Mark Shurtleff (Paraphrased) says: There won't be a new trial of Warren Jeffs

How do you disapprove of a unanimous Utah Supreme Court Decision, as it's Attorney General?

You can SAY you're disappointed, but you just got told you stink as a legal mind and your reasoning was bankrupt. You've been stomped, you're WRONG:

The Polygamy File - "The decision is going to make it very difficult to retry, based on the same theory of accomplice liability, based on a position of special trust. So, we will leave our options open as far as whether we retry the case or whether we go over to the Legislature and seek some type of legislative change for future cases."

Interpretation? I'm not admitting in front of all you folks that the case is dead, but it's dead.

Besides, if we try it again, Elissa wall will go down for perjury.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Utah Supreme Court gets it Right, and then WRONG

It is truly amazing that the decision was unanimous. The case must have been overwhelmingly wrong and clearly against the Laws of our land. Witness what the Utah Supreme Court had to say to Elissa Wall:

CNN - "We regret the effect our opinion today may have on the victim of the underlying crime, to whom we do not wish to cause additional pain," the court said. "However, we must ensure that the laws are applied evenly and appropriately, in this case as in every case."

After getting it spectacularly right, under extreme pressure to do the expedient in the Political Arena, the Utah Supreme court gets it just as spectacularly WRONG.

Hey! DUMMIES in the ROBES. Until there is a guilty verdict, THERE IS NO CRIME in this case. The question is not "WHO raped Elissa Wall," we KNOW who raped her if she WAS raped. The question is, "Was she RAPED?"

With no one convicted the answer is NO. Don't apologize to the witch, she fabricated evidence.

The above report calls this "shocking." Shocking? Guys, the decision was UNANIMOUS. Are you telling me that not one of CNN's legal experts could have seen this coming? I DID.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

The "Truth Will Prevail" starts a series on Arizona LE corruption

And, I am sure, a few other interesting stories. For instance, what was discussed at the supposed reporting of Elissa Wall's rape? In addition, why wasn't Lamont Barlow, her alleged husband, also arrested on the spot for rape? Could it be it was all a lie?

The first installment is today.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Extradtion of Warren Jeffs from Utah to Texas, by no means automatic

Will Elissa Wall repeat herself and drop charges in Utah (after a new trial)?

Brooke Adams points out this little gem:

77-30-19. Procedure if prosecution pending in this state.

"If a criminal prosecution has been instituted against such person under the laws of this state and is still pending the governor, in his discretion, may either surrender him on demand of the executive authority of another state or hold him until he has been tried and discharged or convicted and punished in this state."

If Warren compels a new trial in Utah (and I think he will), Elissa is faced with pulling out the same old saw she used in Arizona.

"I am dropping the charges so that more serious ones in Texas can be prosecuted."

Ultimately I think Warren's extradition will depend on how fast he gets his new trial, how quickly Elissa demurs and then whether or not the appeal of the raid evidence is heard in Texas.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Buster Johnson and a Round Up of comments on the Jeffs Dismissal

Three smaller Arizona newspapers and the San Francisco Examiner covered the dropping of charges against Warren Jeffs. Their slightly different perspectives from what you heard in the rest of the media, are interesting.

First, the Kingman Daily Miner. It's a relatively dry piece. Of note is the fact that Erin Taylor tried to contact Matt Smith, but he was unavailable for comment. I know of no one in the press who has claimed to have spoken with Matt since the dismissal. David Bell (below) also tried to contact Matt by phone and e-mail.

The "San Francisco Examiner" writes a piece from AP wire sources, but oddly gets a detail that other MSM outlets didn't emphasize:

"Judge Steven Conn granted Mohave County Attorney Matt Smith's motion to dismiss the four charges of being an accomplice to sexual conduct with a minor. The charges stemmed from two arranged marriages between teenage girls and their older male relatives. They were dismissed with prejudice, meaning they cannot be refiled on the same set of facts."

Jim Seckler of the Mohave Daily News also doesn't appear to have been caught by the Spin Machine prior to writing his short article. Nothing new here except one thing. Jim makes mention of the State of Texas and their extradition effort but accurately reports on the evening of the event, that Warren will be returned to Utah. Other media outlets leave the impression that Warren may go to Texas from Arizona, Jim does not.

Failing to contact Matt Smith, David Bell of the Lake Havasu News-Herald gives him a tap on the shoulder by letting him know that he, David Bell, will get his comment somehow, and he does so, by getting Buster Johnson on the phone:

"Mohave County Supervisor Buster Johnson, R-Dist. 3, who has campaigned for more than a decade for reform in the polygamous FLDS communities of Colorado City, Ariz. and Hildale, Utah, said the dropping of charges in Arizona is likely to put the county in a bad light.

'I’m embarrassed for the county. It looks like once again we dropped the ball,' Johnson said. 'While I don’t have the information Matt has, to compare to the reasons why he decided to drop the charges, the taxpayers did pay for the incarceration when it was a Utah’s responsibility.' "

I get the vague impression that Buster didn't know this was coming. That would be the "I don't have the information Matt has" remark. Normally (but not always) this is political code speak for "we didn't discuss this....Matt."  You comment in public in such a way as to let your coworker know that you'd like to know before you got blindsided, so that you can toe the company line. Brooke Adams reported on this first remark by Mr. Johnson, but not on the next one.

Buster takes a jab at the complainants:

"I believed, and the County Attorney believed at time, that we had grounds to file charges. I’m curious why the victims are saying they won’t testify here but victims will in Texas."

First, the "code speak" interpretation. "Easy Matt, I've got your back buddy," since he is now directing fire away from Matt Smith, and instead towards Elissa Wall and company. Here's the rest of the interpretation: "The witnesses are the problem and it appears we were too tough on them, why is Texas not going to be tough on the witnesses?" That's a rock in a sock swung at Texas people, and it's calling Elissa Wall and the other witnesses, liars.

Chris Lujan, a candidate for Arizona AG, spoke with Daily Miner reporter Suzanne Adams:

" 'It's not surprising that the charges (against Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints leader Warren Jeffs) were dismissed. When they lost the witnesses, they lost the case,' he said. It's hard to get witnesses to testify about the abuse they may have seen or experienced, Lujan said."

Except as Buster noted, they will testify in Texas. (Too hot in Arizona?) Texas has had no trouble trying cases without any real witnesses.

I'd like to also point out that the "with prejudice" explanation in the "Examiner" story is revealing. It means that the facts don't support a conviction, as they stand now. Those facts need witnesses to bolster them and make them believable. The witnesses do not wish to testify (now, at least) according to Matt Smith. Since the case cannot be retried on the same set of facts, dismissing the charges with prejudice means nothing other than the witness are in fact, unbelievable, since their return to the stand doesn't help the case.

