John Chiv: "I think Mr. Acosta is entitled to argue that there is nothing on the bag that concludes it is his"

Jun 7, 2023

"I think Mr. Acosta is entitled to argue that there is nothing on the bag that concludes it is his"

Today, there was a hearing on Michael Acosta's motion to compel discovery. The motion is only in his case. Acosta is representing himself. For brief periods in this 2020 case, Acosta had two court appointed attorneys: Mr. Zack Curtis and Ms. Rebecca Linkous. It is obvious from today's hearing and the very last hearing, Acosta has done a better job pro per.

Former Deputy District Attorney Jane Mackie was the original prosecutor on this case. She resigned. Since then Deputy DA Trent Timm had the case briefly. The current prosecutor is Deputy DA Ian Harris. I was not impresed with Ms. Mackie at all and after the last two hearings, am having deja vu with Mr. Harris.

The problem for Mr. Harris is that it isn't just what Acosta said. I have documented requests for discovery when Ms. Mackie was handling the case and having other Deputy DAs cover her appearances in court, there are previous posts which include the request for specific discovery about Acosta's co-defendant's cell phone and this is years ago. There are court records. I am not linking every post from 2020 but I have provided links to relevant posts and several recent posts. Mr. Harris acknowledged that it was only yesterday that a number of reports were finally provided to Acosta.

Associate Justice Stuart Pollak laid down the law today with Mr. Harris. Mr. Harris has not filed responses and he is continuing to make excuses. Justice Pollak set specific deadlines, possibly avoided another continuance and he may have further saved taxpayers money by providing an option for stipulation so it is not neccessary to hire the DNA expert requested by Acosta.

Justice Pollak started the hearing by saying he had not received an opposition to Acosta's motion to compel discovery.

"My office made available yesterday a number of not provided to Mr. Acosta," said Mr. Harris. "They are the bulk of what is requested. Lab testing by DOJ of a controlled substance and there is one outstanding report."

"I am asking to continue the ruling to provide written responses to each point " said Mr. Harris. "I think Mr. Acosta would need to bring further motions," said Mr. Harris.

"The remaining item is subject to some discussion," said Mr. Harris. "It is his defendant's cell phone and a complete extraction. I don't think Mr. Acosta has standing to compel. Ms. Carroll is not party to this motion; same as the 995. Sarah Carroll's phone is the only outstanding digital discovery. Hopefully, he and I can hammer out physical evidence he is requesting which needs to be discussed with the Sheriff's office."

"I am happy with Mr. Harris' response," said Acosta. "I am happy to give him more time to respond."

"Both with this and the 995 motion we need to establish deadlines," said Justice Pollak. DA has to file his opposition to the motion to compel and the 995 by 6/16. Acosta has until 6/20 to file his response to the oppositions. On 6/23 now, both motions and Acosta's request for judicial notice will be heard.

"There is an outstanding request of a DNA expert," said Justice Pollak. "Why isn't there a stipulation?"

"I made an offer," said Acosta.

"I haven't responded," said Mr. Harris."It is tied to Mr. Acosta's request for testing."

"In the end if you cannot reach a stipulation and I appoint an expert, I don't want to continue the trial," said Justice Pollak. "The only testimony by an expert is if this bag is Mr. Acosta's. If it is not in dispute?"

"I contend it is not," said Mr. Acosta. "It is central to the case. It is crucial to clear my name."

"I cannot assert the bag belongs to Mr. Acosta when there is constructive possession; when multiple people are working."

"A stipulation should be possible that does not establish constructive possession," said Justice Pollak. "A DNA expert is a very expensive and cumbersome process."

"That was my offer," said Acosta.

"This was raised a couple of weeks ago at the hearing," said Justice Pollak to Mr. Harris "and you said you needed more time. You need to focus on it today."

"If I was physically in Humboldt, I would suggest you both come in and see me tomorrow," said Justice Pollak.

"I think Mr. Acosta is entitled to argue that there is nothing on the bag that concludes it is his," said Justice Pollak. "Either it has to be made by stipulation or testimony. I hate to schedule another hearing. This should have been addressed a week ago."

