No ruling made today on the 995 motion in David Anderson's case

 

Hearing on the 995 motion for convicted human trafficker David Anderson's jury trial took place this afternoon.

When Judge Lawrence Killoran said he had not had time to review the case law in the People's opposition, asked if attorneys would submit on pleadings, I knew there would be no ruling today. Judge Killoran listened to oral arguments.

Court is closed tomorrow and Monday, that ruling will be written and filed. Jury selection resumes February 16 and I have no idea what will be livestreamed and when motions will be heard but I will update the outcome in this post.

Deputy District Attorney Stacey Eads is the prosecutor for this case. Mr. Michael Acosta is Anderson's attorney.

The motion addresses Count 1. Judge Christopher Wilson presided over the preliminary hearing. At the last hearing, it was indicated another Judge would hear the 995 motion.

Ms. Eads and Mr. Acosta this afternoon. Both of them addressed two penal codes cited by Judge Wilson at the last court hearing. Ms. Eads mentioned PC 1739 and the California Supreme Court case of People v Moses. Ms. Eads argument on People v Moses gave a sneak preview of the People's case for this jury trial.

There has been detailed coverage only on this blog with remarks from both Ms. Eads and Mr. Acosta about the refiling of Count 1 when the arraignment on information was filed.

Mentioning PC 1510, Judge Wilson said, "this indicates an untimely filing. That may raise IAC (ineffective assistance of counsel)."

PC 1510 : "The denial of a motion made pursuant to Section 995 or 1538.5 may be reviewed prior to trial only if the motion was made by the defendant in the trial court not later than 45 days following defendant's arraignment on the complaint if a misdemeanor, or 60 days following defendant's arraignment on the information or indictment if a felony, unless within these time limits the defendant was unaware of the issue or had no opportunity to raise the issue.

Citing PC 871.5, Judge Wilson asked, "Can the People properly bring back a dismissed charge via (arraignment on) information?"

https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-871-5.html

I do have a copy of the six page 995 motion by the defense. 

I covered two hearings in detail just this week and am not going to add all that information again in this post. 

Most of my readers are regulars and follow each case and read the blog daily or several times a day. If you are not familiar with the case, the posts linked below will provide more details for the 995 motion. All previous posts can be accessed via the search feature on this blog for background.

Recent posts:

https://johnchiv.blogspot.com/2021/02/defense-adds-4-witnesses-human.html?m=1

https://johnchiv.blogspot.com/2021/02/995-motion-filed-in-anderson-case-this.html?m=1