Maxx Robison's mother and grandmother cry as Judge Willson rules he is denying the 995 motion

"The court doesn't have the ability to substitute my judgment for that of the magistrate" who presided over the preliminary hearing.


After reviewing the preliminary hearing transcript, one exhibit and hearing arguments from both attorneys on the defense's 995 motion in the Maxx Robison case, Judge Christopher Wilson  denied that motion today.

Robison was quiet but looked disappointed. His girlfriend was silent. His mother and grandmother gasped, "Oh my God" and left the courtroom in tears.

Trial setting is September 25 at 8:30 in Courtroom 3.

The reason is standard of proof in evaluating a 995 motion, which Judge Wilson mentioned last time.

In a jury trial or 1118 ( which is a motion for acquittal), the standard is different, said Judge Wilson. He cited two cases as well as CalCrim 25 in making his decision. According to CalCrim 25,  circumstantial evidence can be used to prove intent or mental state, said Judge Wilson.

On August 15, Judge Wilson said, "I have a pair of good trial arguments but that is not the question before the court." He indicated his decision would be based on the findings of the preliminary hearing, a point made by Deputy District Attorney Carolyn Schaffer in her oral argument.

Ms. Schaffer said, "Counsel said at jury trial, a criminalist will testify about tinted windows. The Court can only consider the preliminary transcript for this motion.

Ms. Schaffer added the above remarks, in addition to her written pleadings.

Deputy Public Defender Jennifer Dixon asked the Court to dismiss the special circumstance charge "that was added post prelim and also the attempted murder of Elisha Mansell."

"Detective Gordon was very clear in the prelim that Maxx Robison was in a vehicle with tinted windows," said Ms. Dixon.

"The two victims were in a reclined position."  Quoting from a People's document, Ms. Dixon said that " prior shots had been fired to intimidate" Robison.

"We have no evidence that Mr. Robison knew anyone was in the car" said Ms. Dixon.

"This case is more consistent with second degree murder than a case of life without parole."

Ms. Dixon said that Robison had " no specific intent. Obviously, the DA disagrees under the doctrine of transferred intent."

Ms. Dixon brought up that the car belonging to Elisha Mansell was not involved in the prior altercation between Mansell and Robison. She said McCullens motel was a high crime area and that Robison had "no indication" that Mansell in the car the second time he returned to the McCullens motel.


Previous post:

http://johnchiv.blogspot.com/2017/08/technical-difficulties-in-viewing.html?m=1