arkansasmimi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2014
- Messages
- 10,161
- Reaction score
- 114
:drink::drink: No wonder so many people in the LEO and Legal go have a drink.... 
ullhair::websleuther:
ullhair::websleuther:
GUILTY AR - Beverly Carter, 49, Little Rock, 25 Sep 2014 - #10
- Thread starter imamaze
- Start date
- Status
arkansasmimi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2014
- Messages
- 10,161
- Reaction score
- 114
:silly: ^^^^^ Respectfully I bolded and snipped my own post.... The case that is referenced here in this Pros Response to Maritial Privilege ... I thought that name looked familiar (MacKool) :lookingitup: I remember it from researching AL new attorney when he first came on. LESLIE MACKOOL ... wife of ^^^ MICHAEL R MACKOOL.... was Bill James Client!! She got Life (they killed Leslie's Mother, Leslie's Father had died not long before and it was said that Leslie was angry over her inheritance, and they killed her Mother)
arkansasmimi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2014
- Messages
- 10,161
- Reaction score
- 114
Here is the rest of stuff from the Appeal about the Marital Privilege used in the Pros Response (or what I found)
Marital Privilege
Mike argues that the circuit court erred in allowing Leslie to testify against him over his assertion of the marital privilege. A communication is confidential if it is made privately by any person to his or her spouse and is not intended for disclosure to any other person. Ark. R. Evid. 504(a). An accused in a criminal proceeding has a privilege to prevent his spouse from testifying as to any confidential communication between the accused and the spouse. Ark. R. Evid. 504(b). A person upon whom these rules confer a privilege against disclosure waives the privilege if he . . . voluntarily discloses or consents to disclosure of any significant part of the privileged matter. . . . Ark. R. Evid. 510. See also Barrett v. State, 354 Ark. 187, 119 S.W.3d 485 (2003). Thus, if the same information protected by privilege is disclosed to a third person, the privilege is waived. See, e.g., Dansby v. State, 338 Ark. 697, 1 S.W.3d 403 (1999); Halfacre v. State, 292 Ark. 331, 731 S.W.2d 179 (1987).
[10] At a hearing on September 16, 2004, Mike requested that Leslie not be allowed to testify with regard to "any communications between her and her spouse regarding this incident." The circuit court ruled that it would allow testimony concerning events taking place from August 2003 up until the murder on September 12. We first wish to emphasize that the privilege applies to communications, not to what the spouse heard, saw, and observed in relation to a criminal charge. See, e.g., Findley v. State,307 Ark. 53, 818 S.W.2d 242 (1991); Sumlin, supra (emphasis added). Therefore, the State correctly points out that Mike could not prevent Leslie from testifying about what she observed in relation to the criminal charges.
[11] The State also contends that Leslie was properly allowed to testify as to communications that were intended to be disclosed to others rather than to be held confidential, such as the "alibi story" that the MacKools concocted to tell the police. Indeed, this court has held that a fabricated story between spouses intended to be told to the police is not privileged. See David v. State, 286 Ark. 205,691 S.W.2d 133 (1985). Mike argues in his reply brief that there is absolutely no evidence to indicate that he *447447 and Leslie concocted an alibi story to tell anyone and, further, the fact that their statements were so divergent would indicate just the opposite. While we are not convinced that there is evidence of the fabrication of an alibi, we do believe that there is evidence of the fabrication of a story to tell the police. Leslie testified that when she and Mike drove to the police station for questioning after being informed of her mother's death, Mike told her repeatedly that if she even mentioned his name while speaking to the police, he would find out and would kill her. She further stated that Mike told her that while she answered questions, she was to act upset and to be convincing. In David, the trial court allowed appellant's wife to testify that after he shot the victim, he told her to tell police that the victim had attacked her and that appellant killed the victim in an effort to rescue her. This court held that the spousal privilege did not apply because appellant intended the fabricated story to be told to the police. Appellant then argued that even though he intended for the fabricated story to be told to the police, he did not intend for his wife to disclose the fact that he told her to fabricate it. We disagreed and explained:
The fact that the appellant told his spouse to tell the story must be allowed into evidence, or else, as a practical matter, the spousal communication remains privileged, even though it is intended for communication. To illustrate, the distinction in this case is the difference between "I told the police . . ." and "He told me to tell the police . . ." The statement "I told the police . . .," standing alone, is not a spousal communication, and is not subject to the privilege under any condition. The statement "He told me to tell . . ." is the predicate or the foundation by which the witness establishes that the remainder of the statement is exempt from the privilege since it establishes the intention to disclose to third persons.
