◼ New trial date set for child molestation case after 2 mistrials - Will Houston/Times-Standard
District Attorney's Office to appeal judge's decision with state
...In the first trial in 2011, Humboldt County Superior Court Judge Bruce Watson declared a mistrial after the jury hung 11-1 in favor of convicting Littlefield. During the second trial in September 2013, the jury found Littlefield guilty of all charges. The sentencing hearing was delayed until last week, during which Superior Court Judge John Feeney declared a mistrial for jury misconduct after a juror indicated in a declaration that the defense did not prove that Littlefield was not guilty, according to District Attorney Paul Gallegos. As the burden of proof is the responsibility of the prosecution and not the defense, Gallegos said Feeney believed there was misconduct on the part of the juror and the mistrial was granted.
"I don't believe the evidence supports that conclusion," Gallegos said. "The juror told the judge, 'I had mispoken,' and knew the burden of proof was on us. The court chose not to believe the juror."
Gallegos said his office will be appealing the decision to the state Attorney General's Office.
◼ Timothy Littlefield posted bail and is out of custody - John Chiv/Words Worth
◼ The Timothy Littlefield story the mainstream media did not cover; another juror gives perspective - John Chiv/Words Worth
...According to the sworn affadavit on May 5, this juror received a phone call in September 2013 from a private investigator, Kevin Stonebarger, who asked him if he was willing to talk about his time spent as a juror. Fair enough. Attorneys for both sides do that. The timing was shortly after the verdict was reached in the 2nd trial....
A. Sentencing is supposed to happen within 20 Court days. No?Sept...Oct...Nov...Dec...Jan...Feb...Mar...Apr...May... what the hell happened?
B. Where'd this sudden discovery of 'juror misconduct' come from?
C. Did Gallegos cross-examine this juror regarding this sudden revelation? It appears so.... how and when?
So let me get this straight. Clanton's office runs to Court with a declaration from this Juror, that said one thing. Then during actual testimony, the Juror said the opposite. (Shocking this happens everyday in Court.) Yet, the Judge decided to believe the written declaration and not the testimony in Court. A few questions. Who wrote that declaration? Who is working for Clanton? Was the juror bullied? There is seriously something wrong here, and I hope our media get to the bottom of this. I wish Gallegos luck on the appeal, but I wonder if these arguments were effectively made at the trial Court. Was opposition filed? The time to not lose this issue was in the trial Court, not hope for a better result on appeal.
ReplyDeleteRose, Thad Greenson followed up after my post before Will.
ReplyDeleteAnd then today, in my post another juror offers another perspective.
Thank you, John.
ReplyDeleteJohn's latest post is an important read: The Timothy Littlefield story the mainstream media did not cover; another juror gives perspective
Rose, this is from the court minutes, Michael Lynch was questioned by the Judge; then Russ Clanton, then Paul, again Russ Clanton and Paul and then one final time by Russ Clanton.
ReplyDeleteBoth Paul and Russ Clanton address the Court. Motion for new trial granted.
Paul is the one who requested the trial dates and within a time frame.