Kody Marcelli has a pre trial conference/trial setting scheduled on September 12 for his alleged assault case; victim Gary Harner. Marcelli has retained a private attorney, Ms. Heidi Holmquist Wells in this latest case.
On 8/16, there was a funding order request by the defense. It was granted on 8/20.
In his previous criminal case, he retained private attorney Greg Rael.
Mostly, I have seen funding requests from defendants who have public defenders or represent themselves.
I contacted Humboldt Superior Court CEO Kim Bartleson to get more information on why a funding request was granted to someone with a private attorney.
"Hi John. I cannot answer your question because it is case related. I can tell you that judges make independent decisions on funding requests based on information provided in the written request."
"In California, the right to necessary forensic testing, expert consultation and/or investigators is inherent to the right to effective assistance of counsel. Therefore, even if a defendant is able to hire private counsel, if that defendant can show he/she does not have the ability to retain necessary forensic testing, expert consultation and/or investigators those services might be paid by county funds."
Lin to information on Funding Orders:
https://www.sb-court.org/Portals/0/Documents/PDF/Criminal/PC987_2RulesAndProcedures.pdf
California Criminal Rule 13.
"This rule states the requirements for the payment of reasonably necessary expenses that appointed counsel, retained counsel, and self-represented litigants incur in defending persons who are indigent. This rule will refer to these reasonable necessary expenses as “ancillary defense expenses.” All funds expended for ancillary defense expenses must have prior approval by Court order. Funds approved for a specific purpose, moreover, may not be expended for another use without prior Court approval."
http://www.scscourt.org/court_divisions/criminal/criminal_rules/criminal_rule13.shtml
Previous posts:
https://johnchiv.blogspot.com/2018/08/kody-talking-smack-to-me-isnt-going-to.html?m=1#more
https://johnchiv.blogspot.com/2018/07/kody-marcellis-buddy-testified-that.html?m=1
https://johnchiv.blogspot.com/2018/07/deputyarriving-on-scene-right-after.html?m=1
https://johnchiv.blogspot.com/2018/07/a-concerned-ridgewood-resident-was-told.html?m=1
https://johnchiv.blogspot.com/2018/07/it-is-very-hard-to-recall-what-we-went.html?m=1
https://johnchiv.blogspot.com/2018/07/he-said-he-was-going-to-hit-me.html?m=1
https://johnchiv.blogspot.com/2018/07/for-someone-on-probation-and-facing.html?m=1
His family must be soooo proud of him.
ReplyDeleteYes, John it seems odd, but I can tell you that a private Defendant would have to provide an Income/Expense Dec and through other documents it was essentially shown that he lacked any more funding to hire experts then the court would generally grant the request. One issue is that typically most younger defendants tend to have their counsel paid for by their parents because they can’t themselves. If they apply for expert funding based on their own income they will almost always qualify. Court’s rarely ask for the source of counsel payments. They probably should.
ReplyDeleteI have another post I am working on that might provide some additional insight into the funding. Kody's parents have been at every court hearing with him, he also has two jobs, according to his attorney. This is from the preliminary hearing. They own a business, his mother has a well paying job. The local courts are stretched thin and we have a lot of indigent clients. Obviously, his funding order was granted. I just think clients who can retain private attorneys like Kody or Marci Kitchen who show no remorse, made bad choices further milk the system than show remorse or accept any responsibility. Marci only recently got a public defender. And in her case, the funding orders were after she was represented by Conflict Counsel. Our localcourts dont have unlimited resources.
DeleteOh and you are right. The Courts should scrutinize all aspects of a privately represented Defendant asking for court funds to pay for an expert to insure whether or not they truly cannot afford an expert. Felony Retainers are not cheap. Some attorneys take payments. Most want CUF. Cash up Front. Experts such as investigators can be fairly cheap. Forensic testing slightly more with psych and medical experts generally being the highest. In general, though it is unlikely anything he had to pay the expert dwarfed what he paid to hire the attorney. So the Court asking about that process and how he afforded that is right and proper to protect its precious resources.
ReplyDeleteThanks Allan. It will be interesting to see what the defense's 995 argument will be.
ReplyDelete