David, 286 Ark. at 210, 691 S.W.2d at 138. Pursuant to our holding in David, Mike's communication to Leslie about how she should act and what she should not disclose to the police is exempt from the privilege.
[12] The State argues that the balance of Leslie's testimony is exempt from the privilege because Mike disclosed a significant part of the privileged information to a third party. In support of its argument, the State points to the contents of Mike's statements, specifically: (1) Mike's initial statement to the police late on *448448 September 13, 2003, as a person of interest, in which he denied any knowledge of the murder and claimed to have a cordial relationship with the victim; (2) Mike's statement that Leslie got the coin collection from her mother a week before her mother's death; (3) Mike's questions to Bracey concerning whether the police wanted to hear the truth and whether it was good to be up front; (4) Mike's telling Bracey "probably, no," and "ain't got no reason to," when Bracey asked him if he would have asked whether he should tell the truth if he was not guilty; and (5) Mike's statement that Leslie "can cry and trying to say I made her do it, you know and that's just a bunch of bull." The State's argument is well taken. We agree that in making the aforementioned statements to the police, Mike waived his privilege because he disclosed a significant part of the privileged matter.
[13] Before leaving this point, we turn to Mike's remaining arguments, in which he contends that his case is distinguishable from those cases where a spouse testifies due to a waiver of privilege. Mike first argues that in the cases in which a defendant's spouse was allowed to testify at trial due to a waiver of the spousal privilege, the privileged comments had been communicated to a third person other than a police officer. Moreover, Mike argues, the statements in those cases corroborated the spouse's testimony. Mike contends that in this case, even if his comments to the police amounted to statements to third parties, the comments did not corroborate, but rather contradicted Leslie's testimony. Mike cites no authority for the proposition that in order to waive the privilege by disclosing a significant part of the privileged matter, the disclosure must be made to third parties other than police. Nor does he cite any authority for the proposition that any disclosure regarding the privileged information must corroborate the spouse's testimony at trial. This court does not consider arguments that are unsupported by convincing argument or sufficient citation to legal authority. Kelly v. State, 350 Ark. 238, 85 S.W.3d 893 (2002). https://casetext.com/case/mackool-v-state-1 more on the case at the OPINION
Marital Privilege
Mike argues that the circuit court erred in allowing Leslie to testify against him over his assertion of the marital privilege. A communication is confidential if it is made privately by any person to his or her spouse and is not intended for disclosure to any other person. Ark. R. Evid. 504(a). An accused in a criminal proceeding has a privilege to prevent his spouse from testifying as to any confidential communication between the accused and the spouse. Ark. R. Evid. 504(b). A person upon whom these rules confer a privilege against disclosure waives the privilege if he . . . voluntarily discloses or consents to disclosure of any significant part of the privileged matter. . . . Ark. R. Evid. 510. See also Barrett v. State, 354 Ark. 187, 119 S.W.3d 485 (2003). Thus, if the same information protected by privilege is disclosed to a third person, the privilege is waived. See, e.g., Dansby v. State, 338 Ark. 697, 1 S.W.3d 403 (1999); Halfacre v. State, 292 Ark. 331, 731 S.W.2d 179 (1987).
[10] At a hearing on September 16, 2004, Mike requested that Leslie not be allowed to testify with regard to "any communications between her and her spouse regarding this incident." The circuit court ruled that it would allow testimony concerning events taking place from August 2003 up until the murder on September 12. We first wish to emphasize that the privilege applies to communications, not to what the spouse heard, saw, and observed in relation to a criminal charge. See, e.g., Findley v. State,307 Ark. 53, 818 S.W.2d 242 (1991); Sumlin, supra (emphasis added). Therefore, the State correctly points out that Mike could not prevent Leslie from testifying about what she observed in relation to the criminal charges.
