Everything about motions you never wanted to know & more is linked. SM's were mostly denied per the court docket. On 10/16/13 they will argue to disqualify the Sheriff & for the state to have an expert evaluate SM. His jury trial date is still 11/18/13.
It's a death penalty case so expect to see more motions possibly through out the trial. No one wants SM to be able to get out on an appeal! Not sure if the motion hearings were open to public but it doesn't look like MO news is too interested in following his case blow by blow. Hopefully, they will report during the trial.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/m/motion-hearing/
10/01/2013 Motion Filed
MOTION TO STAY AND TO RECONSIDER ORDER IN CONNECTION WITH STATE'S MOTION FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION
Filed By: CHARLES DOUGLAS MORELAND
09/30/2013 Motion Filed
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF THE STAY OF PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION AND FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO FILE WRIT
Filed By: CHARLES DOUGLAS MORELAND
Order
THE COURT HAS FULLY CONSIDERED THE MOTION, REPLY, RESPONSE AND ARGUMENT OF THE PARTIES IN CONNECTION WITH THE ISSUE OF "PUNISHMENT QUESTIONS" BEING INCLUDED IN A SUGGESTED JUROR QUESTIONNAIRE. IN THIS REGARD, THE COURT HAS CONSIDERED THE ENTIRE JURY QUESTIONNAIRE AGREED UPON BY THE PARTIES CONSISTING OF THIRTY-EIGHT AGREED QUESTIONS. INCLUDING AMONG THESE THE COURT HAS CONSIDERED AGREED QUESTIONS 22, 23, AND 24 AND THE AGREED INTRODUCTORY PARAGRAPH IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THOSE QUESTIONS. THE COURT HAS CONSIDERED AGREED QUESTION 40. THE COURT APPROVES THE THIRTY-EIGHT AGREED QUESTIONS AND DISAPPROVES OF QUESTIONS 25, 26, AND 27 PROMULGATED BY DEFENDANT AND THOSE QUESTIONS SHALL NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE JUROR QUESTIONNAIRE. S/STEPHEN R SHARP
Correspondence Filed
REQUESTING FILE STAMPED COPIES
Filed By: CHARLES DOUGLAS MORELAND
09/27/2013 Order
On September 20, 2013, State appeared through Prosecuting Attorney, Stephen P. Sokoloff and Defendant appeared through counsel, Thomas E. Marshall and Charles D. Moreland. The Court took up various motions and now having considered the same orders as follows: 1.The motion of Shawn Young to quash subpoena is sustained on the basis the subpoena is overly broad. The Court does not, therefore, reach the issue of attorney-client privilege. 2.Defendant's motion to proceed in accordance with Ake v. Oklahoma, in the manner and procedure requested by Defendant, filed January 31, 2012 is now denied as to future filings subsequent to the date of this order. 3.On December 14, 2011 Defendant filed a request for Discovery and on July 29, 2013 filed a Motion to Compel in connection with that discovery request. On September 16, 2013 Defendant filed 2nd Motion for Discovery which complained of States earlier response to Defendant's request. The State shall, if it has not previously done so, disclose in writing its list of witnesses and designation whether such witnesses is an intended guilt phase or penalty phase witness. Defendant's request that State "pare" its witness list is denied. 4.Defendant's motion in connection with fire marshal laboratory reports, data and results is sustained. 5.Defendant's Motion to Adjourn at Reasonable Time is denied to the extent it seeks to have Court adjourned each date arbitrarily at 5:30 p.m. The Court indicates its intent to consult with counsel throughout the trial concerning scheduling and consider counsel's suggestions. Further, the Court will throughout the proceedings endeavor to make the best use of juror's time while being mindful of the rights of all parties. 6.Defendant's motion in connection with Family and Friends Expressions of Emotion is sustained to the extent the Court will instruct spectators, including family and friends, to refrain from inflammatory displays of emotion in the presence of the jury. 7.Defendant's motion to Prevent Testimony Concerning Lack of Remorse is denied as to such testimony which might be offered by State in the punishment phase of Defendant's trial. 8.Defendant's motion regarding identity of dog handlers is sustained. 