GUILTY AR - Beverly Carter, 49, Little Rock, 25 Sep 2014 - #11

[arkansasmimi]

Judges Order beginning on page 25/29

To begin, the Court is not convinced by the State's interpretation of Rule 504(d). That
section reads as follows:
(d) Exceptions. - There is no privilege under this rule in a proceeding in which one [1]
rpo6. is charged with a crime against the person or property of (1) the other, (2) a child
oleither, (3) a person residing in the household of either, or (4) a third person committed
in the course of committing a crime against any of them.

The privilege is also destroyed where the purportedly confidential communication is
overheard by or meant to be shared with a third party. Arkansas Rule of Evidence 510 holds that
"[a] person upon whom these rules confer a privilege against disclosure waives the privilege if
he or his predecessor while holder of the privilege voluntarily discloses or consents to disclosure
of any significant part of the privileged matter." Where the Defendant has shared information
with any third party that he alleges is a confidential communication, he has waived his privilege
with respect to that statement, and it will be admitted. See, e.g., Dansby v. State, 338 Ark. 697
(1 999), MacKool, supra, at 447 -448.

Additionally, the Court is aware of and will apply the holding of United States v. White,
2009 U.S. Dist LEXIS 15906. That case notes that "the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has
approved the Joint criminal activity' exception to the privilege" ld, at27, citing United States v.
Evans, 966F.2d398,401 (8th Cir. 1992). Because the defendant in White was involved in a
drug conspiracy with her husband, the United States District Court for the Northem District of
Iowa, Westem Division, found that any alleged confidential communications did not apply if
they were related to ongoing criminal activity. ld, at28.

The Defendant's wife will be permitted to testify against him, and the defense's Motion
is essentially denied. More specifically, under the precedent cited by this Court, Lowery may
testify to anything she saw, heard, or observed that was not a confidential communication. If her
testimony does involve a confidential communication made during the joint criminal activity of
the pair, that testimony will be admitted under the'Joint criminal activity" exception to the
marital privilege. If her testimony involves a confidential communication made prior to the joint
criminal activity of the pair, that communication will not be allowed unless the State can show it
was made in the presence of or disclosed to a third party.12

12>12 The State has submitted three compact discs containing interviews with the Defendant where
he is alleged to have revoked the confidentiality of statements he made to Lowery. The Court has
reviewed all of this material, and his only mention of Lowery involves extramarital affairs he
participated in. Nothing in these interviews suffices to waive any confidential communications of
which the Court is aware.

 

[arkansasmimi]

***JMHO, since the Def more or less said in response to the State that the State Exceptions weren't what the Federal was lol and then the Judge used a Federal, I thinking that the Def is gonna file a Motion to reconsider or appeal or what ever it called. JMHO

short version... what can be used (generic as we dont know actual). Serious question

 

[arkansasmimi]

10/28/2015 Def filed:

MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE OF CODEFENDANT STATEMENTS
COMES NOW, the Defendant, Aaron Lewis, by and through counsel, the James Law
Firm, and for the Defendant’s motion for disclosure of codefendant statements, states:
1. Defendant is charged with capital felony murder.
2. Crystal Lowery, codefendant, pleaded guilty to murder in the first degree.

3. Lowery is expected to testify as a State witness.

4. Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 17.1(a)(ii) commands that the State disclose
the substance of any oral statements made by the defendant or a codefendant that come within
the knowledge of the prosecuting attorney.

5. Disclosure should be as soon as practicable. Ark. R. Crim. P. 17.2.

6. Assuming the State has had discussions with Crystal Lowery regarding her
proposed testimony, such statements should be disclosed to Defendant because they would be
codefendant statements within the knowledge of the prosecuting attorney.

7. Defendant cannot prepare for trial, file appropriate motions, or clarify motions
such as the marital privilege motion without disclosure of this information as required by law.

8. Finally, in addition to this motion, a separate request was made for all statements
attributed to Defendant. No additional statements have been provided since Lowery turned into
a State witness.