[11] The State also contends that Leslie was properly allowed to testify as to communications that were intended to be disclosed to others rather than to be held confidential, such as the "alibi story" that the MacKools concocted to tell the police. Indeed, this court has held that a fabricated story between spouses intended to be told to the police is not privileged. See David v. State, 286 Ark. 205,691 S.W.2d 133 (1985). Mike argues in his reply brief that there is absolutely no evidence to indicate that he *447447 and Leslie concocted an alibi story to tell anyone and, further, the fact that their statements were so divergent would indicate just the opposite. While we are not convinced that there is evidence of the fabrication of an alibi, we do believe that there is evidence of the fabrication of a story to tell the police. Leslie testified that when she and Mike drove to the police station for questioning after being informed of her mother's death, Mike told her repeatedly that if she even mentioned his name while speaking to the police, he would find out and would kill her. She further stated that Mike told her that while she answered questions, she was to act upset and to be convincing. In David, the trial court allowed appellant's wife to testify that after he shot the victim, he told her to tell police that the victim had attacked her and that appellant killed the victim in an effort to rescue her. This court held that the spousal privilege did not apply because appellant intended the fabricated story to be told to the police. Appellant then argued that even though he intended for the fabricated story to be told to the police, he did not intend for his wife to disclose the fact that he told her to fabricate it. We disagreed and explained:
The fact that the appellant told his spouse to tell the story must be allowed into evidence, or else, as a practical matter, the spousal communication remains privileged, even though it is intended for communication. To illustrate, the distinction in this case is the difference between "I told the police . . ." and "He told me to tell the police . . ." The statement "I told the police . . .," standing alone, is not a spousal communication, and is not subject to the privilege under any condition. The statement "He told me to tell . . ." is the predicate or the foundation by which the witness establishes that the remainder of the statement is exempt from the privilege since it establishes the intention to disclose to third persons.
David, 286 Ark. at 210, 691 S.W.2d at 138. Pursuant to our holding in David, Mike's communication to Leslie about how she should act and what she should not disclose to the police is exempt from the privilege.
[12] The State argues that the balance of Leslie's testimony is exempt from the privilege because Mike disclosed a significant part of the privileged information to a third party. In support of its argument, the State points to the contents of Mike's statements, specifically: (1) Mike's initial statement to the police late on *448448 September 13, 2003, as a person of interest, in which he denied any knowledge of the murder and claimed to have a cordial relationship with the victim; (2) Mike's statement that Leslie got the coin collection from her mother a week before her mother's death; (3) Mike's questions to Bracey concerning whether the police wanted to hear the truth and whether it was good to be up front; (4) Mike's telling Bracey "probably, no," and "ain't got no reason to," when Bracey asked him if he would have asked whether he should tell the truth if he was not guilty; and (5) Mike's statement that Leslie "can cry and trying to say I made her do it, you know and that's just a bunch of bull." The State's argument is well taken. We agree that in making the aforementioned statements to the police, Mike waived his privilege because he disclosed a significant part of the privileged matter.
[13] Before leaving this point, we turn to Mike's remaining arguments, in which he contends that his case is distinguishable from those cases where a spouse testifies due to a waiver of privilege. Mike first argues that in the cases in which a defendant's spouse was allowed to testify at trial due to a waiver of the spousal privilege, the privileged comments had been communicated to a third person other than a police officer. Moreover, Mike argues, the statements in those cases corroborated the spouse's testimony. Mike contends that in this case, even if his comments to the police amounted to statements to third parties, the comments did not corroborate, but rather contradicted Leslie's testimony. Mike cites no authority for the proposition that in order to waive the privilege by disclosing a significant part of the privileged matter, the disclosure must be made to third parties other than police. Nor does he cite any authority for the proposition that any disclosure regarding the privileged information must corroborate the spouse's testimony at trial. This court does not consider arguments that are unsupported by convincing argument or sufficient citation to legal authority. Kelly v. State, 350 Ark. 238, 85 S.W.3d 893 (2002). https://casetext.com/case/mackool-v-state-1 more on the case at the OPINION
arkansasmimi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2014
- Messages
- 10,161
- Reaction score
- 114
Something interesting also at that MacKool link.. it appears the Jury was able to submit questions to the Judge and at the Bench, the Pros and Def went over the questions and most were asked of the Witnesses. I didn't know could be done in Arkansas courts. IIRC it was allowed in the Jodi A case (I just heard bits and pieces didnt follow it )
This is what the Court said after going thru the Appellants filing at the end
This is what the Court said after going thru the Appellants filing at the end
arkansasmimi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2014
- Messages
- 10,161
- Reaction score
- 114
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE FROM SEARCH OF 2012
BLACK FORD FUSION
8. On September 28, 2014, at 11:58 p.m., a search warrant was sworn out before the
Honorable Wayne Gruber to search black 2012 Ford Fusion.
https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i...resent2?DMS_ID=0KNGNRPZMBPM4L70D9TRKKAL66LAC3
Does this mean that the Search Warrant was issued for the Ford Fusion at this time? 2 min before midnight of Sept 29th?
