April 5 PENNSYLVANIA: Other recusal reasons cited in Downs' letter to AG Among the reasons cited by Bradford County District Attorney Stephen Downs to recuse himself from the Dustin Briggs case were a lack of resources available to his office and the possibility he might be called as a witness in the event the matter went to trial. It was recently brought to light that one of the reasons Downs asked the Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office to take over the case was that he was upset with Bradford County Sheriff Steve Evans and how his office had handled the situation involving Briggs. Evans in turn blasted Downs in a recent press statement, saying the district attorney had no concept of what it is like to arrest someone. However, in the letter, dated Aug. 17, 2004, from Downs to the attorney general's office, the sheriff is but one of a number of reasons given by the district attorney in his reasons to be recused from the Briggs case. Briggs, of Gillett, has been accused of shooting and killing Bradford County sheriff's deputies Michael VanKuren and Christopher Burgert on March 31, 2004, at a junkyard in Wells Township owned by his father, Arlan Briggs. The deputies were on the property, intending to serve a warrant on Dustin Briggs' girlfriend, April Harris, when the incident occurred. Dustin Briggs was later arrested and is in the Bradford County jail, awaiting trial on criminal homicide charges in connection with the case. One of the reasons cited by Downs was an "actual or apparent conflict of interest" concerning the possibility that he could be called to testify as a witness if the case went to trial. Downs explained in the letter that he had been with investigators at the Bradford County jail who were interviewing Briggs a few days after his arrest, and that as a result he might be called to testify by the commonwealth as a result. "Because Bradford County is a rural county, I worked closely with the fallen deputies, and I may be perceived as having a conflict of interest in prosecuting Briggs, or in seeking the death penalty against him," Downs explained in the letter. "Likewise my closeness to the fallen deputies might well interfere with my ability to clearly identify and deal with potentially problematic issues in this prosecution." In his letter, Downs also explained that he believes his office did not have sufficient resources to properly prosecute the case, which was why he was asking the attorney general's office to step in. Downs pointed out that he works full-time as district attorney, even though he is designated as part-time as defined by law. He said that his office handles about 1,500 adult criminal cases per year as well as 300 juvenile cases. Another factor that keeps him and his office staff busy, Downs said, is the fact that there are four magisterial district judges in Bradford County -- which is geographically the second-largest county in Pennsylvania. With no central courts for preliminary hearings in Bradford County, Downs said, each district judge must hold such hearings in the local magisterial office. In addition, Downs said, Bradford County is served by 2 full-time judges of the Court of Common Pleas, both who hear criminal cases, sometimes at the same time. "Finally, it is my sincere belief that the significance of this case, involving as it does the murder of on-duty law enforcement officers, is and ought to be seen by the public as transcending merely local concern. No less that the direct involvement of the Office of the Attorney General itself in the prosecution of this case will send the much-needed message throughout this commonwealth of the gravity of these crimes, and the well-warranted widespread revulsion which such crimes deserve," Downs concluded. Downs has been recused from the case, which is now being handled by Pennsylvania Assistant Attorney General Patrick Blessington. Both Bradford County judges Jeffrey Smith and John Mott also recused themselves, and the case is being heard by Senior Judge Barry Feudale of Northumberland County. (source: Daily and Sunday Review) CALIFORNIA: Peterson costs climb to $3.83M----District attorney's office says it devoted 20,000 hours on case P> Scott Peterson's journey through the justice system cost taxpayers at least $3.83 million, according to new estimates provided by government agencies. The Stanislaus County district attorney's office invested more than 20,000 hours into the high-profile trial at a public cost of $637,000, the office reported Monday. Prosecutors spent far more time preparing their case, officials said. None of three attorneys dedicated to the trial received overtime pay, and accounting stopped at 40 hours per week. In reality, they sometimes put in twice that amount. Peterson, 32, dumped the body of his pregnant wife, Laci, in San Francisco Bay on Christmas Eve 2002. Remains of mother and son washed ashore near his boating route 4 months later. Jurors in December returned a death penalty verdict for the fertilizer salesman from Modesto, and the judge affirmed the death sentence March 16. Peterson is on death row at San Quentin prison. County and Modesto officials continue to hope state legislators will reimburse some or all of the money. Hearings on the request are scheduled for this month. (source: Modesto Bee) ********************* Ruling delayed on inmate's records A Superior Court judge delayed action Monday on whether the medical and psychological files of suspected killer Jon Christopher Blaylock can be used in his upcoming murder trial. Judge Ingrid A. Uhler