Is there a hole in this story?
Is there a hole in this story?
Topics:
Posted by editor Tue Aug 26, 2008 11:42:54 PDT
Viewed 1205 times
0 responses 0 comments
The lawyer for one of the defendants charged in connection with the fire that leveled the historic Tehachapi train depot claimed in court last week that the clean-up of the charred site has destroyed evidence.
“The whole area is bulldozed,” attorney Jeffrey Brodey told Superior Court Judge John Olgesby August 20 in the East Branch courtroom in Mojave. “There's a big hole there. It's a matter of destruction of evidence.”
Brodey represents defendant Jason W. Watson, who, along with Brian O'Donnell, is charged with “unlawfully and recklessly” setting fire or “causing to be burned” the old depot, which was in the process of being renovated.
Both men have admitted to setting off fireworks that night, but their lawyers are challenging the charge that the fireworks actually were the cause of the June 13 fire. At what was scheduled to be the pre- preliminary hearing, Oglesby granted the defense request for more time to investigate and delayed the pre- preliminary proceeding until September 24.
Deputy District Attorney Ronald Taylor, Jr., who filed the original felony complaints, indicated the allegations of evidence destruction were not bothersome.
“I don't put a whole lot of stock in the comment,” Taylor said. “I anticipated that. It's all part of the legal process. You take it step by step.”
Brodey said at the August 20 proceeding, “Multiple things were seized. We don't have all the evidence. We can't do our investigations.”
Olgesby, kept waiting for an hour for the arrival of West Los Angeles-based Brodey, said, “Full investigations are not required prior to a preliminary hearing. The law does not require a full investigation by either side.”
Tyson Beers of Palmdale, attorney for O'Donnell, said, “There are some things for us to look at… items seized from the location, flammable things, whatever substances were on those things. We have to find out what the reports show.”
He said the defense team wants to look at inspection reports by the Tehachapi building department and construction sprinkler plans as well as photos and videos taken by citizen witnesses.
Brodey said the defense aims to prove “not whether they shot off the fireworks but whether the fireworks were actually the cause of the fire.”
If there are admissions by the defendants that they shot off the fireworks, Judge Oglesby said, “Maybe I'm missing it - why do you need more discovery?”
Challenging the defense lawyers to “persuade me” to grant a new investigation before the formal hearing, Olgesby said, “This case will proceed, not drag along.”
Brodey said, “Whether the fire was started by the fireworks is the issue here…We can't tell that until we have our own experts. We just want to be able to present our issues to court.”
Olgesby said, “The matter was set for preliminary hearing August 22. I am not sure what you thought would happen today.”
Brodey said, “I thought we would have the opportunity for further investigation.”
The judge responded, “You haven't articulated it. You said 'We hope to find something.' The law does not require me to continue this hearing ad infinitum.”
Brodey asked for “a short time to have counsel look at the evidence. We ask for the 10th or the 17th.”
Olgesby said, “I don't like this idea of imaginary dates…I expect counsel to be ready to present the case.”
The judge granted the defense request for more time to inspect the evidence, saying, “If you need more time after the 24th, I expect it to be in writing.”
å
| Send to a Friend | Report a Violation |