WHEREFORE, the Defendant moves this Court require the State to provide all
statements made by Crystal Lowery that are known by the prosecuting attorney to Defendant.
This motion should also be considered continuing until trial.
https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i...resent2?DMS_ID=I2GFT407BKWR5GDSZDPVZOVMTUVYVD

 

[arkansasmimi]

What was going on LAST Time CL had an Order to Transport. That is why my thoughts are that she is being brought for testimony stuff.
Getting it on the record and so forth.

0/28/2015
10:15 AM REQUEST JAMES JR , WILLIAM OWEN
Entry: for Disclosure of Codefendant Statements
Images WEB

10/30/2015
12:08 PM RESPONSE TO MOTION FILED JOHNSON, JOHN F
Entry: none.
Images WEB

11/02/2015
12:00 PM RESPONSE/REPLY JAMES JR , WILLIAM OWEN
Entry: Reply to State's response on spousal privilege
Images WEB

11/10/2015
09:31 AM RESPONSE/REPLY JOHNSON, JOHN F
Entry: Brief on spousal privilege
Images WEB

11/10/2015
10:42 AM ORDER TRANSPORT DETAINEE LOWERY, CRYSTAL HOPE
Entry: none.
Images WEB https://caseinfo.aoc.arkansas.gov/c...=P&case_id=60CR-14-3928&begin_date=&end_date=

 

[arkansasmimi]

This time
12/09/2015
04:48 PM ORDER OTHER
Entry: none.
Images WEB

12/11/2015
03:49 PM MOTION OTHER JOHNSON, JOHN F
Entry: TO CONSIDER INVENTORY SEARCH OF FORD FUSION
Images WEB

12/14/2015
11:58 AM ORDER TRANSPORT DETAINEE LOWERY, CRYSTAL HOPE
Entry: none.
Images No Images

 

[arkansasmimi]

Back to the search warrant for the veh. Why did the Inv say it was "necessary" to get search warrant, if they could have searched the trunk without one, doing the inventory search?
pg 13 &14

Investigator Jordan Ables created an affidavit to obtain a search warrant for the vehicle
on September 28, 2014.At this point, the vehicle had been towed to the Pulaski County Sheriff s
Office. Ables testified that a search warrant for the vehicle was found to be necessary "given the
information based upon the motor vehicle accident, search warrant [for the home] and the
information obtained[.]" Ables swore out the affrdavit and presented the search warrant for
signature to Judge Gruber, as Investigator Warren had done previously. The warrant specified
that there was reasonable cause to believe that the vehicle contained the same categorical list of
potential evidence as specified in the search warrant for the home at 165 Randall. The search of
the vehicle led to the discovery of white rope, green duct tape, and some handgun shells in a
white bag, as well as some items such as the Fuji camera and IBM laptop discussed above.

*Motion for Suppression of Fuji camera and IBM Laptop Granted, Pros do not intend to introduce
*White Rope was said in testimony to have been behind seat (unsure what this means, just stating what was testified to)
*Unsure where the green duct tape was found
*no mention of the baseball bat that allegedly had fingerprints on it
*hair confirmed to be of the victim found in the trunk
https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i...resent2?DMS_ID=W91IXRDASRGXJEZJK4QX4T3NOPNQ29

 

[Mindmatters]

http://katv.com/news/local/judge-some-interviews-with-realtor-slaying-suspect-inadmissible

So, according to this video, they also had shell casings and Beverly's blood in the car. I am so disgusted by the whole thing. How can someone harm someone who was actually trying to help them (thinking she was helping them find a house). My brain can't comprehend the entire thing, I guess that is a good thing. If this guilty *advertiser censored* doesn't fry, he's going to have a lot of back watching to do if and when he ever sees the light of day! Not much of a deterrent to harm him, since obviously getting away with murder is pretty easy these days! The one bit of peace I can find through this whole thing is that he is in trouble, no matter what happens!! He will never rest easy another day in his life.

Makes the head spin doesn't it. Every time I read about factual, important evidence that is not going to be allowed into a trial because of a technicality, or out of an abundance of caution designed to protect the rights of the accused I feel disgust.

