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

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