9.Defendant's ex parte motion for order directing production of unredacted records filed September 5, 2013 is denied. Should defense counsel wish to seek an order of the Court in connection with the records mentioned in the above motion, it may file a motion pursuant to Rule 25.04 with notice to the State and notice to the agency mentioned in the ex parte motion. The Court will then take up the matter and rule following an opportunity to be heard by Defendant and State in open court. 10.Defendant's motion to sever filed January 31, 2012 is denied. Defendant's Motion to Disqualify Sheriff is set for hearing at 9:30 a.m., October 16, 2013 and any other motions filed by Defendant or State between the date of this order and October 16 are set for hearing at said time. Additionally, any motion filed by Defendant or State prior to today's date which have not been presented to the Court is set for hearing at said time. Any such motion not presented on October 16, 2013 shall be considered by the Court to be abandoned by the party filing such, unless other agreement exists. S/Stephen R Sharp
Order
ORDER IN CONNECTION WITH STATE'S MOTION FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION ON SEPTEMBER 20, 2013, DEFENDANT APPEARED IN PERSON AND WITH COUNSEL, AND STATE APPEARED THROUGH PROSECUTING ATTORNEY. AMONG OTHER MATTERS, THE COURT TOOK UP STATE'S MOTION FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION. DEFENDANT HAS DISCLOSED TO STATE REPORTS OF EXAMINATIONS OF DEFENDANT BY EXPERT WITNESSES EMPLOYED BY DEFENDANT. FURTHER, DEFENDANT HAS GIVEN NOTICE (5th SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE) THAT AT TRIAL DEFENDANT MAY SEEK TO PROVE MENTAL OR EMOTIONAL DISTURBANCE AND/OR IMPAIRED CAPACITY. THEREFORE, STATE'S MOTION FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION IS SUSTAINED. (SEE ALSO RSMo 552.015). STATE SHALL FORTHWITH ARRANGE AND SCHEDULE EXAMINATION BY PERSON OF STATE'S CHOOSING. THE EXAMINER SHALL NOT EXAMINE DEFENDANT AS TO GUILT OF THE CRIME CHARGED. DEFENSE COUNSEL'S REQUEST TO BE PRESENT AT THE EXAMINATION IS DENIED. IN ORDER TO PERMIT DEFENDANT TO SEEK WRIT OF PROHIBITION SHOULD COUNSEL DESIRE, THE DATE OF THIS EXAMINATION SHALL NOT BE PRIOR TO OCTOBER 1, 2013. S/STEPHEN R SHARP
https://www.courts.mo.gov/casenet/cases/searchCases.do?searchType=name
It's a death penalty case so expect to see more motions possibly through out the trial. No one wants SM to be able to get out on an appeal! Not sure if the motion hearings were open to public but it doesn't look like MO news is too interested in following his case blow by blow. Hopefully, they will report during the trial.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/m/motion-hearing/
10/01/2013 Motion Filed
MOTION TO STAY AND TO RECONSIDER ORDER IN CONNECTION WITH STATE'S MOTION FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION
Filed By: CHARLES DOUGLAS MORELAND
09/30/2013 Motion Filed
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF THE STAY OF PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION AND FOR ADDITIONAL TIME TO FILE WRIT
Filed By: CHARLES DOUGLAS MORELAND
Order
THE COURT HAS FULLY CONSIDERED THE MOTION, REPLY, RESPONSE AND ARGUMENT OF THE PARTIES IN CONNECTION WITH THE ISSUE OF "PUNISHMENT QUESTIONS" BEING INCLUDED IN A SUGGESTED JUROR QUESTIONNAIRE. IN THIS REGARD, THE COURT HAS CONSIDERED THE ENTIRE JURY QUESTIONNAIRE AGREED UPON BY THE PARTIES CONSISTING OF THIRTY-EIGHT AGREED QUESTIONS. INCLUDING AMONG THESE THE COURT HAS CONSIDERED AGREED QUESTIONS 22, 23, AND 24 AND THE AGREED INTRODUCTORY PARAGRAPH IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THOSE QUESTIONS. THE COURT HAS CONSIDERED AGREED QUESTION 40. THE COURT APPROVES THE THIRTY-EIGHT AGREED QUESTIONS AND DISAPPROVES OF QUESTIONS 25, 26, AND 27 PROMULGATED BY DEFENDANT AND THOSE QUESTIONS SHALL NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE JUROR QUESTIONNAIRE. S/STEPHEN R SHARP
Correspondence Filed
REQUESTING FILE STAMPED COPIES
Filed By: CHARLES DOUGLAS MORELAND
09/27/2013 Order