Also, I cannot imagine being a juror in this age of insanity---the idea that as a juror you could make a decision that lightens the punishment of or completely lets off a murderer when all the while there was crucial evidence that you should have been privy to is mind-numbing.

 

[arkansasmimi]

The Def has filed their Response to the State Motion regarding the Inventory Search
12/16/2015
10:30 AM RESPONSE TO MOTION FILED JAMES JR , WILLIAM OWEN
Entry: Response to Motion to consider inventory search

 

[arkansasmimi]

RESPONSE TO STATE'S MOTION TO CONSIDER INVENTORY SEARCH
COMES NOW, Defendant, Aaron Lewis, by and through counsel, James Law Firm, and for his
response to State's motion to consider inventory search, states:
1. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the search of the Ford Fusion.
2. The State never argued in written or oral form that the search was permissible as
an inventory search.
3. A hearing was held on the motion and the State failed to elicit any evidence
concerning the alleged inventory search or inevitable discovery.
4. The State's motion now alleges that the PCSO conducted an inventory search and
would have inventoried the trunk.
5. There are three primary arguments against the State's contention.
6. First, the State's factual assertions have no support from the record. A hearing
was held and testimony was taken concerning the events culminating in the search of the vehicle.
No testimony was presented to support the State's assertions. The State's assertions in the motion
cannot be well-taken without evidentiary support.
7. Second, although the law permits vehicles to be towed in certain instances, the
tow of the vehicle did not follow the PCSO tow policy; thus, an inventory search was not
permissible. The vehicle should have never been towed nor should it have been towed to the

 

[arkansasmimi]

PCSO crime scene bay. Once again, the State's position on whether it followed policy is a factquestion
and there is no evidentiary support.
8. Third, this Court chose its words very carefully in the written order and stated, "If
the State can show that any items found in the vehicle that they seek to introduce were
discovered during an inventory search and not during the search pursuant to the illegal warrant,
this Court will consider admitting them."
9. The State has not shown, and has not even alleged to show, that the items "were
discovered during an inventory search." Instead, the State purports to show that the items could
have been discovered during an inventory search. This Court's wording makes it clear that it
would reconsider in light of a far different argument then the one the State is making.
Bill James: Are you searching that vehicle before you got a search warrant?
Investigator Jordan Ables: No, sir. No, sir. (Page 99)
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Aaron Lewis, respectfully requests this Court to deny the
State's motion.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ William O. “Bill” James, Jr.
https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i...resent2?DMS_ID=AEF9VSZYGHBGLKCGUGG1R3NYZJ0Z20

 

[arkansasmimi]

I am truly frustrated in the conflicting information in between documents, interrogation answers v hearing testimony, (which both are sworn testimony, judges orders... I honestly don't see how it benefits getting Justice for Beverly Carters Family. There is no Justice for Beverly because she is no longer with us. That's JMHO. But I do believe that the Family deserves answers, and the accused if found guilty in a court of law held accountable.

We know they had the right individuals who were to meet with Beverly Carter Sept 25, 2015. Right now, this stuff isn't about AL and his arrogant ways. That he is and that he thinks he is smarter than he is has no play in this situation right now. Reading back over, and I truly do have a headache. There is so much conflicting information just in what we are allowed to see and from testimony given. They took their time (a month)building with CL case and she has plead guilty. From all appearances, all they had at the beginning was pointed to CL. AL was driving the car but from all I have seen they potentially didn't even know who he was. Had they, they could have gotten something for a parole violation to have held him if nothing else. Thats my Wednesday evening quarterbacking.
I will show you some of what I mean that is frustrating me. JMHO

 

[arkansasmimi]

Inv Michael Hendrix was an Investigator at PCSO during this case. At the OH, he stated he has been with the AR Attorney Gen Office as Special Agent for abt 7 months. He was found the Google app and Text me. They called the spoof number (which was connected to the phone that AL had in his possession after the wreck.
Inv Hendrix testified when asked by Def Attorney
At The TIME:
*they knew the phone number came back to cell phone listed in Crystal Lowery name
*they had no proof that AL set the acct up or who did for that matter, only that was set up by phone listed to CL
*no proof that AL did any texting
*no proof who sent emails

