaracterization of the evidence that had been presented in court up to this point.
All the attorneys began making long arguments in reply to the long Dist. Atty.’s narrative which obviously was agitating to the defense attorneys as I saw and heard them making comments, as Mme. DA just continue to ramble on almost that time stalking incoherently.
Once the dust settled the judge sustained the defense objections but there are limited sections of the recording that can be admitted. The judge stated that most of the conversation is conflicted and does not agree with the theory of the case as it was laid out again in long narrative form by the DA. Sometimes a more she talks the more trouble she gets into. The wiretap was a played in court and the judge is only to consider small portions of it.
The next wiretap was dated June 26 of 2012 which immediately led to multiple objections again based on relevant. This was a conversation of Frank Carson I believe talking to his office. The DA began an offer of proof and says Frank Carson was telling his office he was in Merced but was actually at the pop and Cork store in Turlock and that he is not being truthful, and shows here it is again a consciousness of guilt.
The judge immediately stopped all conversation by the defense and told be quiet your winning this one and sustained the objections without hearing any arguments.
The next wiretap to be heard was dated July 6 of 2012 it was between Daljit Atwahl and somebody named Roger I wasn’t able to catch last name.
Defense attorney Hans immediately objected on the grounds of relevance. DA was saying that D Atwahl was talking about being followed by law enforcement, and had made up a story about how we dealt with being followed and his connections. The DA said that shows an absence of character. And state of mind.
Attorney Hans stated his client was being followed by law enforcement and felt that it was not proper and it does not show any consciousness of guilt as anyone would be upset about being followed.
Robert Forkner represented to the court that the DA had made argument that Linda sue Burns was followed and felt threatened and upset the did not state that she had that same consciousness of guilt even though she was stealing from the property.
Mme. DA stated he goes her credibility of D Atwahl and his ability to make allies and said something very strange, she said” and something like that.” I guess that’s a legal term that I haven’t heard of before. Again there was a joint objection by all attorneys in long arguments ensued as everyone knows the Atwahls were being followed by law enforcement and there was testimony by the investigators as such.
Attorney Hans and asked to Dist. Atty. to clarify which comments he was making that were untruthful, as he was being followed and was upset about it.
The judge decided take it under submission or possibly a motion to strike later which included other wiretaps also.
The next wiretap that was tried to be played was on July 29 of 2012 and the DA was make an argument that the out walls were concerned about being followed again and in fact had made a police stopped a vehicle that was similar to investigator bunch as Chrysler 300, and she also stated that was guilty behavior. And apparently it was not investigator bunch his car but another gentleman just happened have a similar car.
Again the judge inquired if he is lying how does it apply to his particular charges? In the DA stated that he is lying and it shows he does not have any credibility.
The judge immediately advises it improper character evidence and will not be allowed and apparently there are several more recordings similar to this that are going to be reevaluated and to be determined if they will be played.
Now I have no inside information on this but it appears to me that all wiretap is going to be challenged by the defense attorneys and after hearing some of the justifications of the Dist. Atty. to use them I kind of understand why they are not being accepted. If there is actually a case here is not being represented by this Dist. Atty. and the people of the state are not being represented very well at this point.
At this it was sort shortly after 4 o’clock the judge inquired if anybody had any business to take care of at the end of the day order if they could continue on looking at the evidence. Mme. DA says she has a serious issue to discuss with the court.
For some reason everybody started to look at the blogger in the back row and asked him what have you done now? And I didn’t have a clue so I’m pretty sure it wasn’t me. Mme. DA went on to start talking about defense attorneys have been in the parking lot during breaks talking to the interpreters for the Atwahls in this case. She stated she is being informed by people in the courtroom, in fact she has been informed by about five people in the courtroom. It must also be noted during this time that she was saying she was notified by people in the courtroom she had turned around and looked at Mark Davis, so I don’t know if that really means anything or not. After all he is nickname Mr. microphone.
The DA also said she is unaware of which interpreters are involved, but it has an appearance of impropriety as they are officers of the court.
I find that interesting that she would use that appearance of impropriety after DA investigators have been going to witnesses, picking them up a crime scene, and taking them back to their office, after being told by the judge not to have contact with them. Again there is an appearance of impropriety there.
Martha Magana advised that she did talk to one of the interpreters about possibly using some services later on down the road in did receive a card which she in fact that tape to her laptop.
One of the interpreters did make a presentation to the court saying they were just simple conversations not about the case, just about possibly future work as they are private contractors hired by the court, and not court employees.
The judge stated that they do have a duty to be neutral, and there does seem to be a lot of people that want to integrate themselves into this case, as in all high profile cases and advised Mme. DA to take it with a grain of salt, but did admonish all about proper procedures. And if Mme. DA was to further this issue that she will have to file a brief of misconduct and take it up later.
That’s where we finish for the day with a bang, I did talk to Mark Davis outside the courtroom as we were leaving and he did deny being the one who had told the DA about the interpreters. I also find it interesting that no complaint had been lodged against Mark Davis after he had taken 5 to 10 minutes, sometime back, to pull the judge’s aside one day as they were leaving at lunchtime and had a somewhat lengthy conversation.
One last note tomorrow’s session started at 8:30 AM as there is going to be a motion hearing and they expect testimony to continue around 10 at 1030.