John Chiv: "This kind of behavior cannot and should not be tolerated. Even the President of the United States must play by the rules."

Feb 4, 2022

"This kind of behavior cannot and should not be tolerated. Even the President of the United States must play by the rules."

I had already mentioned in previous coverage that Judge Gregory Elvine-Kreis is in currently in trial and that he would most likely set a future date for the defense motion scheduled on February 7 in the Ray Christie case. Nothing substantive is going to happen that day. Here is a preview of both the People and defense's remarks.

I had contacted Deputy District Attorney Steven Steward this week about the latest defense motion scheduled for February 7. His response to me was similar to what he told the defense.

"We decided yesterday that we will respond orally on Monday. I anticipate that the court may just set a hearing since we are still 3 to 4 months out from trial."

I have already reported in detail on January 25 about the defense motion to exclude evidence seized during the October 13, 2021 raid or, alternatively, for an evidentiary hearing regarding the same. Evidence Code 403 is cited in the defense documents.

In that motion the defense claims the cattle don't belong to Christie; there are allegations against the Humboldt auction yard, texts sent to Sheriff Honsal and HCSO Deputy Travis Mendes' "abnormally personal interest in trying to bring Christie down."

The defense filed two more documents on February 3.

The excerpts below are from Christie's reply in support of the motion in limine.

"As we detailed in our moving papers, none of the evidence gathered on October 13, 2021 can or does prove anything with respect to Mr. Christie. The People cannot meet their burden to establish the foundational fact that Mr. Christie was responsible for the custody or care of the animals seen on October 13, 2021 because Mr. Christie was not and is not responsible for their care."

"To introduce the photos and videos taken during the October 13, 2021 raid, the People must first establish the foundational fact of Mr. Christie’s conduct in relation to the proffered evidence. See Evid. Code § 403. Because the People cannot establish this fact, we ask the Court to enter an order prohibiting the People from using evidence from, or making arguments based on, the October 13, 2021 raid. "

"This is not the first time the People have failed to oppose an important motion in a timely fashion. Sometimes they don’t respond at all. They wait until the scheduled hearing to finally reveal their position, utilizing an inappropriate “trial by ambush” tactic. Other times, they flout the deadline for filing a responsive brief. They wait until we have already filed a reply and only then take a position, flaunting their “we are above the law” governmental authority. The People have continued this pattern with this Motion. Instead of adhering to their statutory obligation to file a response within five court days of the filing of the Motion, see Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.111(a), the People instead emailed us on the morning our Reply was due."

"This kind of behavior cannot and should not be tolerated. Even the President of the United States must play by the rules. See, e.g., United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974); see also Pres. Theodore Roosevelt’s Third Annual Message to Congress, Dec. 7, 1903 (“No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man’s permission when we require him to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not asked as a favor.”). We will be ready to argue the Motion at the noticed hearing on Monday, February 7, 2022. As we detailed in our moving papers, we believe the People have failed to meet their burden under Evidence Code section 403 to introduce the proffered evidence from the October 13, 2021 raid, and cannot meet their burden. Accordingly, we request that the Court grant the Motion on the unopposed papers. "

The text below is from an email attached as an exhibit with Mr. Richmond's declaration.

"Rick,

We have reviewed your motion and would agree to an evidentiary hearing regarding ownership of these cattle. I am not sure if you were planning on flying up next week but I thought I would perhaps save you the trip if we are just going to be setting future dates. I need to confirm with my witnesses, but I would propose a date in mid‐March if that is agreeable. I would suggest that we exchange witness lists so as to not duplicate work. Thanks and hope all is well. Steve"