Sep 14, 2016

First they had to come back almost two months later for sentencing; now David Ganfield's family has to deal with a last minute filing for a motion for new trial for Jonas Semore

On July 27, the family of David Ganfield thought they would get some closure. Jonas Semore who has been convicted in the death of Ganfield was to be sentenced.

Instead Semore's attorney, Mr. Russ Clanton, made an oral motion in court and told Judge John Feeney that he had received the probation report "Friday afternoon" and was not prepared and requested additional time.

Deputy District Attorney tried his best to get the sentencing to proceed that day. Ganfield's family members, especially his mother had to had travel from out of town, all members at great financial expense to make the sentencing.

Mr. Rees said, "I was out of the office until 20 minutes ago and I came back specifically for this sentencing. This date was set two months ago and no written motion was filed. This is a mandatory sentence, 15 to life. There are no mitigating factors."

That sentencing was postponed to September 15. Now in addition to having to come back and wait for sentencing, Ganfield's family will have to sit through tomorrow to hear a motion for a new trial filed by Mr. Clanton on September.

I have remarks from July 27 when family members spoke. I will include them in tomorrow's post covering the sentencing and ruling on motion for new trial.




The co-defendant, Nicholas Johnson, has a jury trial scheduled for November 17.




Previous post:

http://johnchiv.blogspot.com/2016/05/semore-found-guilty-of-second-degree.html

There is extensive coverage of the preliminary and jury trial on this blog.



1 comment:

  1. I'd like to know more about the " he had received the probation report "Friday afternoon" ". Was his office responsible for getting the probation report from the office or was the office responsible for sending it to Mr. Clanton's office?
    If it is the lawyer's failure then shame on him, shame on him. He owes the family members who drove to Eureka expecting closure an apology.
    If it was the Probation Office, then what is the usual handling of such reports?
    Myself, I think the 'did not receive' excuse was to allow himself more time to come up with dubious reasons for the appeal. Yes, lawyers owe their clients their best efforts. Doesn't mean the family members AND the general public have to like it or respect his 'diligence'.
    My thoughts are with the family members; I hope their prolonged suffering comes to an unchallenged end and that they can mourn without continued reminders of their loss.

    ReplyDelete