In January 2005 the court released redacted defense documents saying that, according to the defense, the prosecution was threating to “release everything [Mr Sneddon] knows” about Jackson if they were going to impeach Sneddon on the witness stand. In light of all these recent leaks, one has to wonder if the defense’s refusal to stop going after the prosecution is the reason why we suddenly have all these leaks of things like the unsubstantiated, one-sided grand jury testimony. Could this be evidence that these illegal leaks are coming from the prosecution? It can’t be simply coincidental that all these leaks would occur after such an obvious threat to the defense. The following is an excerpt from that defense motion:
(pg 9-10) Most remarkably, however, Mr. Auchincloss threatens the defense in the second full paragraph of page 6. He says, in essence, that, if we attempt to impeach Mr. Sneddon or if we even comment on the prosecution’s motivation, he will release “everything [Mr. Sneddon] knows about the defendant.” There are three answering to this: First, we will be renewing our motion to recuse the District Attorney. Clearly, the personal bias has extended from Mr. Sneddon to his deputy, Mr. Auchincloss. Mr. Auchincloss’ response to legitimate concerns of the defense — is Mr. Sneddon biased and, whether or not he is biased, how can a prosecution overlook so much evidence — is to attempt to extort the defense into withdrawing such legitimate evidence form the jury. Mr. Auchincloss’ litany of things he will do so that “[t]he defense does not want to go there”‘ are clearly inadmissible and bullying. The undersigned is aware that the defense made a motion to recuse which was denied, however, it would be malpractice to not renew the motion based on this clear evidence of vindictive behavior by one of Mr. Sneddon’s deputies.
:nav Opposition to DA’s Motion in Limine Re: Evidence Code Section 402 Issues