Seattle1
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2013
- Messages
- 40,320
- Reaction score
- 420,541
^^rsbm
^^bbmA 995 motion (pronounced “nine-nine-five”) is essentially an appeal of the preliminary hearing judge's decision to bind the case over for trial. Technically it is known as a “motion to set aside the information.” “Information” is the legal name for the criminal complaint in a California felony prosecution.
Penal Code "995 Motions" in California
In California, a Penal Code 995 motion asks the trial court to dismiss your charges because your preliminary hearing judge wrongly let your case move forward.www.shouselaw.com
In my experience, states primarily located in the west, rely on "information and complaint" procedure for the District Attorney to bring charges against the suspect-- versus a state grand jury indictment.
In this case, the Shover brothers were charged by Information (i.e., LE investigation) where the DA's office agreed there was probable cause to file charges for prosecution against the brothers.
The mystery, in this case, is why it took from the March 1, 2019 arraignment date until Sept 16, 2022, for the preliminary hearing held. I don't know if the prosecutor hoped by delaying the prelim the body would be discovered or witnesses would come forward leading them to the body or why the unprecedented delay???
A preliminary hearing is like a mini-trial where the Court hears the evidence and witness testimony by the prosecutor and determines if the prosecutor's case meets probable cause to send the case to trial.
Generally, the "information" (i.e., probable cause affidavit (PCA)) is released to the public near the preliminary hearing date but this information was sealed shortly after the arrest of the defendants.
For whatever reason, the PCA, motions, and discovery have never been released and the public has been completely in the dark here with the exception of one comment that there were 1800 pages of evidence and 12 CD's of photos made by the DA's office way back in late fall 2019 when the preliminary hearing was first scheduled for 12/17/19-- but not held until 3 years later.
As quoted above, the latest news is Owen's defense is challenging (by 995 motion) Riverside County Superior Court Judge Bernard Schwartz's ruling there was sufficient evidence to sustain the murder charge and a special circumstance allegation of lying in wait against Owen Shover.
Now that the defense has finally seen the state's evidence (at the prelim), the question is why does the defense think the decision by Judge Schwartz should be set aside?
IMO, they've probably been negotiating with the prosecutor for lower charges and failed. IMO, if the prosecution believed the motion had any chance of being successful, they would most likely request the case be dismissed without prejudice where charges against Owen could be re-filed at any time.
With all the above said, I have to say I'm nervous about the evidence the state has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt -- without AB's body. MOO
