[b]Notice of Motion and Motion to Continue Trial; Penal Code 1050(b)[/b] Excerpt: a. The District Attorney has dumped more than 14,000 pages of discovery on the defense in the last two months and it is impossible for defense counsel to evaluate this material in time for the trial date; b. The prosecution has provided the defense with a witness list that is defective and it is not possible for the defense to prepare for a January 31, 2005 trial given these defects; c. The prosecution’s newly announced {redacted} requires the defense to spent its time and resources investigating the prosecution’s four experts, as well as preparing our own experts for trial; d. Despite the Court’s warnings that at some point the gathering of information must cease and organizing for trial must begin, the prosecution continues to request and execute search warrants, making it impossible for Mr. Jackson’s counsel to prepare in time for the current trial date; e. The District Attorney’s witness list includes the names of witnesses from the Abdool v Jackson civil case. Defense counsel must evaluate more than 25 bankers boxes of material related to that case in order to prepare to cross-examine these witnesses. This can not be done before January 31, 2005; f. Mr. Jackson has not yet received the transcripts of the grand jury selection process and the notes between the grand jurors and the prosecution. This information is necessary to evaluate whether the District Attorney complied with the holding of Johnson v Superior Court (1975) 15 Cal. 3d 248 and to determine whether a fair cross-section challenge to the grand jury venire is warranted (pg 2) —————————————————————————– E. ABDOOL V. JACKSON The District Attorney’s witness list indicates that witnesses from the Abdool v. Jackson civil case will be called at trial. The Abdool trial involved a significant number of witnesses and spanned several months. The plaintiffs not only lost the trial but were found by the court to have lied giving rise to approximately $60,000 in sanctions against them. Defense counsel must evaluate more than 25 boxes of material related to that case in order to prepare to cross-examine and impeach these witnesses. (Declaration of Robert M. Sanger.) pg 8 —————————————————————————— Mr. Jackson is also reluctant to seek a continuance because it appears that the prosecution is not prepared. The timing of the search warrants served on December 3 2004, and December 4 2004, suggests that the prosecution may be hoping that the defense will request a continuance as a result of these late searches. That may have been motivation for them to request search warrants that were so unnecessary. The defense is hesitant to, in essence, give the District Attorney what he wanted, by requesting a continuance. However, given the facts articulated below, it has become clear that a continuance is necessary to protect Mr. Jackson’s right to a fair trial. (pg 4) ————————————————————– At the September 16 2004, hearing, the Court expressed its concern that the prosecution was going “to dump huge quantities” of discovery on the defense as trial approaches. Despite the Court’s warning, this is exactly what has occurred. At the September 16 2004 hearing, Mr. Sneddon stated that the defense had been provided with more than 4,000 pages of discovery. At the October 14 2004 hearing, Mr. Sneddon announced that the prosecution had provided the defense with more than 8,000 pages of discovery. Less than two months later, that number is now more than 22,000 pages. (pg 5) ———————————————————— The Court ordered the prosecution and defense to exchange reciprocal discovery with each other on December 6 2004, pursuant to section 1054 of the Penal Code. The Court also ordered the production of a witness list on that date. The prosecution provided a list of 164 “names,” some of which were not names at all. The list was defective in was that have severely prejudiced the defense. The prosecution’s witness list does not include addresses, nor does it include, with one single exception, what the potential subject matter is of the witnesses. This is exacerbated by five inexplicable and unforgivable facts. (Declaration of Robert M. Sanger.) First, despite over a year and a half to prepare this case, the prosecution’s witness list contains names of people who do not exist. For instance, number 65, {redacted} does not exist. Neither does number 110, {redacted}. (Declaration of Robert M. Sanger.) After spending a tremendous number of hours of staff time and investigating these two alleged people, the defense has not concluded that these are not names of actual individuals. We challenge the prosecution to come forward to explain who these witnesses are supposed to be. (pg 5-6) —————————————————- The prosecution, on their witness list, list four people who appear to be {redacted} experts. There are no reports providing the statements of these witnesses. Therefore, they have failed to comply with the court’s orders and with Penal Code Section 1054. Furthermore, we cannot tell, from disclosure of {redacted} and {redacted} who we learned through our own investigation are purported {redacted} experts, what their purpose is in calling these witnesses. It is impossible to determine whether the prosecution plans on calling these witnesses because they are so worried about {redacted}, whether they are trying to corner the market on {redacted} experts, or whether the prosecution is still attempting to determine which experts will testify at trial. (Declaration of Robert M. Sanger.) pg 7 :nav DOWNLOAD: Memorandum to Continue Trial

Leave a Reply