Re the Def Motion about Pros Overreaching Subpoena power, the Judge said this. JMHO, to me it the fact that the Judge is saying yes the Def is correct it illegal but.. What the heck??? It just like the trunk being searched. Legal if done in inventory search but they got an illegal search warrant, but now want to say well there is case law that we want to use saying can use because if we followed policy it would have been found inevitably. WTH? I am defiantly NOT taking up for AL, right now this stuff isn't on AL this is stuff LEO and Judicial System is in charge of and I am a huge LEO Advocate, but this concerns me. Especially since so much testimony evidence and evidence from house and potentially from car is now LOST.

Lt Swagerty (who takes AL phone at the accident site)..
Under Direct by Pros: Swagerty said that AL came up to him, had bloody forhead and lip, stated needed an ambulance. AL was pacing around w/phone, got in ambulance, Swagerty got in asked #, first gave incorrect then gave correct, Swagerty took phone, ambulance took AL to Baptist Hospita.
Under Cross - Swagerty said his first contact with AL was after he wrecked. He was alerted during survillence that AL had drove off. AL speed up, asked if he speed up too Swagerty said no. That when he went around curve he saw that AL had wrecked. << Here he said that when he got there AL was getting out of car didnt say anything about AL coming up to him. He also said that AL wasn't a suspect (Judge even makes point of stating that he and Inv Ables had conflicting testimony)
" Swaggerty's testimony was contradicted by Investigator Ables, who specifically referred to the Defendant as a "suspect' at the time of the Randall surveillance, but the varying terminology used to describe him by investigators is irrelevant. pg 17"
Swagerty testified that he didn't tell AL why he took the phone, he thought he had reason to seize it. He wasn't sure if he knew the phone was in CL name or not. Def asked WAS THERE ANY STATEMENTS THAT AL MADE TO YOU? SWAGERTY >NO. He may have asked why I took his phone but I didn't answer. < Didn't take the bloody face picture and don't know who did. Doesnt think AL got out of his sight, doesnt know where the witness (Kinberly Martin from accident report) was or what kind of car she drove.

Judge said this about the Overreaching

The Defendant seeks to have this Court suppress any evidence obtained by subpoenas
issued in this case to phone and IT companies. Investigator Jeff Allison of the Pulaski County
Sheriff s Department - Criminal Investigative Division testified at the omnibus hearing that,
after the disappearance of Beverly Carter had been reported, they made an exigent circumstance
request to AT&T to procure her cell phone and SMS data records. Once they had access to those
records, they noticed that the victim had recently been in frequent contact - both phone calls and
text messages - with a phone number with a New York area code. Having access to the victim's
Apple iCloud account, they noticed that this phone number was one of the few in her call history
not identified with a known associate. The investigators discovered that this same phone number
was written on an envelope in the victim's car. one of the investigators called the number and
discovered it was a spoof number" associated with a Google app called TextMe. They then,
with the aid of prosecutors, made an exigent circumstances request to Google to obtain the call
log of the TextMe number. They were able to thereby determine that the phone number was
created by an account of the Defendant's wife, Crystal Lowery

The Defendant has alleged that the information received by the investigators in this
manner should be suppressed as an overreach of the prosecutor's subpoena power. The Defense
is right that the prosecutor has no power to issue subpoenas in a criminal investigation. The
Court, however, need not decide whether this alleged overreach was illegal. Because even
assuming arguendo that the prosecutors improperly allowed the use of their subpoena to aid the
police investigation, the Defendant has no standing to challenge these subpoenas, and
suppression would not be the proper remedy. The Defense and State both base their arguments
on State v. Hamzy, 2gg Ark. 561 (1986), a case originating out of this Court, in which telephone
records obtained by prosecutorial subpoenas such as the ones before the Court now were
challenged

bottom page 3 top of 4 https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i...resent2?DMS_ID=W91IXRDASRGXJEZJK4QX4T3NOPNQ29

 

[arkansasmimi]

Inv Ables calls AL a Suspect, yet when the Def Atorney asks if had any evidence a crime had taken place and abduction, Ables said not 100%. Ables said who did the Seach Warrant Affidavit/Warrant, stated that the car was listed to CL but AL was driving ???? Admitted that had no reason to believe anything what was used or anything to connect to criminal activity when completing affidavit. Disappearance no evidence of Kidnapping. Agreed reluctantly.