If the facts don't change, Elissa's testimony can't carry the case because Elissa is a liar, it's as simple as that.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

What Just Happened with Warren Jeffs (and is Sun Tsu smiling?)

I promised "more" later. This will be a long post, as I will quote all the motions and filings made in the last week. They're short, but there are a few of them. The press is neglecting to mention their content and therefore their meaning.

First, Matt Smith's motion to dismiss, With Prejudice, which I shall "Fisk."

"The State of Arizona, by the Mohave county Attorney, hereby moves the Court for an order dismissing the Two Counts of Sexual Conduct with a Minor in cause number CR-20078-0743 and the Two Counts of Sexual Conduct with a Minor in cause number CR-2007-0953, all the charges being Class 6 Felonies, for the reason that the two victims in these cases no longer desire to proceed with prosecution in the State of Arizona for the following reasons:

(1) The Defendant has already served more jail time in Arizona than he would receive even if he was convicted of all the crimes charged;"

Correct me on this first point (someone) if I am wrong, but this goes back to February when Judge Steven Conn first uttered these words. (I'm not wrong about the preceding, but may be wrong about what comes next): As we will later learn from these filings, Warren Jeffs was only in the physical custody of the State of Arizona, he was actually being housed in Arizona, for convenience of prosecution.

This would mean that when Judge Conn stated that Warren had already served enough time (back in February), he was taking rather proactive stance, choosing to regard time served (in legal fact) in the Custody of Utah, as time served in Arizona. This put a lot of pressure on Arizona since before they would have been able to imprison Warren for whatever length of time he was sentenced, provide he was convicted in Arizona. Something that will now never happen.

If true, Judge Conn had clearly signaled Arizona that he thought their case was something he didn't want to step on in his new shoes in their "hate plig barnyard." Put another way, Judge Conn was disgusted with the prosecution and had already begun to take sides. This is a drift you can see if you start at the beginning of the public filings at Mohave County's site, and read through them.

This is rather significant stuff for another reason, as yesterday's highly slanted article in TIME magazine inadvertently lets us know:

"In June 2005, days after being indicted in Arizona on the charges of being an accomplice to sexual conduct with a minor, Jeffs fled the Colorado City, Arizona, area, home to a large FLDS community. A warrant was issued for his arrest and he was placed on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted list. Fourteen months later, he was arrested outside Las Vegas, Nevada, and began his journey from court to court and jail to jail."

These are the "Crown Jewel" charges. The charges that led to Warren Steed Jeffs being placed on the FBI's ten most wanted list. There were no crimes, they have all been dismissed. These last two cases with prejudice, as requested by the prosecutor.

(2) "The State of Texas has much more serious charges against the Defendant that involve the Defendant being the direct perpetrator of the crime, and both Texas and the victims want the Defendant to face these more serious charges as soon as possible;"

This is the purest of spin. It's ugly too. I have stated (and will stick by it) that if we were the proverbial mouse in the corner, the conversation instead, went like this:

Matt (to the witnesses/complainants): "You're unbelievable."

Complainants: "Why thanks Matt."

Elissa: (Winks) "And I'm back on the market, I changed my Facebook Status to 'Single.' Want a signed copy of my book?"

Matt: "It's not a compliment, I'm dismissing the charges and won't file them again. I never want to SEE you again."

Complainants: "You can't drop they charges, we're dropping the charges, um, because, um, Texas wants Warren, and um, that's what we want, um, MORE, yeah, that's the ticket."

Matt: "I was hoping you'd say that, now get out."

(Ok, I filled in a few blanks, but you get my drift.)

Next point 3:

"The State of Texas has already started extradition proceedings against the Defendant;"

Um, Warren isn't in the custody of Arizona. Oh well, this is probably proof that Matt is a good lawyer, and knows who he is working for, he's going to try.

(4) "The Defendant, Warren Jeffs, had significant medical problems while incarcerated in the Mohave County Jail, and the State believes that he should be transferred to another facility as soon as possible;"

This smacks of sour grapes. But it's true Captain Obvious, if Arizona is not going to prosecute, it's time to stop spending money on everything but safe and secure transport, ASAP.

(5) "Some of the State's witnesses no longer desire to testify in the State of Arizona due to the above-mentioned circumstances;"

Um, could this be because they may be pleading the 5th in a related matter very soon?

(6) "It would be impractical and unnecessary to spend taxpayer money on this Defendant under all the above mentioned circumstances;"

Yes, we know, thanks again Captain Obvious.

Now, back to the real Meat of the Motion (Apologies to Henry Glover and Lois Mann):

"The State requests the dismissals in Cause No. CR-2007-0743 and CR-2007-0953 to both be With Prejudice."

Prejudice is "opinion." If Matt had dismissed "Without Prejudice," he would mean he wants to take this up again, but the time is not right. He however, moves to dismiss With Prejudice meaning he never wants to hear about this case again and furthermore, he's asking the Judge Conn to solemnify that opinion, so that no one else can either. Like Texas' evidence collection methods were earlier ruled "Guilty," and Matt concurred, Matt Smith is now saying that Warren is "Not Guilty." Without trial. The motion could delete all the numbered reason Fol-de-Rol in between and just be condensed to this last statement, and the case numbers being dismissed. If Matt wanted to sink Elissa's ship, he could just say she didn't want to testify anymore.

"Defense Attorney, Michael Piccarreta, has been contacted and does not oppose this Motion or Order."

Der.

"RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THIS 9th DAY OF JUNE, 2010.

BY COUNTY ATTORNEY MATTHEW J. SMITH"

This is significant, because a hearing involving "unbelievable" witnesses was to be held the next day, and Hoole and King (Elissa's representation) were bailing on him. Matt waited until the last minute, just as he did in February, and caved. Good for him. He does work for somebody. He owes them the effort, but he caves completely, just as he did before when the jig is up. Shades of Sun Tsu.  (The General says that best strategy ends up with your opponent, surrendering without a fight.)

There is of course the page attached to this motion, the actual order, which is the real deal, and Judge Conn signs it, but not before removing an offending piece of text:

Upon motion of the Mohave County Attorney, and good cause appearing; IT IS ORDERED dismissing the charges of Two Counts of Sexual Conduct with a Minor in Cause No. CR-2007-0743 and Two Counts of Sexual Conduct with a Minor in Cause No. CR-2007-0953 With Prejudice, and exonerating the bond, if any, and quashing the warrant, if any, in this matter. SFC (initialed strike out by Judge Steven F. Conn)

DATED this 9th day of June, 2010. JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT STEVEN F. CONN"

Though your Modern Pharisee is not a Judge or Lawyer, this was either superfluous language, or an attempt to remove Judge Conn from the case. Since the court is done with a defendant when the Bond is exonerated, Warren would have been literally afoot in Arizona, with Texas wanting him. Arizona could have then detained him for extradition. At least that's the way I read it. Judge Conn is no dummy and was having none of that. He makes this clear in a separate order:

"The State has filed a Motion to Dismiss in each of these cases asking that all charges be dismissed with prejudice. Counsel for the Defendant, unsurprisingly, has indicated that he has no opposition.

