When the two defendants in the Hacker Valley triple homicide case were arraigned January 23, 2013 before Judge Jack Alsop, the attorneys for both defendants filed various pre-trial motions.
Both attorneys filed "omnibus discovery motions." An "omnibus" motion is intended to require the State to disclose all of the evidence against the defendants prior to trial. Among things requested by an omnibus motion are: list of witnesses (including criminal records of such witnesses), statements of witnesses, statements of defendants, identity of the people who testified before the Grand Jury, a transcript of the Grand Jury proceeding, reports of examinations and tests, identity of expert witnesses (i.e., coroner, crime lab technicians, etc.), bill of particulars (exactly what does the State claim the defendants did), evidence of flight (did the defendants try to flee the scene), documents and tangible objects the State will present at trial, any evidence the State has that shows the defendant may not be guilty, any known bias of a State witness against a defendant, evidence of other suspects, and witnesses the State is aware of but do not intend to call to testify.In all felony and most misdemeanor cases, it is common practice for defense attorneys to file the "omnibus discovery motion" summarized above. The West Virginia State Bar has a "Young Lawyers' Section" which has an online handbook for lawyers representing criminals, and at the end of the handbook is a copy of the typical "omnibus discovery motion." That handbook can be accessed at this link (it gives a good summary of the entire criminal justice process):
In addition to the omnibus motions, the attorney for the male defendant filed a motion to approve funds for the public defender offices to pay for an expert witness with respect to that defendant's alleged mental health issues. According to the motion, "the same [i.e., mental health issues] will be a significant part of the Defendant's defense in this matter and the Defendant is indigent has no funds to pay for the cost of the same." Judge Alsop granted this motion. As previously reported, the only mention in open court of the male defendant's mental condition was his alleged "bi-polar" condition.
Previously, on October 15, 2012, the State filed a motion entitled "Motion for Permission to Consume Sample." In this motion, the State claimed that the female defendant identified a Remington .30-06 rifle as the "murder weapon." The rifle was sent to the State Police lab for examination. The lab found trace amounts of blood on the rifle. The lab wanted to use the trace amounts of blood and compare it to known samples of DNA from the two defendants and the three victims. The lab advised the Prosecutor's office that the amount of trace blood was so small that it would all be consumed during testing. Because of this, the State wanted permission for the lab to consume the sample during testing, which would prevent the defendants from having any sample left over for their own testing, if they so desired.
On November 5, 2012, Judge Alsop held a hearing on the motion to consume. The defendants and their attorneys did not object to the motion, meaning that they acknowledged the amount of blood found was so small there would be none left over for further testing. Judge Alsop granted that motion. The file does not indicate any crime lab results at this point.
Another pre-trial motion of significance in the court file was the male defendants' motion for bond, which was heard by Judge Alsop back on July 9, 2012. In the motion, Judge Alsop found that: (1) the defendant was charged with three counts of murder in the first degree and he was facing life in prison; (2) the defendant has a prior criminal history; (3) the defendant has an outstanding fugitive warrant in the State of Ohio; and (4) the defendant was apprehended 75 miles from the murder scene headed South on Interstate 79. In light of all of these factors, bond was denied. A similar bond denial order was entered in the female defendant's case as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment