Offer made by defense in Benjamin Carter case for District Attorney to review

This afternoon in Courtroom 1, a disposition and reset hearing was scheduled for Benjamin Carter, the suspect charged with the murder of Zachery Chapman. Carter is the murder suspect who called LOCO instead of his attorney while on the lam.

Today, Carter's defense attorney, Mr. Michael Acosta spoke briefly with Carter before his case was called and Carter, who was sitting slumped in the chair in the "box" sat up and said "ok." Carter's family members, including his sister-in-law who previously testified for the prosecution, were present in court.

When his case was called, Mr. Acosta told Judge John Feeney that the defense had made an offer in the case. Until now,  DDA Luke Brownfield has been prosecuting the case. Today DDA Roger Rees was in Courtroom 1 for the People. He acknowledged that the People had receibved the offer and asked Judge Feeney for another disposition and reset hearing in a week so that his office could look at and discuss the proposed offer. I have included the text of Mr. Acosta's letter below. The next court date is February 4 at 2 p.m.

I spoke with Mr. Acosta outside the courtroom.No other media was present in the courtroom or has this letter, yet.

Mr. Acosta said that the defense has made an offer that Carter would plead guilty to PC 141 tampering with evidence and PC 148 delaying the investigation and obstruction of justice. Mr. Acosta said that Carter did "commit homicide, but not malicious homicide, which is what murder is," he said. As to burning Chapman's jacket and tampering with evidence, Mr. Acosta said that they acknowledge Carter did these things; and that "he did leave the County when he ran" but in his client's defense said, "he panicked." Mr. Acosta said his client was acting in self-defense.

Mr. Acosta compared the charging decisions made in this case with another high profile case, that of Judson Stiglich, who is charged with voluntary manslaughter.

"In the Stiglich case, they charged him with voluntary manslaughter claiming it was a crime of passion. In that case, the victim did not even have a firearm. In our case, the victim had a firearm and it was basically a home invasion."

"The new administration did not charge Ben's case, that was Paul's administration," said Mr. Acosta. "We want Ms. Fleming to have an opportunity to review the charges in this case. If they end up losing this trial, it will be very costly for the County."

Links to last post (includes links to previous posts on this case):


http://johnchiv.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-body-has-been-cremated-so-there-is.html

Text of Mr.Acosta's letter to the District Attorney's office:

January 27, 2015

Ms. Margaret M. Fleming, District Attorney

Mr. Andrew L. Isaac, Deputy District Attorney

Mr. Luke R. Brownfield, Deputy District Attorney

County of Humboldt District Attorney’s Office

825 Fifth Street

Eureka, CA 05501

RE:     People .v. Benjamin Jasper Carter, CR1402688

Ms. Fleming:

I am writing, per your office’s request through Mr. Luke Brownfield, to convey an offer to settle the above-entitled matter. As the original complaint in this matter was filed before you took office as our new District Attorney, Mr. Carter, his family, his supporters, and I are very happy that you have decided to review some of the  more cost-ineffective charging decisions of the previous administration.

As you know, Mr. Carter was originally charged in Count I with  PC 187 (murder) and in Count II with PC 451(c) (arson).  As there was no evidence whatsoever that Mr. Carter set fire to or caused the burning of the trailer in question, the Honorable Judge Dale Reinholtsen did not hold Mr. Carter to answer the arson charge at the conclusion of the preliminary hearing, and it was not charged in the Information.  What was added in its place as County II was PC 12021 (Possession of a Firearm by a Felon).  While this new Count II is at least partially grounded in fact (as Mr. Carter is a felon and had, at least momentarily, possessed a firearm in circumstances which Mr. Carter and I believe to be clearly both self-defense and defense of others (“others” being his wife and sister-in-law). the new Count II is not supported by law.  (See People v. King (1978) 22 Cal.3d 12, 24-26.) in which the California Supreme Court held  that in enacting section 12021 the Legislature did not intend to deny persons described by that section the right to use a concealable firearm in defense of self or others in emergency situations,  I say this even though Mr. Carter’s original offer to settle this matter (before the preliminary hearing)  was a plea to PC12021 with a stipulated term. Therefore, it would be in the interest of justice to require him to plead guilty to the new Count II.

I believe a fair resolution of this matter would involve the Defendant accepting responsibility for two of his actions.  First, Mr. Carter moved Mr. Chapman’s body, and that constitutes a violation of PC 141 Tampering with Evidence.  Second, Mr. Carter left Humboldt County without reporting the homicide (though he left Mr. Chapman’s body to be found in an obvious public place out of grief for the death of this best friend and, more importantly, concern for Mr. Chapman’s mother,  The latter makes him culpable of a PC 148 offense, of delaying the investigation and obstructing justice.  Those two charges, in an amended pleading, and on an open plea basis, are Mr. Carter’s current offer to settle.

    We look forward to your reply.