The Court signs the Order Dismissing Charges as to each cause number.

The Court enters this separate Order to address what may appear to be a separate issue regarding extradition to Texas. The Court does so because the State indicates in its Motion to Dismiss that the Sate of Texas has already started extradition proceedings against the Defendant and because counsel for the Defendant has submitted in each of these cases a pleading entitled Non-Waiver of Extradition to Texas. The Court believes that under A.R.S. 31-481, the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, extradition proceedings cannot be initiated against the Defendant while he is in the State of Arizona and that he could not waive extradition to the State of Texas even if he wanted to. Under the Agreement the temporary custody which Mohave County assumed over the Defendant was only for the purpose of permitting prosecution on the charges contained in the untried Indictments which formed the basis of the detainers. Once those untried charges have been resolved, he must be returned to the sending state, in this case the State of Utah, and he cannot be held to answer a Fugitive Complaint filed in the State of Arizona alleging that he is a fugitive from the State of Texas. Any such proceedings will have to be inititiated through the State of Utah.

IT IS ORDERED directing the Sheriff to transport the Defendant back to the appropriate correctional facility in the State of Utah pursuant the Interstate Agreement on Detainers."

Several times, I have read articles that said, while Warren was in Arizona, that he was in custody in Utah, serving a sentence there. Judge Conn seems to be concurring with the notion that Arizona's custody is only physical, and he says, that Warren is on Loan from Utah, and he has to go back, per the Law. Warren can't even opt to waive extradition to Texas. That's a Utah decision, as they have had him all along, legally. Again, I point to the curiosity that Judge Conn said Warren had already served enough time in Arizona.

According to the Judge, apparently, Warren was serving it in Utah. It is not unprecedented that inmates in one State, serve that time while physically in another State. I will omit Piccarreta's filing about extradition, it's redundant in view of the Judge's concurrence. It is linked in the above ruling by Judge Conn.

Next, Michael Piccarreta's last word:

"Defendant, Warren Jeffs, does not object to any dismissal provided it is with prejudice. Defendant does object to some of the reasons provided by the State as the State has directly omitted the fact that one of the complaining witnesses has been implicated in the creation of false evidence that was introduced at Mr. Jeffs' trial in Utah. In addition to involvement in the creation of the false evidence, the complaining witness and others may have been involved in an ongoing cover-up and conspiracy."

Now we're talking. Is Judge Conn a member of the "Tin Foil Hatters" by allowing this on his record without comment? He took umbrage at Matt Smith's Faux Filings, he takes none here. Piccarreta clears his throat for the FLDS and for Warren Jeffs and states for the record that there probably is conspiracy involved. Who and what this conspiracy involves, that's a matter to be discovered, but there is a conspiracy.

"Defendant believes that the prosecution was ethically obligated to dismiss the cases with prejudice and believes that the prosecutor fulfilled his ethical duties by so doing. An additional reason for the dismissal was that there was no reasonable likelihood of conviction in either of the cases especially in light of recent developments. Defendant has and will oppose any attempts to extradite him to the State of Texas due to the constitutional infirmities and the legal inadequacy that may occur in the Texas criminal justice system."

This is Piccarreta saying "Thanks Matt," and "Nice Try."

"Further, due to the ongoing religious intolerance and religious animosity direct toward the Fundamental Church of Latter Day Saints by the State of Texas, the fairness of the Texas criminal justice process cannot be assured."

"There ain't no Justice" (TANJ) in Texas, they're religious bigots up to the level of the Statehouse. Well, that's the way I read it.

"There are additional legal and factual inadequacies in these cases against Mr. Jeffs which defendant beleives led to their dismissal with prejudice, but the defendant supports the County Attorney's decision in fulfilling his ethical duties and obligations in dismissing these prosecutions.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 9th day of June, 2010. WRIGHT STANISH & WINKLER PICCARRETA DAVIS PC"

No really, thanks Matt, have a nice day.

What really happened? The lead cases that led to Warren's inclusion on the FBI's 10 most wanted list have now completely collapsed. Frankly I don't know of any Fugitive on that list, that when apprehended, was not convicted (barring their death before prosecution). It's an odd category, and I'll have to research it, but it seems unprecedented or at least rare to me.

That collapse is directly tied to Warren's "successful" prosecution in Utah. Elissa Wall wants him in Texas, for dang sure. She might escape or delay perjury charges in Utah if Warren is busy in Texas. Warren is going to back to Utah, and this matter will be continued there, even if we are delayed in knowing the truth because Arizona threw the case over the side to protect her.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

More on the Warren Jeffs dismissal

Folks, I have been VERY busy, just figure I'm working close to 16 hour days and it's very "hands on." I blogged during my only breaks yesterday, one of which was at Little Big Horn. Thus I have scads of analysis on the tip of my tongue (as it were) but have been unable to share it. I haven't been able to read all the docs filed at Mohave County.

The Deseret News though, makes it clear what really happened:

"Judge Steven Conn dismissed the four charges of sexual misconduct with a minor after prosecutors filed a motion Wednesday requesting the dismissal. The charges were dismissed with prejudice, meaning they cannot be refiled."

And there you have it. All the twaddle and spin you are hearing on the news, like what I heard on the Radio (CNN) is just smoke, though dangerous misleading smoke it is.

The Salt Lake Tribune - "(Arizona Judge Steven Conn) has dismissed two cases pending against Warren S. Jeffs in Arizona and ordered that he be sent back to Utah, a move that abruptly ends the state's prosecution of the polygamous sect leader and potentially puts Jeffs on a faster track to face more serious charges in Texas.

(The Judge's) ruling came after County Attorney Matt Smith filed a motion Wednesday asking that the cases be dropped so that Texas can proceed against the 54-year-old Jeffs -- something Smith said both Arizona victims want."

The truth the case is dead. More on that later. The charges were dismissed "with extreme prejudice." This is not about what the "victims want." Arizona is making sure there will never be a trial. The victims can go whistle "Dixie" if they choose, they were not consulted, they were TOLD. There won't be a trial if they change their minds, come up with new evidence, have a vision from the Almighty or any other scenario that is proposed.

The San Angelo Standard-Times - "Mohave County, Ariz., Attorney Matt Smyth (sic) filed a motion Wednesday to dismiss sexual misconduct with a minor charges against the former leader of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS). Arizona poured well more than 1,000 man hours into the investigation and prosecution of Jeffs and case dismissal comes with disappointment.

