Ferrer cases joined back again!

Judge Reinholtsen granted the People's request to join all three cases citing Penal Code 1098 as the reason. "The risk is being taken by the DA's office" of trying the cases together if certain statements and evidence will not be admissible at trial.

Issues with discovery, motion to dismiss the case against Sophie Rocheleau will be heard Dept 17 at 2 p.m. The case has been scheduled and there has been back and forth about joining the case or severing it with Mr. Gallegos not being present at hearings. He is still making excuses for discovery that has been requested several times.

Defense attorneys brought up several points including that before this case can go trial, there will be several arguments before the trial Judge to revisit these issues.

Mr. Gallegos referenced a Supreme court ruling and citing Penal Code 1098, argued that the motion to sever should be undone and the cases need to be consolidated. He acknowledged that he had only provided the Court with "bulk of the redacted transcripts and not all the transcripts."

"All three individuals engaged in one incident and all witnesses were identical," said Mr. Gallegos. He said all three defendants were together.

"We will subject the witnesses and the (victim's) family  to three different trials because of speculation of time, " said Mr. Gallegos. This was in response to Rocheleau's attorney Benjamin Okin saying that the edited statements cannot be "adequately redactedand we are going to spend time arguing what is and what is not admissible before the trial can even start in order to protect the defendant's rights."

Mr. Okin said that the Court had previously granted the motion to sever. "Primarily we are at this point because of the defendants' right to confront evidence accurately. What is interesting is the DA's
theory that Ms. Rocheleau is charged with assault and great bodily injury because of what other people did."

He also said there are issues with the redacted statements because with consolidation, certain statements put his client in a position of "confrontation" with Nicholas Stoiber and Juan Ferrer.

He said that the one statement that Mr. Gallegos had not submitted was Stoiber's statement at the Arcata Police Department. Both Mr. Okin and Ms. Jennifer Dixon, Stoiber's attorney said that "if the DA would say he would not introduce that statement," that they would withdraw their objecdtion to consolidation.

Mr. Gallegos dismissed this requestn and said that defense counsel is bringing this up "at the last minute" and they should have told him this before.

Mr. Reavis called the redacted statements "hurriedly and haphazardly " prepared. He also called Mr. Gallegos out on still not providing X-rays of the autopsy, despsite several requests made and which he needs to provide to his expert witness.
.