In Warren case oral arguments, Robinson goes off on wierd analogy of Malaysian aircraft

On March 10, the defense in the Warren case, Public Defender Kevin Robinson filed a motion to dismiss counts 2,3 and 4 in the case. Warren is being represented by Glenn Brown, from Alternatate Counsel in another case. Brown was also in court today.

Warren is  accused of torturing and killing a Hoopa woman, Dorothy Ulrich, on the morning of Sept. 26, 2012 before taking a car from her residence and driving to Eureka, where he allegedly intentionally hit three runners, killing Suzanne Seemann and seriously injuring Jessica Hunt and Terri Vroman-Little.

Between that time and today, the Public Defender filed subpoena for records and a Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum.  Ron Fusi, a private attorney filed an opposition to Public Defender's Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum. We won't know why until April 9 at 2 p.m. in Courtroom 4.
'
Judge John Feeney said that he had reviewed the 995 Motion; People's Opposition to that motion; reviewed exhibits and transcript of the preliminary hearing.

He then heard oral arguments. Kevin Robinson apologized for his frankness before he spoke because family members of the victims were in the audience.

He went on and on about evidence and valid evidence and what is malice and legal definitions and that the District Attorney's office did not prove deliberate intent. This is point he should have proved in the preliminary hearing. Clearly he failed.

All Mr. Robinson admitted to was that Warren was in the KIA and involved in the collision. He said there could be various scenarios that could have resulted in the death of Ms. Ulrich and Ms. Seemann and the 2 victims that survived but are seriously injured.

I realize this is a death penalty case but does Mr. Robinson think that the victims planned their own death or deliberately got injured. Tenure and years of guaranteed job security results in mediocrity.

Not to mention that Robinson and Brown talk on a regular basis while other cases are being called, completely disrespectful to the Court, the other attorneys and the defendants and audience.

Mr. Gallegos brought up the issue of evidence and the Court ruling on that evidence in a preliminary hearing.
He said the prosecution cannot present all possible scenarios. He then talked about evidence and conclusions in a very organized and logical way. He also spoke about Warren's state of mind and how the evidence demonstrated "expressed malice." He asked the Court to deny the motion in its entirety.

If I had been a juror in this case, score for Paul.

In his rebuttal, Robinson went off on a wierd Malaysian aircraft analogy.

Judge Feeney did challenge his theory and asked Robinson a question about scenarios which seemed to favor Paul's response about the same argument.

I just complimented Paul Gallegos; that should tell you what I think of Robinson. He needs to be a little less arrogant. This is not the first time I have seen him in the courtroom. Others working in Robinson's office who are not as senior in terms of years, are far more qualified and professional. If only defendants who cannot afford a public defender had a choice in who they had to represent them.

In Warren's case, he gets an attorney he deserves.