'I would say it is with a lot of regrets,' Smith said. 'We certainly wanted to have our day in court here in Mohave County, but I have to give a lot of respect to what the victim’s wishes are.'

Smith explained that the victims understand that Jeffs has already spent more time in jail in Mohave County than he could be ordered to serve if convicted on both counts and given the maximum sentence. He said neither of the victims, Elyssa (sic) Wall nor Susie Barlow, wants to go through the pressure of additional trials under those circumstances."

Bull Feathers Matt. Don't lie. Among other things a key is understanding that Warren had already spend more time in Jail than he would if convicted, in Arizona.

Another factor? It would be the Elissa Wall is no longer a credible witness.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

A Question for Anti FLDS Trolls

Why is there no trial date for Allen Steed?

Wanna go to Vegas and lay down a bet that he will never be tried? Why do you think that is?

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Matt Smith says "Yes" & "No"

There is a new posting at the Mohave county site.

In it Matt Smith says the defense is right to ask for expense records of Hoole & King with regard to prosecution witnesses, one of whom is Elissa Wall, another being Jane Blackmore. Hoole & King for their part are pleading for more time, hinting that the task is difficult, which in turn suggests there were a lot of payments to a lot of witnesses for a lot of money or that Hoole & King regards the payments as impeaching their testimony or that it would lead to other questions, which Piccarreta is asking and which Matt Smith is resisting, at least for now.

Actually any one or all of the above could apply or any combination. I'll update later with a link. This was blogged from my phone.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Hoole and King about to crack open like an egg?

Roger Hoole (about to be Huevos?)

To paraphrase a bit, to make an omelet, you gotta scramble some Hoole (& King).

This week there have been some interesting filings in Mohave County. First Warren Jeffs' Attorneys filed a motion to have Hoole and King reveal financial dealings with the prosecutions witnesses. At this point, I have to again emphasize that I find prosecutor Matt Smith to be an honorable man. Smith assisted (as is his duty) the defense in requesting information on the 12th last month, and again in a second request to Hoole & King on the 28th (page 3 of the PDF) that Hoole & King disclose money paid to a witness (Jane Blackmore) that are now assumed by all, to have lied under oath. At any rate, no one (Judge Conn/Matt Smith) is protesting the language of Michael Piccarreta's motions, that Jane did lie under oath. Jane it would seem has now come clean and is scrambling to be able to come into the United States from Canada, and not be arrested and thrown in the clink, for perjury.

Hoole & King for their part, were to have replied by a deadline of Tuesday last week, and guess what? They didn't. Page four of the PDF of the motion declares that the defense and the prosecution (Matt Smith) have discharged their good faith efforts, and it's now time for the court to step in. The evidence that this is a cooperative effort of both defense and prosecution, not just in form, but in spirit, is that Judge Conn immediately takes up the motion, and grants it, and sets a date next month (not in September, the agreed upon date for resolving motions). Judge Conn states that; "(I)t seems clear that (the defense) want(s) to be heard on this motion before September 3, 2010."

On the list of those for whom expenses be discloses are Jane Blackmore, Rebecca Musser, Richard Holm, Carolyn Jessop and "any other State Witness." In some cases I imagine Hoole & King has no choice. In others, if they don't present the expenses, it may simply be that those witnesses may not appear for the prosecution.

Clearly Jane Blackmore has said something that leads Piccarreta to believe that the monies paid out to various witnesses or potential witnesses against Warren Jeffs by Hoole & King have gone beyond merely the reimbursement of expenses and have gone into the area of funneling money to those witnesses. Either that, or this is a court sponsored fishing trip. In the latter case it is the lying by witnesses and the reticence (to be polite) of Hoole & King to provide information the defense is entitled to have, that has led to the issuance of that fishing license.

A good defenses is going to take every advantage of every opportunity to peak into the sock drawer of the prosecution and it's friends. If they find something on a state sanctioned trip that they weren't looking for, that helps, this is America. The defense is always provided more latitude and given more in the way of rights than the prosecution.

Bottom line, if there is something to find inside Hoole & King and it's various clients associations with each other, and with Hoole & King, the defenses is now going to find it, or the case is going to collapse. The ruling on the "Unlawful" nature of the raid in Texas was one strut kicked out from under the prosecution's chair in February, and Matt Smith making the mistake of "looking" at YFZ evidence has severely handicapped him. Losing a list of witnesses because they won't appear or because they have perjured themselves is another leg out from under the stool.

After this expedition by the defense, it will clearly be a balancing act for Matt. The question will be, does he want to keep it up after Judge Conn told him about 4 months ago, that he's probably going to sentence Jeffs to "Time Served," even if he does get his conviction?

Will Matt be interested in warehousing Warren Jeffs for Texas in an Arizona Jail if the conviction in Utah falls apart (Elissa Wall's seeming perjury). It seems more and more clear that the foot dragging is designed to keep Warren behind bars, until the evidence already thrown out in Arizona as "Unlawfully collected" is used in Texas to convict him when he goes on trial there.

Another thing. Will Warren be out on bail by the time he's tried in Texas?

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Elissa Wall interviewed by Utah AG (UPDATED)

Big (Blonde) Liar?

Yup, what Jane Blackmore said was credible enough, to put Elissa back on the hotseat:

The Salt Lake Tribune - "Roger Hoole, Wall's attorney, said the development was a 'concern' and that he felt it would be appropriate to remand the case back to the trial court.

He said Wall was voluntarily being interviewed by the A.G.'s Office on Thursday.
'If Elissa was involved at all, it was unwittingly,' Hoole said. 'This is very unfortunate and we're very concerned about it.'

He said the development didn't change the fact that she had been forced into an unwanted marriage and had nonconsensual sex.

(Michael) Piccarreta said (Warren) Jeffs' attorneys had just received the A.G.'s filing and were still reviewing it, but were 'pleased' that a witness had the integrity to come forward with the information, which he said 'undermines the integrity of the trial.'

'It also suggests that there is a long-term, ongoing attempt to obstruct justice or cover up this fact and people who are involved in this have to make a decision whether they will come forward and tell the truth,' he said. 'I would expect law enforcement would take into account people who have come forward and told the trust, but on the other hand there should be harsh consequences for those who continue with the cover up.'

Piccarreta said that 'generally witnesses who are involved in that behavior are not to be trusted in other aspects of their testimony.'

During the trial, (Jane) Blackmore testified under oath that documents introduced as Exhibit 43 were the original records of Wall's visits to her Canadian clinic for medical treatment."

This story, which I had been informed a week ago was "out there," probably broke with a tip originating in the Utah AG's office or with Roger Hoole, who we now know was having his client rather hastily "re-interviewed" by the AG's office while he was "unavailable for comment" earlier yesterday afternoon. Your Modern Pharisee pointed to idea that an INcredible witness in one area of sworn testimony tends to be regarded as an UNbelievable one in other areas. Hoole is scrambling to salvage his client's credibility or else the conviction fails. He's also trying to keep his client out of jail.