I googled and found this Search Warrant FOR ANOTHER CASE, NOT THIS ONE, it was for the man who killed 1 and injured another at a Reserve Office in Little Rock Ar in 2009. It shows an Affidavit for and the actual authorizing of the search warrant. It show where it is sworn before the Judge, and it also shows where she put the time she swore out the search warrant.
http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/case_docs/988.pdf
What I am confused about is in this case as well as in the ^^^ above case, (in above case Judge signed that she approved the warrant at 1:15pm, page 3 of document in other case and on page 5 the document showing the search warrant was served at 13:10 - 1:10pm... so by this JMHO it shows the search warrant was actually served upon the truck 5 min prior to the time the Judge actually issued the warrant. Ok that's only 5 minutes, possible that someones watch was off by 5 min) * also there is a doc, Search Warrant Returned by the LEO and it is time dated.
For the record I do not have the actual Affidavit, nor do I have the actual Search Warrant to look at. I am only going by info provided by documents available, sourced with links below. So this is otherwise JMHO
I am confused about the Pros Response stating that the time for search warrant on the 2012 Ford Fusion was sworn before Judge at 11:58pm. Does this mean that is the time that Judge Gruber signed that the Affidavit met probable case, and issued the search warrant for the Ford Fusion (as in the above referenced example the Judge in that case did)? IF so, how could the (I am assuming, from info in the Mental Eval) the items found in the Ford Fusion be used, assuming that the search warrant wasn't sworn until 11:58 pm? OR was that when the Search warrant was Returned to the Judge? VERY Possible I am not understanding what the 11:58 pm time means.
AL accident occurred per the police report at 9:55 am Sept 28, 2014 (see link to new Fed suit AL filed, but has a copy of the Accident Report in the Complaint uploaded here http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...RESTS-C-Lowery-guilty&p=12119605#post12119605 )
The Bench Warrant for Kidnapping was time stamped at 4:37 pm on Sept 28, 2014 http://archive.thv11.com/assetpool/documents/140928093308_warrant2.pdf
**Since this document states "Carter's whereabouts are still unknown" and its from Affidavit for Warrant, JMHO it was the one used for the Bench Warrant for Kidnapping that was issued and time stamped at 4:37 pm September 28, 2014 (is that how you would read?)
From the Mental Eval, bottom of page 7 and continued on page 8:
Information obtained from the Affidavitfor Warrant of Arrest for Arron M. Lewis, Facts Constituting Probable Cause :
<snip>
6. On September 28, 2014,Pulaski County Sheriffs Office Investigators conducted
surveillance on the residence of Crystal Lowery and Aaron Lewis (165 Randall Drive,
Jacksonville, AR) where they observed Lewis who did fit the description of the male the
neighbors had seen. Aaron Lewis was then observed getting into the black Ford Fusion
and driving away. Aaron Lewis drove approximately three miles before he was involved
in a single vehicle accident in which he suffered minor injuries. While working the
accident scene, Investigators found in Aaron Lewis's possession was the phone (501-
687-3833) registered to Crystal Lowery and which was used to communicate with
Beverly Carter. Lewis was taken to the hospital for his injuries, but fled after being taken
to have a CT scan. Aaron Lewis fled the hospital on foot and his whereabouts are
unknown at this time.
7 . On September 28, 2014, Investigators executed a Search Warrant on the 2014 Ford
Fusion Lewis was driving. Investigators found duct tape, a baseball bat, and rope in the
vehicle.
8. On September 28, 2014 Investigators executed a Search Warrant at 165 Randall Drive
(Lowery and Lewis' residence) where they located Beverly Carter's missing iPhone. The
iPhone SIM card had been removed so that it could not be tracked, but was positively
identified as Carter's phone. Carter's whereabouts are still unknown."
http://media.arkansasonline.com/news/documents/2015/02/26/CK_Image.pdf
BLACK FORD FUSION
8. On September 28, 2014, at 11:58 p.m., a search warrant was sworn out before the
Honorable Wayne Gruber to search black 2012 Ford Fusion.
https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i...resent2?DMS_ID=0KNGNRPZMBPM4L70D9TRKKAL66LAC3
Does this mean that the Search Warrant was issued for the Ford Fusion at this time? 2 min before midnight of Sept 29th?