On September 20, 2013, State appeared through Prosecuting Attorney, Stephen P. Sokoloff and Defendant appeared through counsel, Thomas E. Marshall and Charles D. Moreland. The Court took up various motions and now having considered the same orders as follows: 1.The motion of Shawn Young to quash subpoena is sustained on the basis the subpoena is overly broad. The Court does not, therefore, reach the issue of attorney-client privilege. 2.Defendant's motion to proceed in accordance with Ake v. Oklahoma, in the manner and procedure requested by Defendant, filed January 31, 2012 is now denied as to future filings subsequent to the date of this order. 3.On December 14, 2011 Defendant filed a request for Discovery and on July 29, 2013 filed a Motion to Compel in connection with that discovery request. On September 16, 2013 Defendant filed 2nd Motion for Discovery which complained of States earlier response to Defendant's request. The State shall, if it has not previously done so, disclose in writing its list of witnesses and designation whether such witnesses is an intended guilt phase or penalty phase witness. Defendant's request that State "pare" its witness list is denied. 4.Defendant's motion in connection with fire marshal laboratory reports, data and results is sustained. 5.Defendant's Motion to Adjourn at Reasonable Time is denied to the extent it seeks to have Court adjourned each date arbitrarily at 5:30 p.m. The Court indicates its intent to consult with counsel throughout the trial concerning scheduling and consider counsel's suggestions. Further, the Court will throughout the proceedings endeavor to make the best use of juror's time while being mindful of the rights of all parties. 6.Defendant's motion in connection with Family and Friends Expressions of Emotion is sustained to the extent the Court will instruct spectators, including family and friends, to refrain from inflammatory displays of emotion in the presence of the jury. 7.Defendant's motion to Prevent Testimony Concerning Lack of Remorse is denied as to such testimony which might be offered by State in the punishment phase of Defendant's trial. 8.Defendant's motion regarding identity of dog handlers is sustained. 9.Defendant's ex parte motion for order directing production of unredacted records filed September 5, 2013 is denied. Should defense counsel wish to seek an order of the Court in connection with the records mentioned in the above motion, it may file a motion pursuant to Rule 25.04 with notice to the State and notice to the agency mentioned in the ex parte motion. The Court will then take up the matter and rule following an opportunity to be heard by Defendant and State in open court. 10.Defendant's motion to sever filed January 31, 2012 is denied. Defendant's Motion to Disqualify Sheriff is set for hearing at 9:30 a.m., October 16, 2013 and any other motions filed by Defendant or State between the date of this order and October 16 are set for hearing at said time. Additionally, any motion filed by Defendant or State prior to today's date which have not been presented to the Court is set for hearing at said time. Any such motion not presented on October 16, 2013 shall be considered by the Court to be abandoned by the party filing such, unless other agreement exists. S/Stephen R Sharp
Order
ORDER IN CONNECTION WITH STATE'S MOTION FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION ON SEPTEMBER 20, 2013, DEFENDANT APPEARED IN PERSON AND WITH COUNSEL, AND STATE APPEARED THROUGH PROSECUTING ATTORNEY. AMONG OTHER MATTERS, THE COURT TOOK UP STATE'S MOTION FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION. DEFENDANT HAS DISCLOSED TO STATE REPORTS OF EXAMINATIONS OF DEFENDANT BY EXPERT WITNESSES EMPLOYED BY DEFENDANT. FURTHER, DEFENDANT HAS GIVEN NOTICE (5th SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE) THAT AT TRIAL DEFENDANT MAY SEEK TO PROVE MENTAL OR EMOTIONAL DISTURBANCE AND/OR IMPAIRED CAPACITY. THEREFORE, STATE'S MOTION FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION IS SUSTAINED. (SEE ALSO RSMo 552.015). STATE SHALL FORTHWITH ARRANGE AND SCHEDULE EXAMINATION BY PERSON OF STATE'S CHOOSING. THE EXAMINER SHALL NOT EXAMINE DEFENDANT AS TO GUILT OF THE CRIME CHARGED. DEFENSE COUNSEL'S REQUEST TO BE PRESENT AT THE EXAMINATION IS DENIED. IN ORDER TO PERMIT DEFENDANT TO SEEK WRIT OF PROHIBITION SHOULD COUNSEL DESIRE, THE DATE OF THIS EXAMINATION SHALL NOT BE PRIOR TO OCTOBER 1, 2013. S/STEPHEN R SHARP
https://www.courts.mo.gov/casenet/cases/searchCases.do?searchType=name