UPDATE - I was on the way out the door to work this morning, so I hadn't had time to fully round out my thoughts. From outward appearances, the prosecution of Allen Steed is dead. Elissa will be ripped to shreds on the stand whether she lied or not in testimony at the Warren Jeffs trial. Why? Let's downshift into Warren's conviction.

Warren should be able to lever this development into freedom (with regard to Utah) as well. Even if it is shown that Elissa did not consciously misrepresent facts, she can now be shown not to be able to remember them well enough to amount to a hill of beans. Warren should be given a new trial, and the developments this week will be used as a hammer against any testimony that is based on her distant past recollections.

Hasn't this always been the problem with old crimes based on witness testimony? People who in psychoanalysis suddenly "remember" a murder or a rape? Exhibit 43 is now for legal purposes, a fiction. The whole timeline is subject to question and it appears that Elissa's memory of it, bolstered by forged documents can't be relied on either. Why then would we rely on her knowing when her "rape" occurred? Even assuming that the rape did occur as she described it, she doesn't really have any idea when it happened.

Under the above scenario, Warren is granted a new trial, and the charges will be dropped.

You don't believe me? Hoole is in full client protection mode right now. Everything including Elissa's testimony is expendable, except for Elissa herself.

Also, you have to realize that if the statement of the AG's office was issued after Elissa's visit, they have already said they no longer believe her or no longer regard her as credible.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Earthquake in Warren's Case

FLDS Leader Warren Jeffs

The Utah Attorney General's office is stepping out of the way, and letting Warren have his way:

"The (Utah) Attorney General’s Office told the Utah Supreme Court that it would not oppose a defense request for a stay of Jeffs’ appeal to allow for an investigation and an evidentiary hearing on the new allegations.

Assistant Attorney General Laura Dupaix wrote in the notice that Utah prosecutors were not aware of this potential evidence at the time of trial and had only learned about it two days ago. She wrote that the Attorney General’s Office is "ethically bound to provide notice of this potential newly-discovered evidence both to the Court and to Jeffs’ Utah Counsel.' "

This is major. It may lead to the conviction being laid aside and no new trial. If Elissa forged evidence, she is no longer a credible witness against anyone. Warren's conviction depends entirely on a credible Elissa Wall. Read more here.

The reason you don't appeal when you're in the process of appeal is simple. You expect the conviction to be reversed. Rather than play the obstructionist, the Utah AG's office is rolling out the red carpet for Warren's defense. That means not only do they believe what was heard from Jane Blackmore, but they don't think that when the facts are revealed, they could sell any other interpretation of them.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

What did Jane Blackmore Say?

Video Courtesy of KSL.com

I've been sitting on this for a week, but, it's out:

A deputy (Washington County Utah) attorney confirmed to KSL they received information that Jane Blackmore, a midwife to Elissa Wall during a miscarriage and witness in the trial, lied during her testimony.

They are also looking into whether medical records she provided are accurate.

Jeffs was convicted of being an accomplice to the rape of Wall, for forcing her to marry her 19-year-old cousin when she was 14.

Attorneys for Jeffs had no comment.

At this point, no appeals dealing with this specific investigation have been filed."

There would be no hurry as this is not a "get out of jail free card." Warren is in jail in Arizona, and that has to be resolved, then there is the matter in Texas.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Will there ever be a trial? Judge G. Rand Beacham wanders away from the problem.

After taking an overly long time to decide what should be a simple matter, the Judge in the Allen Glade Steed (could be a rape) case, punts. Or maybe it's a "mulligan." In addition, the Judge seems to put the game into continuous overtime, as he specifies no time limit.

I have decided to "Fisk" the order:

"Having studied the memoranda supporting and opposing Defendant's 'Motion to Dismiss for Statute of Limitations,' the Court finds it necessary to require the parties to submit supplemental memoranda to clarify the facts before the Court for the following reasons:

1. Defendant's original memorandum contains fact statements in 23 paragraphs and subparagraphs, many of which contain multiple sentences. Many of those statements are made without reference to any evidentiary source."

I'm not sure entirely what Judge Beacham wants of Allen, though perhaps someone could enlighten me. How is it that you deny an event with evidence that the accuser can only give a "range" of times as candidates for the date the offense took place?

I passed through that section of southwestern Utah on multiple occasions during that rough time frame. On some days I have an ironclad evidentiary alibi. I can prove from California DMV records that I wasn't in Utah on certain days, but on other days, I can't. I would expect the innocent to be vague on when it was that they didn't do something.

2. "Plaintiff's opposing memorandum contains statements of fact in five paragraphs and Attachment A, for which some sources are cited but not provided to the Court. For example, Plaintiff refers repeatedly to a trial transcript as '9/19 Tr/.,' followed by numbers, but the transcript pages have not been provided to the Court. In addition, Attachment A contains references to unexplained 'facts,' such as 'the incident at the park' which is not otherwise explained."

Frankly, I have seen a lot of what appears to be "classroom" cheating in these cases, such as getting to look at someone else's paper. It would seem to me that Elissa wants Allen to be specific, before she is. Understandably, if I were Allen, the accused, I'd want to see specific dates and times before I started trying to prove I wasn't in town every day of the week, except for Thursday, and then suddenly, Elissa has a "recollection" that the "crime" occurred on May 10th, 2001. She's the accuser, let her pony up with some specifics.

3. "Both parties have also referred to additional facts within their legal arguments, some of which are not supported by any evidentiary source before the Court.

Although the Court has attempted to analyze the statue of limitations issue on the basis of the facts as they have been presented, the Court's analysis has been hampered by insufficient clarity in the facts as presented. For example, the memoranda disagree as to when the alleged rape took place, a fact critical to the statute of limitations issue."

"Both parties" really means "one party." That one party being Elissa Wall/the Prosecution (or "it"). Essentially Ms. Wall cannot remember exactly what happened, and not surprisingly, Mr. Steed cannot remember specifics to counter such a vague recollection on her part. If Elissa cannot remember with clarity, in essence, Judge Beacham has enough to rule already. Namely, enough to rule that the Statute has expired, otherwise he'd rule that her vague set of dates falls within the statute and that her vague recollections surrounding the rape represent a "preponderance of evidence," sufficient to bring charges, but not sufficient to determine guilt. At trial, the standard would be "beyond a reasonable doubt." Judge Beacham has stated clearly that as yet, Ms. Wall's accusation, is not believable.

As to Allen? Like I said, when you don't know what you're being accused of, you can't exactly deny it. He's not believable either, but for entirely different reasons. He's grasping at air. Nail something down and he might be a witness as unassailable as the rock of Gibraltar.