I googled and found this Search Warrant FOR ANOTHER CASE, NOT THIS ONE, it was for the man who killed 1 and injured another at a Reserve Office in Little Rock Ar in 2009. It shows an Affidavit for and the actual authorizing of the search warrant. It show where it is sworn before the Judge, and it also shows where she put the time she swore out the search warrant.
http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/case_docs/988.pdf
What I am confused about is in this case as well as in the ^^^ above case, (in above case Judge signed that she approved the warrant at 1:15pm, page 3 of document in other case and on page 5 the document showing the search warrant was served at 13:10 - 1:10pm... so by this JMHO it shows the search warrant was actually served upon the truck 5 min prior to the time the Judge actually issued the warrant. Ok that's only 5 minutes, possible that someones watch was off by 5 min) * also there is a doc, Search Warrant Returned by the LEO and it is time dated.
For the record I do not have the actual Affidavit, nor do I have the actual Search Warrant to look at. I am only going by info provided by documents available, sourced with links below. So this is otherwise JMHO
I am confused about the Pros Response stating that the time for search warrant on the 2012 Ford Fusion was sworn before Judge at 11:58pm. Does this mean that is the time that Judge Gruber signed that the Affidavit met probable case, and issued the search warrant for the Ford Fusion (as in the above referenced example the Judge in that case did)? IF so, how could the (I am assuming, from info in the Mental Eval) the items found in the Ford Fusion be used, assuming that the search warrant wasn't sworn until 11:58 pm? OR was that when the Search warrant was Returned to the Judge? VERY Possible I am not understanding what the 11:58 pm time means.
AL accident occurred per the police report at 9:55 am Sept 28, 2014 (see link to new Fed suit AL filed, but has a copy of the Accident Report in the Complaint uploaded here http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...RESTS-C-Lowery-guilty&p=12119605#post12119605 )
The Bench Warrant for Kidnapping was time stamped at 4:37 pm on Sept 28, 2014 http://archive.thv11.com/assetpool/documents/140928093308_warrant2.pdf
**Since this document states "Carter's whereabouts are still unknown" and its from Affidavit for Warrant, JMHO it was the one used for the Bench Warrant for Kidnapping that was issued and time stamped at 4:37 pm September 28, 2014 (is that how you would read?)
From the Mental Eval, bottom of page 7 and continued on page 8:
Information obtained from the Affidavitfor Warrant of Arrest for Arron M. Lewis, Facts Constituting Probable Cause :
<snip>
6. On September 28, 2014,Pulaski County Sheriffs Office Investigators conducted
surveillance on the residence of Crystal Lowery and Aaron Lewis (165 Randall Drive,
Jacksonville, AR) where they observed Lewis who did fit the description of the male the
neighbors had seen. Aaron Lewis was then observed getting into the black Ford Fusion
and driving away. Aaron Lewis drove approximately three miles before he was involved
in a single vehicle accident in which he suffered minor injuries. While working the
accident scene, Investigators found in Aaron Lewis's possession was the phone (501-
687-3833) registered to Crystal Lowery and which was used to communicate with
Beverly Carter. Lewis was taken to the hospital for his injuries, but fled after being taken
to have a CT scan. Aaron Lewis fled the hospital on foot and his whereabouts are
unknown at this time.
7 . On September 28, 2014, Investigators executed a Search Warrant on the 2014 Ford
Fusion Lewis was driving. Investigators found duct tape, a baseball bat, and rope in the
vehicle.
8. On September 28, 2014 Investigators executed a Search Warrant at 165 Randall Drive
(Lowery and Lewis' residence) where they located Beverly Carter's missing iPhone. The
iPhone SIM card had been removed so that it could not be tracked, but was positively
identified as Carter's phone. Carter's whereabouts are still unknown."
http://media.arkansasonline.com/news/documents/2015/02/26/CK_Image.pdf
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2013
- Messages
- 5,146
- Reaction score
- 14,789
<snip> Not every police search must be made pursuant to a lawfully executed warrant. The Supreme Court has ruled that warrantless police conduct may comply with the Fourth Amendment, so long as it is reasonable under the circumstances.
