<$BlogRSDUrl$>

9.12.2003

(All italics below were added by this blog's author; the All Caps are part of the official record)

Perjury from the state's star witness. From the court's minute transcripts, May 16th 2002:

OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY:...[Defense Attorney] Mr. Kohn advised the Court he has all the handwritten kites/exemplars of [state witness] Karinda Martin {sic, should be Korinda} and have a letter preliminarily showing Karinda Martin lied to the Court; Ms. Martin wrote the letters to Brenda Self. He further argued, there is an element of malice attributed to Karinda Martin; District Attorney cannot prove murder without her. He moved for a continuance to until an opinion has been rendered to as to whether to proceed forward with testimony of Brenda Self, or to exclude the testimony of Karinda Martin....

Later, on August 22, 2002, the final judgment on this was:

re: Korinda Martin: Jurors had an opportunity to evaluate her credibility in light of her convictions of felony and prison time, but, the information regarding her letters written on sentencing was collateral and extrinsic and ruling was appropriate; therefore, DENIED.

In other words, because Martin's perjury was about whether or not she tried to scam her way out of prison by forging letters to a judge, it was therefore unconnected to the charges against Kirstin Lobato. So the fact that she lied on the stand doesn't matter. Never mind that she had a deal with the District Attorney in exchange for her testimony.

And how about alibis? You may be skeptical about family and friends, but what about people in the neighborhood? From the same date:


OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY:...[District Attorney] Mr. Kephart advised the Court he was served over the noon hour with a Supplemental Notice Of Alibi of a neighbor of the Deft. [Kirstin Lobato]...Mr. Kephart noted his objection to the use of the witnesses noticed in the Supplemental Notice of Alibi; filing is not timely or proper under statute. Upon the inquiry of Mr. Kohn Court clarified its prior ruling and ORDERED, new witness noted in the Supplemental Notice of Alibi WILL NOT be allowed to testify as the disclosure was not timely. Mr. Kohn moved for a continuance. COURT ORDERED, motion DENIED.

For more of the public defense team's lack of proper timeliness, May 10th, 2002:

OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY: Notice Of Defendant's Expert Witnesses FILED IN OPEN COURT. Mr. Kephart objected to the filing arguing the curriculum vitae needed to be filed 21 days prior to start of trial. Court stated findings and ORDERED, objection OVER RULED; state will be allowed to contact the witnesses.

That time the prosecutor was over ruled. But note, it is only to contact the expert witness. Here's how it ended on May 16, 2002:

OUTSIDE THE PRESENCE OF THE JURY: Mr. Kephart noted his objection to the late/improper notice of and expert witness and would further object to any testimony by the expert...Mr. Kephart moved for the exclusion of the testimony of expert Schiro. Court stated findings and ORDERED, defense counsel may call Mr. Schiro regarding expert testimony. Due to late disclosure, Court requested an offer of proof as to the issues of latent fingerprints, footprints and blood splatters. Offer of proof presented by Mr. Kohn. Court stated findings and ORDERED, objection SUSTAINED as to the objection to the footprint testimony; ruling RESERVED on issues of latent fingerprints and blood splatters. Mr. Kephart moved for a 1 week continuance. Due to Court schedule, COURT ORDERED, state's motion for continuance DENIED.

In other words, the defense expert was only allowed to talk about fingerprint lifting and blood analysis, rather than give the testimony that would have shown forensic evidence excluded Kirstin Lobato from the scene.


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?