I cannot emphasize enough that Judge Beacham is trying to disguise the fact that Elissa Wall hasn't made a case that she was raped and reported that rape in a timely way, based only on "preponderance" standards. He has also made it clear that Allen has raised a credible point as to the time frame already.

"Defendant asserts that 'Mr. Steed is accused of only one count of rape which is alleged to have been committed more than 4 years before the legislative extension took effect on May 2, 2005.' [Defendant's Memorandum, p. 10, emphasis in the original.] Plaintiff states that it intends to proceed on 'the first time Mr. Steed had sexual intercourse with Elissa Wall' and asserts that 'the first act of sexual intercourse occurred before May 12, 2001 but no earlier than May 4, 2001.'* [Plaintiff's memorandum, p.2.]

* (The Information alleges that the crime was committed "between April 14, 2001 and September 30, 2004.)

I can't be sure what is being said here, other than one set of facts say the "crime" may have occurred in April 2001, as early as the 14th, and another range of dates says it may have occurred between May 2nd, 2001 and May 12th, 2001. The legislative extension on reporting, passed on May 2nd 2005. If I understand this right, a "rape" date of April 14th, 2001-May 1st, 2001 (remember there is only one count) puts the "crime" outside the reporting dates for the "extended" statute. Crimes occurring 4 years prior to the "extension" are taken in by the "extension." Crimes more than 4 years prior, are not.

"The court is required to determine by a preponderance of evidence whether this prosecution is barred. Utah Code Ann. § 76-1-306. Consequently, the Court must be able to weigh the evidence, and that requires greater clarity than what has been provided to this point in time.**

Ideally the parties would present a stipulated set of facts , set forth in chronological order. If that is not possible in this case, the Court will require that each party submit his/its comprehensive statement of facts, in chronological order and with citations to evidentiary sources."

** (I suspect that one reason for this is the parties' familiarity with the history of and the testimony given in State v. Jeffs, of which this Court has virtually no knowledge.)

And so the Judge begs off and says "I don't know your prior case and you haven't made one here, go back and make one." Elissa.

Again, I would observe that the Judge is stating between the lines that Ms. Wall and the prosecution have NOT made a "preponderance" presentation that convinces him a crime took place within the reporting framework of the statute. So they get a second chance to do so. A second chance with no due date.

What if Allen holds off and makes no "comprehensive" statement of facts? Will Elissa ever do so? What if she holds off? What the Judge is doing seems to be casting this case into the void, that is, unless the trial proceeds now because the Defendant's motion is "no longer under advisement."

If one or the other party speedily files a chronology and then goes back to the court to compel a ruling, will the Judge rule on one set of facts, absent the other? Here is the order:

"Accordingly it is hereby ORDERED:

A. Each party shall submit a supplemental memorandum containing only his/its comprehensive statement of facts related to the statute of limitations issue, in chronological order and with citations to evidentiary sources.

B. Each party shall also submit documentation of the evidentiary source cited for each statement of fact.

C. When each party has submitted the required statement of facts and documentation, one of them shall file a request to submit for decision.

D. Defendant's Motion will no longer be under advisement until the Court receives the supplemental memoranda, documentation and request to submit in compliance with this order.

DATED this 26 day of March, 2010.

JUDGE G. RAND BEACHAM"

No doubt some will crow that Allen's motion has been "thrown out." What I see is that unless a trial date is now set, this is a big and infinite stall. Personally, if I were Allen, I wouldn't file my set of facts, until I knew Elissa had filed hers. I'd be afraid she'd look over my shoulder, and cheat off my paper.

Sadly, it would seem that we're now playing a game of who goes first again, with Warren Jeffs' trial now put off for 7 months.

Or maybe something will happen with the Lamont Barlow interview that sabotages everything, in Warren's favor. Ruling in Allen's favor right now, might just crack the jail cell door open for Mr. Jeffs.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Lamont Interview "Next Week," Jeffs trial date in November

The Pre Trial will be October 8th, 2010 and trial, November 2nd.

In view of Judge Conn's observation about sentencing length, this is a curious date. By the time trial is conducted, if there is a guilty verdict, Judge Conn has just about guaranteed that Jeffs will then go free, at least as far as these charges in Arizona are concerned.

The Mohave Daily News - "(Matt) Smith also said there are remaining interviews, including an interview next week with Lamont Barlow, the current husband of one of the two alleged victims in Jeffs’ Arizona criminal case."

That would seem to mean the first or second week in April (this week includes part of April, by Thursday, April 8th, it will be the second week in April.) We may not learn anything about what transpires at the interview until about "tax day."

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Specter of Elissa Wall pleading the 5th looms

Either that, or she's going to risk multiple perjury charges. That's a prediction by the way. Predictions are not prophecy. They're predictions. I also predict that Michael Piccarreta will get his order for a Deposition of Lamont Barlow, and that's going to lead to someone recanting, or pleading the 5th, or perjuring herself/himself. Read the Motion:

The defendant, Warren Jeffs, by and through counsel undersigned, hereby replies to the State's response and Lamont Barlow's opposition to his motion of the deposition of Lamont Barlow.

The request for Lamont Barlow's deposition stems from the fact that Ms. Shannon Price contacted County Attorney Brock Belnap of Washington County, Utah, "and she told him that (Elissa Wall*) had lied during her testimony at the Warren Jeffs Trial" in the state of Utah. [See report of Washington County Sheriff Chief Deputy Jake Schultz, attached to Defendant's Motion for Deposition of Witness Lamont Barlow]. Mr. Belnap then instructed Washington County Sheriff Chief Deputy Jake Schultz to interview Ms. Price and she provided further information about this alleged false testimony. Specifically, Ms. Price stated that "Lamont told her that (Elissa Wall's*) medical records had all been created in one day, to make it look like she had seen caretaker on several different occasions." [Id.].

This matter will obviously be admissible at trial as it relates directly to (Elissa Wall's*) Credibility, or lack thereof.

Indeed, Arizona's rules of discovery are quite broad and allow the parties to pursue any matters that might lead to admissible evidence. "It is not a basis for objection 'that the information sought will be inadmissible at the trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead the the discovery of admissible evidence. American Family Medical Insurance Company v. Grant, 222 Ariz. 507,__, pp 12,217 P.3d 1212, 1217 PP 12 (App. 2009) [quoting Ariz. R. Civ. P.26(b)(1)(A)]. Moreover, the Arizona Supreme Court has made it quite clear that, in criminal cases:

"We believe that a trial court should exercise its discretion in favor of seeing that the accused is furnished with every fact necessary to prepare the best possible defense. The modern trend (in**) discovery proceedings is to have the winner determined by the facts, rather than by which side is the most ingenious in 'playing the game.' "

State v. Ford, 108 Ariz.404,409,499P.2d699,704(1972).

The state correctly notes that it "suggested to defense counsel" that defense counsel move for Mr. Barlow's deposition.

