FRANK CARSON UPDATE…….

FRANKCARSON1.png

Just an update on today’s hearing that was half a day department to on the Frank Carson et al. case:

I was not able to be in court this morning, but Tom Jensen was, and I just received a verbal report from him.

The defense had made several motions one was the Scott Rollins testimony into the alleged altercation that he had with Daljit Atwal. The defense had made a motion to have that evidence excluded as the identification was suspect at best. End result was motion was denied as expected.

Also, the defense had made a motion in regard to some of the language in the Robert Woody agreement, but of course also denied.

Tom Jensen took extensive notes and it was going to do a written report tomorrow concerning this in everything else that happened this week.

The District Attorney’s Office also made a motion to not allow the defense to use the incident at Jon Evers house where his estranged wife had come over and began going through his personal items including a computer. There were some accusations made by his ex-wife and some other people that were present concerning some illicit material that had been seen on his computer. This information had been litigated previously by this court, and in fact the judge had taken his personnel file in camera to look for any type a Brady material, and also it taken much of the information in the investigation that was done in regard to Jon Evers computer. Several agencies had done some type of investigation into the situation in the judge again advised there was no Brady or illicit information of available. So the motion by the District Attorney’s Office to exclude any evidence or testimony in regard to that was granted.

No further activities were done in the court today as it was half a day for Attorney Hans to get his motion filed for next Tuesday.

The other thing of note apparently Sarah O’Keefe is in custody is Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department for failing to adhere to the subpoena in this case and was seen by another court I don’t know the outcome at this point.

Tom will write a more detailed report on all the activities in a synopsis of the week tomorrow. No podcast tonight.

DONATIONS

HELP DAWGS BLOG

$5.00

Advertisements

2 comments

  1. Thank you Marty for your reporting. I am a little murky on what is going on with the statements Percy made about Michael Cooley being a possible 3rd party. Did the court allow the statements? The more I think about the 3rd party culpability motion the more confused I become
    For the life of me, I cannot understand why the defense brought that motion. The defense does not have to reveal their defense until after the prosecution puts on its case and the court overruled a motion to dismiss. I was thinking that Judge Z may have denied the motion because it was premature. Unless evidence is first admitted showing the defendants are guilty, any potential defense is irrelevant.

    It would be like the defense bringing a motion to establish self defense. But if there were no admissible facts showing that the Vic was murdered, the defense of self defence would be irrelevant.

    Maybe the defense was hoping they could cross examine the prosecution’s witnesses re 3rd party culpability during the prosecution’s case in chief…Ahh, that must be it. Yeah, no way would that be proper. The prosecution controls the scope of her prosecution. If her witnesses do not testify to facts that tend to show 3rd party culpability, then the defense cannot ask about it on cross examination.

    But, the defense can ask questions for other reasons, even if the answers tend to show 3rd party culpability. For example, the defense can ask a Michael Cooley if he is covering up the truth because he is the real murderer.

    Marlissa: Objection! Beyond the scope of Direct.

    Percy: The question goes to the credibility of the witness, which is always within the scope of examination.

    But there is no due process way the court can even hope to deny the defense the opportunity to put on evidence of 3rd party culpability during the defense’s case in chief.

    Does that sound like I am correctly interpreting what the judge ruled?

    • To be honest I am not really understanding all of this myself. My belief is the defense can always try to show other likely killers or theories. And the alternatives here are strong towards cooley, even by the Judges own words.
      And the defense can always call those witness’s back during their portion of the trial.
      I agree I do not quite understand the motion either because the defense does not have to reveal their case and or witness’s at this point.
      But I am starting to think that they are looking for appealable issues and now have plenty with some of the actions/nonactions by this judge. This trial should be a mistrial as of wednesday.
      Sad part is this is not going to get any better.

Comments are closed.