"We could stipulate off record and email your honor," said Mr. Harris. He had suggested earlier to Justice Pollak that a stipulation could be made to exclude all DNA evidence from trial. That failed.

Justice Pollak told Mr. Harris he wants a response filed on the bag and it needs to be done by 6/9.

I contacted Acosta after the hearing.

"How were 5 out of 6 police reports not received by the DA's office for 3 years (and not discovered to the defense of course.)? Isn't that yet another basis for my 995 motion? Who remembers Jane Mackie telling Judge Feeney that my allegation that discovery was insufficient and the prelim should be continued was just a stall tactic, and then telling Judge Feeney that the DA has met its burden of discovery. Where is this secret filing cabinet at the Sheriff's Department?" --Acosta

And when, ever, have you heard the DA seeking a counter stipulation that 'we just not mention DNA evidence during the trial.'?" --Acosta

A U.S. Justice doesn't care that former HCDTF agent Matt Tomlin is buddies with First District Rex Bohn and that Tomlin has the protection and favor of other good ole boys such as Sheriff William Honsal St. Bernards' Academy and others. A U.S. Justice couldn't give two hoots that Rex's bff Rob McBeth and other generational good ole boys are pissed that the McBeth kids hang out with Acosta. Is there pressure on the DAs office or is there another reason that Harris wants an off the record stipulation? Search my posts on Tomlin's resignation from HCSO. Are the discovery issues a deeper indication of the systemic problem in small, entrenched Humboldt.

I do know personally how vindictive, two faced back stabbers and stleath tactics the good ole boys use in this County and I know how the local courts work and so do many locals. Every other person arrested with Acosta and his co-defendant Sarah Carroll either got a cozy plea deal or was not charged like Bryan McBeth. There are court records and I reported on those cases. There are hundreds of drug houses in Humboldt but Rex was personally involved in the outcome of requesting this investigation and has an interest in this case. He had come to the courtroom when the case was initially filed and asked me about it. The other local media reported on Rex's involvement in this bust but is covering nothing now just like their change in coverage about Rex and the good ole boys in the last couple of years.

Acosta has a right to due process and the case should be tried on its merits not the hatred many have against Acosta in Humboldt County for personal reasons or political agendas. If that isn't the case, no off the record stipulations and take the case to trial in open court.

There are questions that deserve to be asked by readers,. For those who have experienced the wrath and retaliation of the good ole boys in Humboldt County, they already know how Humboldt justice works.

So let's see what happens after this post or the ruling on these motions. Will there be another plea offer to resolve the case so that more facts do not come out inconvenient to certain people? Isn't that the "Humboldt way"? Pleas for some; resignation for some; retirement for some ? So "bidiness" in Humboldt goes on as usual, the bullies don't change, there is no accountability and the entrenched systems stay stagnant?

Previous posts:

https://johnchiv.blogspot.com/2023/05/matt-tomlin-claimed-acostas-partner.html?m=1

https://johnchiv.blogspot.com/2023/05/missing-pages-conflicting-claims-tomlin.html?m=1

https://johnchiv.blogspot.com/2023/05/acosta-wants-all-charges-dismissed.html?m=1

https://johnchiv.blogspot.com/2023/05/michael-acosta-is-back-to-representing.html?m=1

https://johnchiv.blogspot.com/2023/04/humboldt-superior-court-rejects-michael.html?m=1

https://johnchiv.blogspot.com/2023/03/will-court-grant-michael-acosta.html?m=1

https://johnchiv.blogspot.com/2023/02/trial-confirmed-plea-yet-another-change.html?m=1

https://johnchiv.blogspot.com/2022/07/deal-or-no-deal.html?m=1

https://johnchiv.blogspot.com/2022/06/we-hadnt-received-offer-in-two-years.html?m=1

https://johnchiv.blogspot.com/2022/06/trial-dates-confirmed-or-last-minute.html?m=1

(way too many previous posts in this 2020 case to link them all)