[State's Response, p. 3]. The State suggested this due to the fact that defense counsel had been unable to schedule Mr.

Barlow's interview, despite repeated attempts. [see attached email correspondence]. Accordingly, the defendant has filed the present motion.

The defendant concedes that Mr. Barlow was, in fact, interviewed as to all matters known at that time. The new interview or deposition of Mr. Lamont Barlow will center on the recent report by Ms. Shannon Price to law enforcement about (Elissa Wall's*) false testimony. These matters will obviously be admissible at trial and the rules of discovery clearly contemplate that these matters will be explored through pretrial discovery and interviews.

In his opposition to the motion to depose Lamont Barlow, Mr. Hoole now attempts to re-write history and presents a new version of facts that directly contradicts Ms. Price's statements. However, the defendant is not obliged ot accept teh new version of events that Mr. Barlow, after consultation with Mr. Hoole, now presents. Nor is the defendant obliged to accept the numerous "conditions" that Mr. Hoole is attempting to place on the interview or deposition of Lamont Barlow. It must be remembered that the Mr. Hoole represents not only complaining witness (Elissa Wall*), but also her husband Lamont Barlow, and also claims to have some type of privileged attorney-client relationship with Ms. Shannon Price's employer, the diversity foundation, whom Mr. Hoole claims is some sort of "client representative."1 Mr. Hoole now has a statement from an employee of a "client representative," Ms. Shannon Price, that indicates that the client he represents, complaining witness (Elissa Wall) committed perjury, and Ms. Shannon Price's comments now also directly contradict the statements of Mr. Lamont Barlow, yet another client of Mr. Hoole's. Given all of these obvious conflicts, Mr. Hoole's desire to limit the inquiry is understandable, but not acceptable.

Indeed, it is obvious that there are issues of fact that will have to be explored and will have to be resolved, ultimately, by the jury concerning the problems with (Elissa Wall's*) credibility. Moreover, the defendant is not willing to accept the assertions by the state and counsel for Mr. Barlow that the allegations of (Elissa Wall's*) perjury are limited to simply medical matters. Ms. Shannon Price's report to Washington County Attorney Brock Belnap was not limited. As noted above, "she told him that (Elissa Wall*) had lied during her testimony at the Warren Jeffs Trial." Mr. Belnap then instructed Chief Deputy Schultz to interview Ms. Price, and this is where some of the statements were made about fabricated medical records. The defendant is entitled to fully explore all of these matters, and to further explore the issues of whether there have been any attempts to influence the testimony of any witness, including but not limited to, conversations with third parties.

In addition, the somewhat far-fetched versions of events that Lamont Barlow now presents with Mr. Hoole's help will, itself, be a factual matter for the jury to resolve. Mr. Barlow now claims that it was Mr. Jeffs' attorney in the Utah case, Mr. Walter Bugden, and not (Elissa Wall*) that provided false information in the Utah trial about (Elissa Wall's*) medical condition, and Ms. Price "simply misunderstood" what Lamont barlow had told her. [Barlow's Opposition, p. 2]. The problem with Lamont Barlow's new story is that Ms. Price never said anything bout who may or may not have provided false information about (Elissa Wall's*) medical condition at trial, she stated initially to Washington County Attorney Brock Belnap that (Elissa Wall*) lied during her testimony. She later told the deputy that"Lamont told her that (Elissa Wall's) medical records had all been created in one day, to make it look like she had seen a caretaker on several different occasions." [Schultz Report]. This is obviously a quite separate, and also quite serious, matter. Again, while Mr. Hoole's desire to wish this matter away is understandable, the defendant is not required to accept this new version of events, and is not required to accept any limitations on his ability to fully explore this new matter.

Again, this matter will be brought out at trial as neither Mr. Barlow nor Mr. Hoole can prevent the defendant from question all of the witnesses involved about these matters during the trial. Obviously, this matter can be dealt with more efficiently at trial if, as the rules of criminal discovery clearly contemplate, the issues are narrowed and the factual matters are fully explored during the pretrial discovery. Accordingly, the defendant categorically rejects the proposed limitations Mr. Hoole is suggesting for Mr. Barlow's interview. In addition, the defendant specifically objects to Mr. Barlow's interview being conducted in St. George, Utah, at Mr. Belnap's offices. Indeed, the defendant's request to depose Mr. Barlow in Salt Lake City was specifically designed to accommodate him and his attorney. Ms. Shannon Price will interviewed in Salt Lake City where she lives and works, the prosecutor and defense counsel will be present in Salt Lake City for this interview, Mr. Hoole's offices are in Salt Lake city, and it was thought that Lamont Barlow did reside or currently resides in Salt Lake city although counsel is not certain. Mr. Hoole will presumably be present for Mr. Barlow's interview and he is certainly free to bring to the interview whatever transcripts he wishes.

This is av very serious matter when the executive director of Diversity, an entity that has worked diligently to harm Mr. Jeffs and other FLDS members, feels compelled to advise the previous prosecutor of Mr. Jeffs, Washington County Attorney Brock Belnap, that (Elissa Wall*), the same accuser in this case, had lied during the Warren Jeffs trial. She later provided additional information regarding statements from Lamont Barlow and creation of a false document relating to (Elissa Wall's*) medical records. Lamont Barlow, after consultation with his and (Elissa wall's*) counsel, provides an affidavit claiming she is mistaken. Defense counsel is entitled to explore this very serious matter and also to explore what, if any, communications any of these parties had with third parties discussion these issues. The witnesses' positions can be clarified during the interview process so that the matters can be presented properly at trial. It would not be fair or appropriate to deny the defendant the right to investigate such serious allegations made against the key witness and accuser of Mr. Jeffs and certainly should not be limited by artificial restrictions proposed by their lawyer who is highly motivated to limit the disclosure of information.

For the foregoing reasons, the defendant, Warren Jeffs, by and through his counsel undersigned, hereby respectfully requests this court to order the deposition of Lamont Barlow to take place on March 16, 2010, at Parsons, Behle & Latimer, One Utah Center, 201 South Main Street, Suite 1800, Salt Lake City, Utah 84111, following the interview of Shannon Price. See proposed order attached to Motion for Deposition of Witness Lamont Barlow.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 1st day of March, 2010.

(1. Arizona, of course, does not recognize through rule, statute, or decisional law, any such privilege for a "client representative," outside the context of some sort of organization or entity. As noted in the defendant's pleadings concerning depositions Diversity Foundation's founder Dan Fischer and Mr. Sam Brower.)

*In the PDF found at Mohave County, there is no name appearing here. It is almost certainly that of Ms. Wall.