ReDirect, the Pros asked a Disappearance > Why applied for kidnapping
Info, husband called, 10:45pm missing since last heard from at 5:30pm. From info he has he thinks she was kidnapped, car still there, eyewitness, purse still in car, last info of who she was with match (AL) enfelope with info on it #text me app number. Had been gone 3 days when applied for search warrrant. Presented affidavit to Judge Gruber and didn't go over anything else.

Inv Drew Evans, testified what was used in Arrest Warrant Affidavit/Warrant for Kidnapping:
"Initial response, white male, black car, phone data, communication between Textme Unknown person. exigent # > returns to CL account, CL to Randall, surveillance of Randall Drive, AL left Randall Drive in black car, Affidabit from neighbor at Old River Drive (Joann Butler missing person report) general description match. Identified phone # as that used to call BC phone. Lewis left the hospital, Duct tape, rope and bat found in car, BC phone found at the Randall Drive home with sim card removed."

This is just my opinion from notes taken Nov 16, 2015

 

[arkansasmimi]

In Judges Order pg 16/29. BBM, I not sure what the Judge means by "He was not accompanied by law
enforcement to the hospital". But there is media reporting early on, have to find that said someone was sent to the hospital to give AL a ticket. I will look for that, but in Interrogatories in AL Fed Civil suit, Inv Drew Evans answers to question #6 roughly page 15/98 page doc, I uploaded here prior.. #6 Who was detective that followed Plaintiff (AL) in an ambulance to Baptist Health? Answer by Inv Drew Evans: J.P. Massiet. <<< This is also one of the 4 Det/Inv that went on the "ride" with AL on Sept 29, 2015. (Det Jeff Allison, Inv Michael Hendrix, J.P. Massiet, Inv Jordan Abels)

"Here, Swaggerty and the other investigators had information that tied a person matching
the Defendant's description, the vehicle he was driving, and the home he was leaving to facts
surrounding the disappearance of the victim. Following the Defendant as part of his legitimate
surveillance of a person of interest in the case, Swaggerty came upon the Defendant's car, which
had been involved in an accident. Swaggerty never indicated to the Defendant that he was not
free to leave or demanded that he answer any questions. He simply asked whether the Defendant
needed medical assistance and asked him for his phone number. Considering that law
enforcement now had a wrecked, uptumed vehicle to contend with, this was a reasonable request
if only to maintain a means of contact with the Defendant. He was not accompanied by law
enforcement to the hospital.

 

[arkansasmimi]

From testimony about the Interview at CID, Def Attorney asked Det Jeff Allison testified he did not meet AL when he arrived at PCSO by LRPD Officers Cedric Roy and James Nellis. Said Inv Drew Evans and Inv Michael Hendrix met him and brought him to CID.

Det Jeff Allison also states that same in his Interrogatories, but Inv Drew Evans states that He and Reserve Deputy Gary Seibel are who met Officers Roy and Nellis and took custody of AL. #1 on page 15/98 page document

And in LRPD Officers reports,
Officer Cedric Roy, stated that Adam Nash said that AL asked him whay he was chasing him and Nash said that he knew he was guy wanted in Kidnapping realtor. Nash advised AL said he didnt do anything and ran into the clubhouse. Officer Roy in his report says Adam Nash said AL had a BOXCUTTER..

Officer James Nettis report states that Adam Nash said that AL showed him a KNIFE. Officer Nellis states that he asked AL if he needed medical attention and that AL replied not at this time but would later to get glass still in his head from accident day before. This is the officer that transported AL to PCSO jail.

There was a big going back and forth when Pros John Johnson was asking AL about who and when he told he wanted a lawyer. Stated that Officer Roy didnt transport. Which is correct by these reports, yet it is Officer Roy who states he asked for Lawyer. AL stated it took place in the bay at PCSO.