also put off Blaylock's arraignment and set a date to consider whether prosecutors from the District Attorney's Office should be required to recuse themselves from the case. Blaylock, who faces murder charges in the Jan. 10 death of correctional Officer Manuel Gonzalez, made his 1st court appearance in that case Monday. Uhler told prosecutors to turn over all medical and psychological files they'd received on Blaylock from the California Department of Corrections so that she could review them and determine their relevance to the case. "I'm going to retain those in chambers,' Uhler said. "I want an opportunity for a ... review before I return those to the prosecution.' Blaylock's attorneys have argued that his confidential medical and psychological files were improperly obtained without his permission. They are also seeking to have San Bernardino County prosecutors removed from the case, saying District Attorney Michael Ramon was politically motivated when he announced in February that he would seek the death penalty against Blaylock. Such an early announcement that the death penalty would be sought went against the customary practice of the District Attorney's Office, which is to hold off on such a determination until evidence has been presented at a preliminary hearing. Uhler put off ruling on that motion as well. She did allow media in the courtroom to photograph the proceedings, in opposition to a motion filed by Blaylock's attorneys. Blaylock, 35, is accused of stabbing Gonzalez, 43, three times with a homemade weapon. At the time, he was serving a 75-year sentence at the California Institution for Men in Chino for attempted murder of a police officer. It was the 1st killing of an on-duty correctional officer since 1985, and the reports issued after the death criticized prison management for lax security and failure to follow correct procedures. Blaylock sat slouched in a chair at the defense table throughout the hearing, responding "Yes' when asked by the judge if he was OK with the hearing schedule. He was shackled throughout the hearing and led in and out of the courtroom by four sheriff's deputies wearing latex gloves. Outside court, family members of the slain officer gathered and spoke with prosecutors and their own attorneys. David Gonzalez said he was struggling with the death of his brother, but planned to attend every hearing in the murder trial. "It's difficult,' he said. "I could sit here and tell you it's not, but it is.' Gonzalez said his brother had six children, including a 17-year-old son who is now living with Gonzalez and his family in Whittier. The difficulties faced by that son and the rest of the family have prompted Gonzalez to rethink his previous opposition to the death penalty, he said. "I hope (Blaylock) dies. God forgive me, but I hope he dies,' Gonzalez said. "I wish they'd let me put the needle in him myself, because I'd do it.' (source: San Bernardino County Sun) U.S. MILITARY: Double-murder case to begin Tuesday at Robins Pretrial motions will begin April 5 for Senior Airman Andrew Witt, who is accused in a double-homicide case at Robins Air Force Base, Ga. The trial, which is expected to begin in July, will mark the 1st Air Force death-penalty case in more than a decade. Witt is charged with 2 counts of premeditated murder in the stabbing deaths of Senior Airman Andy Schliepsiek and his wife, Jamie, in their base home July 5, 2004. Witt, an avionics technician with the 116th Air Control Wing, also is charged with stabbing the couples friend, Senior Airman Jason King. Lamar E. Cromwell, an Air Force Office of Special Investigations agent, testified during an Article 32 hearing in November that Witt confessed to the stabbings, stating that he "let go and did these things." The defense did not present evidence during the hearing. Witnesses testified that the stabbings followed an exchange between Andy Schliepsiek and Witt a day after Witt tried unsuccessfully to kiss Schliepsiek's wife. Hours after Schliepsiek warned Witt that he would call his first sergeant and commander, Witt appeared in BDUs in Schliepsiek's house, King testified. Cromwell said Witt confessed to stabbing King and then returning to the couple "because he didn't want to leave any evidence and because he didnt want to leave a witness." After visiting the crime scene, Witt is said to have led authorities to the alleged murder knife. Tests have shown fibers on it are consistent with fibers in King's and Schliepsieks shirts, according to testimony. The pretrial hearings will be held in the Bibb County Courthouse in Macon, Ga. (source: The Macon Daily Telegraph) OHIO: ACLU Plans Lawsuit to Block Death Row Inmate Transfer The American Civil Liberties Union plans to file a motion next in court that could prevent the moving of death row inmates from Mansfield to Youngstowns Supermax prison. ACLU attorneys claim inmates have a right to a hearing as to whether they deserve to be placed in solitary confinement. They also claim access to phone calls for lawyers at Supermax is inadequate. State Senator Bob Hagan who is on the Correction Institution and Inspection Committee agrees. Hagan says, "This is costing us millions of dollars to defend over and over again, because they are not following the rules other states are following, and quite frankly a person regardless of the charge has a right to an attorney." The ACLU recently took on the state of Ohio in front of the U.S. Supreme Court over the transfer of inmates to Youngstowns Supermax. A decision on that case is expected in June. (source: WYTV News)
