Wednesday, February 04, 2009

There might be video and audio of Doran at the gate of YFZ, April 3rd, 2008

Michael Piccarreta moved to get audio and video recordings made by Sheriff Doran on April 3rd last year. Such recordings of course, might reveal what actually was said at the gate, corroborating perhaps, some of the contentions by FLDS members at YFZ, that they had pointedly asked certain questions about the search warrant, and it's basis
and who was, and was not present that day.

Arizona says they'll "try" to get it, and that they're not sure there won't be an "18 minute gap," because Doran can't run a VCR, basically.
"COMES NOW, the State of Arizona, by the Mohave County Attorney, and hereby responds to the Defendant's Motion for Disclosure of Audio and Video Recordings. During a pre-trial interview conducted by the defense in this case with Sheriff David Doran of Schleicher County, Sheriff Doran advised that he had some recording equipment on at the onset of the search warrant conducted by Texas authorities in April 3, 2008. Sheriff Doran was not familiar with the equipment provided to him, but believes it is possible that some audio and/or video recordings were made at the start of the search warrant. The State does not disagree with the defense's position that they should be entitled to receive a copy of those recordings. However, these are not recordings that are within the control of the Mohave County Attorney's office of the State of Arizona. The State will make attempts to get copies of this information from the State of Texas. However, since this material is not within the possession or control of the State of Arizona, the State cannot guarantee its production but will merely make it's best efforts to receive these potential recordings."
It's interesting that there "might" be a gap. If they know there "might" be a gap, wouldn't Arizona know there was a gap?

Sphere: Related Content


ztgstmv said...

Better call the Washington Post. Maybe they can find a Deep Throat somewhere in this mass cover-up.

The Pharisee said...

I'll have to dust off Rosemary Woods again!

TxBluesMan said...

First, the tapes are not in the possession of the Mohave County prosecutor, so they cannot thereby provide them to Piccarreta.

Second, in Texas, such tapes are normally held in evidence until the trial. They have to be provided to defense counsel 20 days prior to the hearing or they are inadmissible for that hearing. A typical tactic is to not release the tape until 20 days prior to the actual trial, so the tape cannot be used in a pre-trial hearing, but can be used in the trial. See Sells v. State, 121 S.W.3d 748 (Tex. Crim. App., 2003)pet. den'd.

Obviously the Texas law doesn't apply in Arizona, but the evidence is being held as evidence for a Texas case and is not in the possession of the Arizona authorities.

Whether Texas will consent to providing the Arizona authorities the material is a different question.

The Pharisee said...

Piccarreta doesn't shoot wildly Blues, he will get what he asks for.

Judge Conn has become grudgingly sympathetic to the plight of Warren's case. If Texas doesn't turn over the tapes in a time frame that Conn thinks is acceptable, he'll toss out the evidence.

This then becomes political as well as legal and having the raid evidence excluded in Arizona will ultimately mean bad things for the case in Texas and the evidence in Texas.

You can say "no" but blues, you haven't been right about much of this so far. The management of the evidence has become political in nature, you follow the rules of power, appearance and spin.

Piccarreta knows this, he will get what he wants.

TxBluesMan said...

He may very well get copies, but if so, it will be because Texas allowed it, not because Conn ordered it.

Conn has no jurisdiction in Texas, nor the authority to order a Texas law enforcement agency to turn over the agency's evidence.

The Pharisee said...

The point, I think, being that he's going to get them. I'm glad you realize this.

ztgstmv said...

I think TBM has it backwards. The evidence is not useful to the prosecution so "what is normal" is not applicable. The prosecution doesn't want to hold that evidence for a trial, they don't even want the evidence to exist! If the defense had the evidence in hand, then plausibly the rule would be in the reverse, i.e. the defense would not be required to give the prosecution the evidence until a reasonable time before the trial. So I believe we've just experienced another one of TBMs specious arguments (like the one on his board where just dismissed the size of the ranch as irrelevant to the applicability of supposedly related case law, ha!).

cheese said...

Blues has a common and predictable response to every post. If it's in favor of the state and against the saints then "ya that's what will happen"!!! Blues displays his prejudice every time he opens his mouth. He's more than likely NEVER met an FLDS person and knows very little about any of them personally.

BTW: Hugh, maybe Piccarreta should just warm up to Paul Anthony!

Obstructionist said...

It was my understanding that Matt Smith did not request that evidence from the Texas raid, it was the defense that opened that box. If the evidence can't be used and Matt Smith never intended to use it any way, then it was a bad hand dealt to the defense, not the prosecution.

With the 8 prior trials of FLDS members in Mohave county, along with what was known to Brock Belnap in the first Washington County Utah trial, then Smith was already confident he did not need anything that occured in Texas.

Hey Texas Blues!

You have a serial rapist, murderer, Arsonist or terrorist, and these boneheads here think they have to be caught in the act to be prosecuted! Not so, evidence is built on investigations and the FBI had the option to raid YFZ ranch at any time that Warren was believed to be there in his unlawful flight. As it were, he was there and hidden by those men present.

Warren will hang and these bloggerrs are ultimately contributing to that. I wonder if Willie and Merrill will thank these boys later?

Obstructionist said...

How about Warren's former attorney!

Walter "Wally" Bugden was arrested Saturday on suspicion of public intoxication!

Not a big selling point in Washington County Utah, but when a man needs a drink, its just the same with his client, when a prophet needs another wife!

The Pharisee said...

Obstructionist. I try to publish every comment, but some go over the edge. If all you're going to do is say "boo-yah, the FLDS are stupid" I'll start dumping on the comments.

Warren's attorney is hardly convicted, yet. It reflects ZERO on the FLDS if an attorney is arrested for public intoxication, even if it is an attorney they employ.

It does raise the question of whether or not the attorney from Warren's firm is being followed around, I find it unusual that the circumstances of his arrest, which would normally be public record, are not.

As far as I'm concerned he could have been busted for a drunk bathroom gay pickup attempt like Larry Craig of Idaho. It hardly matters to me.

Obstructionist said...

I like that, you don't mind and I'don't matter!

To far over the edge with what you have posted?

On the Tribune Blog, I am accused of being a mastermind to the events surrounding the Texas raid, are you sure you don't want my imput?

I confess, I supplied the audio of Jeffs to the Southern Poverty Law center when they asked for evidence. I confess I provided audios to the Washington County Utah prosecutor in trial #1. I confess copies of what one DA used, the future prosecutor already has. I confess the complaints filed with P.O.S.T. in October & November of 2000, against the FLDS judge and the FLDS police who violated their "oath of ofice" was another of my efforts! Ross Chatwins Press Conference on 1-23-04 was my doing and I shared in the Eldorado Texas discovering in Press Conference in 2004.

Whether you chose to publish my comments or not, won't change anything!

Here's something to ponder, ping ping! Every GOOGLE search any one makes is retained by GOOGLE for 9 months, Yahoo searches 3 months, Microsoft data 18 months. If someone wanted to subpoena records on any of us, how protected are we?

Have a great morning!

The Pharisee said...

Just try to keep it real Obstructionist. This is my blog and I do try to set standards for civility, here. I can bump it up with the best (worst?) of them but I prefer a certain tone where I am in control.

Comments are discussion. Try to match the comments to the subject matter in the post, in tone, as well as content.