I know there was a lot going on, I just hate all the conflicting stuff in such an important matter. I don't know if this is stuff people want to call a technicality but if so, i dont know I will have to see what that means, seems just by appearance that whole case was rushed and built on one after the other. Makes me ill. Armchair sleuthing JMHO

 

[arkansasmimi]

The term legal technicality is a casual or colloquial phrase referring to a technical aspect of law. The phrase is not a term of art in the law; it has no exact meaning, nor does it have a legal definition. It implies that strict adherence to the letter of the law has prevented the spirit of the law from being enforced. However, as a vague term, the definition of a technicality varies from person to person, and it is often simply used to denote any portion of the law that interferes with the outcome desired by the user of the term.[1]

Some legal technicalities govern legal procedure, enable or restrict access to courts, and/or enable or limit the discretion of a court in handing down judgment. These are aspects of procedural law. Other legal technicalities deal with aspects of substantive law, that is, aspects of the law that articulate specific criteria that a court uses to assess a party's compliance with or violation of, for example, one or more criminal laws or civil laws.[2]

References
1. An example: In the case of U.S. v. Shipp, 214 US 386 (1909), the U.S. Supreme Court quoted a local newspaper as follows:
&#8220;In the News, published the evening of March 19, there was an editorial reviewing the local proceedings, which concluded: 'All of this delay is aggravating to the community. The people of Chattanooga believe that Johnson is guilty, and that he ought to suffer the penalty of the law as speedily as possible. If by legal technicality the case is prolonged and the culprit finally escapes, there will be no use to plead with a mob here if another such crime is committed. Such delays are largely responsible for mob violence all over the country.'&#8221;(U.S. v. SHIPP, 1909) The newspaper plainly was using the phrase "legal technicality" to refer to technical aspects of the law which the newspaper's editorial staff saw as an obstacle to its preferred outcome.
Jump up ^ In the U.S., for example, the Supreme Court has used the informal phrase "legal technicality" in its decisions 13 times in the last century.[citation needed] In every case the use of the words refers to merely "technicalities of the law". The three most recent uses are illustrative:
(1) &#8220;The function of counsel as a guide through complex legal technicalities long has been recognized by this Court.&#8221; (U.S. v. Ash, 1973)
(2) &#8221;Furthermore, during the federal habeas corpus hearing Davis showed his awareness of legal technicalities.&#8221;(used in a footnote, Davis v. North Carolina, 1966)
(3) &#8221;If recovery were denied in this case, the railroads, by the simple expedient of doing each other's work, could tie their employees up in legal technicalities..." (Shenker v. Baltimore and Ohio R.Co., 1963)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_technicality

 

[Midge Montana]

Mimi, I just gotta say...I <3 you.
This is so maddening. However, I wouldn't have even the slightest comprehension if not for your posts.
Thank you.

 

[arkansasmimi]

Makes the head spin doesn't it. Every time I read about factual, important evidence that is not going to be allowed into a trial because of a technicality, or out of an abundance of caution designed to protect the rights of the accused I feel disgust.

Also, I cannot imagine being a juror in this age of insanity---the idea that as a juror you could make a decision that lightens the punishment of or completely lets off a murderer when all the while there was crucial evidence that you should have been privy to is mind-numbing.

I agree, but its not just in this age of insanity. Thats the way its always been. Having served on a jury criminal jury one it def was not like watching tv. That is why what is presented and how it is presented in the courtroom is very important. JMHO. From watching trials live stream, you see it too. The jury is given instructions that they have to follow. It is the job of the Judge tells the jury you have to decide guilt or not guilty first. Cant think about the punishment. Prosecution to convince the jury of the guilt. I do not take that lightly and I have no doubt the the Prosecutors take it lightly either. They file charges by evidence they have.

