The petition asked for Kailan Meserve to get a lighter sentence.
Today, this was posted on a bulletin board by a Petrolia store.
Considering the fact that there is a hearing pending on the motion for a new trial for Kailan Meserve to be heard again on Monday, July 11 with the defense claiming some witnesses want to change part of their testimony; the People saying they were contacted by certain key witnesses being "encouraged" to change their story, and the Meserve family's influence in Petrolia, how accurate would the signatures on this petition be? Is this an attempt to sway Judge Timothy Cissna and future court proceedings?
Jul 2, 2016
Are witnesses for the People in the Kailan Meserve case being pressured to change testimony?
Another delay yet again, in the afternoon on July 1 for the motion to continue sentencing for a new trial and scheduled sentencing for Kailan Meserve. Now, that motion will be heard on July 11 at 4 p.m.
There was a lot of back and forth for Meserve's attorney, Mr. Russ Clanton, to provide good cause, and he reluctantly and finally gave some information, which Judge Timothy Cissna said was still not sufficient for him to make a decision and not specific enough. This information had to be painstakingly coaxed out of Mr. Clanton. Judge Cissna continued the hearing for the motion to continue sentencing, to make sure there were no appeal issues.
Some questions unanswered are: Why is an investigator for the Public Defender working on the Kailan Meserve case? Due process works both ways, what is this secret information that may or may get a new trial for Kailan Meserve? There was some information finally given but the DA's response raises the question, if the defense has anything or is anyone pressuring witnesses to change their testimony.
Ashleigh Groeling's brother is best friends with Kailan Meserve and he testified for Meserve. Groeling testified on behalf of Jane Doe #1.
The afternoon session started out with Judge Timothy Cissna asking Meserve's defense attorney, Mr. Russell Clanton, to address "good cause to continue." Judge Cissna reiterated that he was aware that Mr. Clanton needed transcripts from the jury trial of two witnesses. The transcripts issue has been addressed before.
"We were contacted by two number of potential witnesses and they have material and substantive material for a new trial;" responded Mr. Clanton. Transcripts are needed to show how this evidence would be relevant." Mr. Clanton said he had talked to the court reporter and this would take a month.
"The difficulty I have with this statement is that it is vague and what you said in your motion. I need specifics," said Judge Cissna.
"Number of statements were made by complaining witnesses, evidence refutes some of those statements," said Mr. Clanton. "I am comfortable saying what in chambers, not in open court."
"I don't understand your reluctance," said Judge Cissna. "You will be filing a motion that will lay everything out. I need something other than these vague, non-specific statements. Isn't the DA entitled to question the same witnesses."
"This is a small town," said Mr. Clanton.
"Ultimately, the pleadings are all open record," said Judge Cissna. "You can file a motion now, with a supplemental with transcripts later."
"We had an investigator in this case, that investigator came about a conflict and left the team," said Mr. Clanton. "We acquired a new investigator, Cisco Lassiter, who needs to go over Adam Laird's information."
"How soon can you file a motion without transcripts?" asked Judge Cissna. "Not that it will be decided without transcripts, so the DA can respond?"
Judge Cissna wanted the motion to be filed within a week, Mr. Clanton said 2-3 weeks.
Deputy District Attorney Brie Bennett finally got a chance to weigh in. She told Judge Cissna that "the People are pulling their time waiver for sentencing."
"The defense has not provided good cause for sentencing" said Ms. Bennett. She referred to the same reasoning given by Judge Cissna.
Ms. Bennett added that "the defense has had two and half months to come forward, now they are asking for an additional two to three weeks. This will have a huge impact on the victims and the family."
"I am having serious difficulty because statements are non-specific," said Judge Cissna.
Finally, Mr. Clanton gave up a bit more. "We have been contacted by one of the so called victims that the statements they made under oath, that some of those statements were untrue." Mr. Clanton claimed that another witness said she had discussed testimony with another witness for the People.
Ms. Bennett responded that, "the People have also been contacted by Jane Doe #2 and Ashleigh Groeling that people are encouraging them to change their testimony."
Ms. Bennett also cited People v Alexander and a specific portion, which Judge Cissna took time to look over in court before continuing the hearing.
There was a lot of back and forth for Meserve's attorney, Mr. Russ Clanton, to provide good cause, and he reluctantly and finally gave some information, which Judge Timothy Cissna said was still not sufficient for him to make a decision and not specific enough. This information had to be painstakingly coaxed out of Mr. Clanton. Judge Cissna continued the hearing for the motion to continue sentencing, to make sure there were no appeal issues.
Some questions unanswered are: Why is an investigator for the Public Defender working on the Kailan Meserve case? Due process works both ways, what is this secret information that may or may get a new trial for Kailan Meserve? There was some information finally given but the DA's response raises the question, if the defense has anything or is anyone pressuring witnesses to change their testimony.
Ashleigh Groeling's brother is best friends with Kailan Meserve and he testified for Meserve. Groeling testified on behalf of Jane Doe #1.
The afternoon session started out with Judge Timothy Cissna asking Meserve's defense attorney, Mr. Russell Clanton, to address "good cause to continue." Judge Cissna reiterated that he was aware that Mr. Clanton needed transcripts from the jury trial of two witnesses. The transcripts issue has been addressed before.
"We were contacted by two number of potential witnesses and they have material and substantive material for a new trial;" responded Mr. Clanton. Transcripts are needed to show how this evidence would be relevant." Mr. Clanton said he had talked to the court reporter and this would take a month.
"The difficulty I have with this statement is that it is vague and what you said in your motion. I need specifics," said Judge Cissna.
"Number of statements were made by complaining witnesses, evidence refutes some of those statements," said Mr. Clanton. "I am comfortable saying what in chambers, not in open court."
"I don't understand your reluctance," said Judge Cissna. "You will be filing a motion that will lay everything out. I need something other than these vague, non-specific statements. Isn't the DA entitled to question the same witnesses."
"This is a small town," said Mr. Clanton.
"Ultimately, the pleadings are all open record," said Judge Cissna. "You can file a motion now, with a supplemental with transcripts later."
"We had an investigator in this case, that investigator came about a conflict and left the team," said Mr. Clanton. "We acquired a new investigator, Cisco Lassiter, who needs to go over Adam Laird's information."
"How soon can you file a motion without transcripts?" asked Judge Cissna. "Not that it will be decided without transcripts, so the DA can respond?"
Judge Cissna wanted the motion to be filed within a week, Mr. Clanton said 2-3 weeks.
Deputy District Attorney Brie Bennett finally got a chance to weigh in. She told Judge Cissna that "the People are pulling their time waiver for sentencing."
"The defense has not provided good cause for sentencing" said Ms. Bennett. She referred to the same reasoning given by Judge Cissna.
Ms. Bennett added that "the defense has had two and half months to come forward, now they are asking for an additional two to three weeks. This will have a huge impact on the victims and the family."
"I am having serious difficulty because statements are non-specific," said Judge Cissna.
Finally, Mr. Clanton gave up a bit more. "We have been contacted by one of the so called victims that the statements they made under oath, that some of those statements were untrue." Mr. Clanton claimed that another witness said she had discussed testimony with another witness for the People.
Ms. Bennett responded that, "the People have also been contacted by Jane Doe #2 and Ashleigh Groeling that people are encouraging them to change their testimony."
Ms. Bennett also cited People v Alexander and a specific portion, which Judge Cissna took time to look over in court before continuing the hearing.
http://johnchiv.blogspot.com/2016/07/another-delay-yet-again-in-afternoon-on.html
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.