** In the PDF found at Mohave County, the word is actually "is," and I have substituted "in," believing it to be a typo.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Conn indicates strong inclination to Depose/Interview Lamont Barlow (UPDATED)

I'm guessing Judge Conn is saying; do it voluntarily or be subpoenaed. (UPDATE, the AP agrees with the Modern Pharisee's analysis).

"Counsel for the Defendant has filed a Motion for Deposition of Witness Lamont Barlow in CR-2007-0743and requested oral argument as soon as possible. The State has filed a Response seeming to indicate that Mr. Barlow does not have any objection to granting another personal interview, presumably limited to the issue identified in defense counsel's motion. If he is willing to grant a personal interview, then he is not subject to being deposed pursuant to Rule 15.3 However, the Court can understand that counsel would like this issue resolved before arriving in Salt Lake City on March 16th, 2010. The Court will probably be inclined to order Mr. Barlow to submit to a deposition on or about the above date but only if he refuses to grant a personal interview and only to cover the issue identified in the defense motion.

IT IS ORDERED setting this matter for hearing on the above motion on Friday, March 5, 2010. at 830 a.m.

The Court will not provide for the presence of the Defendant at the above hearing unless specifically requested by defense counsel at least 24 hours in advance.

Counsel for the Defendant having filed a Request for Omnibus Hearing in each case,

IT IS ORDERED setting these matters for Omnibus Hearing on Friday, March 26, 2010, at 8:30 a.m."

The claim of "four layer hearsay" is not impressive to Judge Conn, apparently he thinks something smells wrong and that the defense is entitled to delve a bit.

This could get tricky as Lamont Barlow is married to Elissa Wall, but there are few good options for Lamont and Elissa if she did hide something. It will start a chain of events where she will be back under oath. I assume that Warren's investigators have found something, and they're going to start asking uncomfortable questions. My information is, that whatever various FLDS operatives/investigators/lawyers have found, they are certain of their footing.

Figure it this way, Elissa Wall's rape by proxy, as "directed" by Warren Jeffs begins to fall apart a bit, since she was regarded as "believable" by the jury. If it is shown she is not believable with regard to material facts, then we will potentially start all over again. An impeached Elissa Wall, opens doors.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Looking Good for Allen Steed

I didn't report on it at the time, but as the day (rumored) for Judge Beacham's decision approaches, I thought I might weigh in now.

This is an opinion of course, based on the facts, and I'm not the judge. In the past when I've made similar statements, I've been lambasted by the less than honest for making unqualified remarks. These remarks, are qualified.

The St. George Spectrum - " 'How does the state file information in September 2007 that they allege happened in May 2001?' (Allen Steed's attorney) asked.

(Jim) Bradshaw chipped away at the prosecution's contention the report was first made in January 2005, when Wall's boyfriend sat down to breakfast with Mohave County (Arizona) Attorney's Office investigator Gary Engels at a Hurricane restaurant and informed him of the allegations, arguing Engels is not certified as a law enforcement officer and the discussion did not constitute a formal report."

It's pretty simple, what the defense is arguing; there is a law, there is what is known as a legal report of a crime, there is a time limit. The applicable law that governs this case for reporting states a time limit for a specific kind of report. That report was not made in that time frame.

The ugly truth is that if Jim Bradshaw is right, particularly on the time frame issue. Regardless of what actually happened, there is a limit and it's been exceeded if what the prosecution calls a report, is not a report in the Court's eyes. The gavel bangs and it's "next case." The very fact that this hearing was held is proof that the defense has a credible contention. Even the prosecution, concedes this:

"(Brock) Belnap acknowledged that if the court does not regard the comments made to Engels and his subsequent vague e-mail to Belnap's office about a child bride as a report to law enforcement, then the case was not filed in time to fulfill the statute.

'If that is not sufficient, we would have to concede it is not sufficient,' he said.

The burden rests with the prosecution to prove the statute was fulfilled."

It really is refreshing to get out of Texas. Both Arizona and Utah seem to possess less hell bent for leather minds. Less "damning of the torpedoes," less "full speed ahead," or "come hell or high water." In Texas you get the impression folks think they're going to "make it happen." That's pretty macho. In St. George, Brock is honest about his chances.

I don't know the Judge in this case, but you figure he is looking over his shoulder at who will be second guessing him on appeal. He could ignore the facts and rule the way he wants to, but it will come back to haunt him, and he knows it.

"(Fifth District Court Judge G. Rand) Beacham said he would issue a written decision on the arguments at an undetermined time.

'I just have to satisfy myself that I have corralled the facts,' he said.

Belnap said a ruling in the Steed case will not directly affect the Jeffs case, although 'they would be free to make whatever arguments they wanted.' "

Belnap acknowledges that though strictly speaking, the lack of a rapist doesn't legally preclude the existence of an accomplice, it will get dicey for holding Warren's conviction together, if Allen Steed is not convicted. Charges not reported in the correct time frame means there will never be, a rapist.

It will look ridiculous to the public. It will not look like justice. It is also a case of special circumstance, and Warren can't be said in this case, no matter what the law says, to have conspired to commit an act that didn't take place, particularly if the primary couldn't be convicted because the crime was never reported in the first place.

It doesn't look to me, like reporting took place. The frothing opposition says to me often, that I'm an idiot, that the law doesn't require a perpetrator, for there to be an accomplice. Well kids, the law says a report has to be filed in a proper manner, in the proper time frame, with proper documentation to the proper kind of person(s).

It doesn't look like that happened. I say Allen Steed wins. Probably right here, and right now. If not, he'll win this later.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Michael Piccarreta goes Public, he "smells a rat." Judge Conn will look at YFZ Evidence Exclusion.

Are you sure it's not a Fish(er)?

The Mohave Daily News - " 'I smell a rat,' Piccarreta said. 'Elissa Wall has received so much money. I want to show that she's biased against my client.'

(Judge Steven) Conn said he will take the motion (to depose Dan Fisher and Sam Brower) under advisement."

This is a sign of growing confidence on the part of Warren Jeffs' attorney, who normally plays his cards very close to the vest.

"(Judge Conn) will also set another hearing in February for another motion to exclude evidence seized during a 2008 raid on a FLDS compound in Texas. Other motions to be addressed is a deposition of Carolyn Jessop, a well-known critic of the FLDS, and a motion to list expert witnesses that Mohave County Attorney Matt Smith plans to call at Jeffs' upcoming trial."

Michael Piccarreta stands a good chance of getting everything he wants in terms of depositions. If he does not, start striking witnesses from Warren's case.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

Warren Jeffs again asks Elissa (Redacted) Wall for "Impeachment" material.

Michael Piccarreta cites Romley v. Superior Court 1992 and says Elissa Wall is hiding behind her victim status.

Once again, the state spreads the "redacting" fig leaf of white out over her name, but allows the usage of her book Title. This alone makes it self evidently right that the defense should have access to this material.

More →

Sphere: Related Content