As someone else said up thread, better that happening now then on appeal. We still haven't made it to trial so possible they still have more evidence that strong enough. But this is a big blow for sure. JMHO

 

[arkansasmimi]

Mimi, I just gotta say...I <3 you.
This is so maddening. However, I wouldn't have even the slightest comprehension if not for your posts.
Thank you.

ullhair: it is for sure lol. Thank you for kind words. :blowkiss: I am not sure if I understand all correctly, but can go to the links and see if one gets the same understanding. My head really does hurt lol Sometimes I want to walk away but got so much time invested lol and want the best for this family and for it to be legal and solid. God Bless the Men and Women in BLUE :copcar:, and all lawyers too. I def couldn't do their jobs. :judge: jmho

 

[arkansasmimi]

JMHO: So far as of the 12/11/2015 Judges orders: MOTIONS 1-14

Def Motions filed 10/1/2015
1. MOTION TO SUPPRESS PHYSICAL EVIDENCE FROM FAULTY WARRANT FOR
FUJI CAMERA https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i...resent2?DMS_ID=Z0RWCDT3D9S8JB8A6OQ4MMN7LXYCKE
12/11 GRANTED

2. MOTION TO SUPPRESS PHYSICAL EVIDENCE FROM FAULTY WARRANT FOR
BLACK IBM LAPTOP https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i...resent2?DMS_ID=TX1YILHMI3S5EJPYCSDSD7A2O30YTQ
12/11 GRANTED

3. MOTION TO SUPPRESS PHYSICAL EVIDENCE FROM FAULTY WARRANT FOR
SILVER IPHONE https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i...resent2?DMS_ID=1QJS13FFYCLUWBDZREKDV1VBRYVPFA
12/11 DENIED

4. MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS DURING INTERROGATION ON
SEPTEMBER 29-30, 2014 https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i...resent2?DMS_ID=7CL9FYEKK8LLKKVWNESLDGOR7DLU5H
12/11 GRANTED FOR MOST PART ALL RECORDED INTERVIEW IS OUT, RECORDING BY VICTIM IS IN

5. MOTION TO SUPPRESS PHYSICAL EVIDENCE FROM FAULTY WARRANT AND
ILLEGAL SEARCH AT 165 RANDALL DRIVE, JACKSONVILLE, ARKANSAS https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i...resent2?DMS_ID=43J7PUNWZMFXPFKMIEOMKKEXNBW374
12/11 GRANTED

6. MOTION TO SUPPRESS PHYSICAL EVIDENCE FROM FAULTY WARRANT FOR
2012 BLACK FORD FUSION https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i...resent2?DMS_ID=QYIVPMW79QFSFM0A9OFDVQ4PSWSQAL
12/11 DENIED

8. MOTION FOR PRODUCTION OF CRIMINAL HISTORY AND DISCLOSURE OF
PLEA AGREEMENTS OR PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT OF WITNESSES https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i...resent2?DMS_ID=ERVEE4IGFX8HS8I9J5PTC8L3BWQR9P
10/6 GRANTED

9 MOTION TO SUPPRESS PHYSICAL EVIDENCE FROM VEHICLE ACCIDENT https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i...resent2?DMS_ID=MXTBG9FNI37TN7Z8GT0443SQKR92Y8
12/11 DENIED

10. MOTION TO SEVER FELON IN POSSESSION https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i...resent2?DMS_ID=UEEWBRHHZ2Z9YZB9GJLLVME8POJ8ZV
10/6 GRANTED

11. MOTION TO RETURN THUMB DRIVE SEIZED FROM DEFENDANT https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i...resent2?DMS_ID=JO0LMRC7J13YDQESAJ0V9I1DSJ1MV7
*I may have over looked but dont see this addressed, JMHO they keep like the watch so forth

12. MOTION TO RETURN WATCH SEIZED FROM DEFENDANT https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i...resent2?DMS_ID=X49XWP7XCOCLAUOYVLIORKJY55H2L0
12/11 DEFER

13. MOTION TO RETURN GATEWAY LAPTOP SEIZED FROM DEFENDANT https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i...resent2?DMS_ID=J65ZZTQ371GXSGXNGIKBYRP7PPXPJ2
12/11 DEFER

14. MOTION TO RETURN IPAD SEIZED FROM DEFENDANT https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i...resent2?DMS_ID=90TRZZPVCSEQZ8XI26BBTTQ8C8VQN3
12/11 DEFER