So, when can police search your car? Generally, under the following circumstances:
You have given the officer consent
The officer has probable cause to believe there is evidence of a crime in your vehicle
The officer reasonably believes a search is necessary for their own protection (a hidden weapon, for example)
You have been arrested and the search is related to that arrest (such as a search for illegal drugs)
If the police have towed and impounded your car, they have the authority to search your vehicle. This search can be as comprehensive as the police wish, and will most likely include opening any locked compartments or boxes found within your car. The reason for your car getting towed and impounded does not matter. It could be for something as simple as a parking violation or as serious as a car theft.
Police cannot tow and impound your car for the sole purpose of searching it, however.
- See more at: http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimina...e-without-a-warrant.html#sthash.0jbXMEyo.dpuf
So, when can police search your car? Generally, under the following circumstances:
You have given the officer consent
The officer has probable cause to believe there is evidence of a crime in your vehicle
The officer reasonably believes a search is necessary for their own protection (a hidden weapon, for example)
You have been arrested and the search is related to that arrest (such as a search for illegal drugs)
If the police have towed and impounded your car, they have the authority to search your vehicle. This search can be as comprehensive as the police wish, and will most likely include opening any locked compartments or boxes found within your car. The reason for your car getting towed and impounded does not matter. It could be for something as simple as a parking violation or as serious as a car theft.
Police cannot tow and impound your car for the sole purpose of searching it, however.
- See more at: http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimina...e-without-a-warrant.html#sthash.0jbXMEyo.dpuf
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2013
- Messages
- 5,146
- Reaction score
- 14,789
Maybe not, but I am not ruling it out. It is part of the manipulation, in many cases. To see how close they can get the person to those looking and not getting caught. They feel powerful to be able to have the person so close without anyone knowing. Nathaniel Kibby called the police to his home while holding AH captive (name withheld because she was 14). Ariel Castro regularly had people over with 3 girls being held captive. Its not that rational with these humans. It is another form of terrorizing, for them. It excites them to terrorize the victim with people who can help being so close. It is SICK. But, it is also very possible. Not certain, but possible.
And there were definitely reports of not only their bed, but the daughter's bed being sold. Not sure if it is true, but it was stated by locals for sure.
arkansasmimi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2014
- Messages
- 10,161
- Reaction score
- 114
I fully understand that there are situations where a vehicle can be searched without a search warrant. No argument on that.
That appears not to be the case here, as the Pros Response give the information about a search warrant for the car. My confusion is about the time listed with the date. And what that means. The same time and verbiage is used in the other Responses. It also follows along with what is listed in the Mental Eval link I posted. Since it was listed couple time date and time swore before Judge Gruber, what does that mean?
arkansasmimi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2014
- Messages
- 10,161
- Reaction score
- 114
Affidavits for Search Warrant and the actual Search Warrants in this case have been put under seal we were told from the beginning. So we do not have any information on them other than (to my knowledge and so therefore could be wrong) 1) 1st Mental Eval pg 7/8, 2) Motions filed Oct 1 by the Defense 3) Pros Response to Motions filed Oct 16.
My question is, are all these talking about the same Search Warrant for 2012 Ford Fusion?
Was the same Search Warrant for Ford Fusion where the rope, tape and ball bat were noted on Affidavit for the Kidnapping Warrant that was issued at 4:37 pm Sunday, Sept 28, 2014, the same that the Pros is stating was sworn out before Judge Gruber at 11:58 pm the same date, Sunday, Sept 28, 2014?
Does that Sworn Out before Judge Gruber mean same as in the doc in this case? http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/case_docs/988.pdf
MOTION TO SUPPRESS PHYSICAL EVIDENCE FROM FAULTY WARRANT FOR
2012 BLACK FORD FUSION
https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i...resent2?DMS_ID=NFCB626U76Z601I2SMHZ3004VBQVEP
1. On or about September 28, 2014, members of the Pulaski County Sheriff’s ** we do not know what time Affidavit was filed or
filed an affidavit for a search warrant of Defendant's vehicle. what it says.
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE FROM SEARCH OF 2012
BLACK FORD FUSION
https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i...resent2?DMS_ID=0KNGNRPZMBPM4L70D9TRKKAL66LAC3
8. On September 28, 2014, at 11:58 p.m., a search warrant was sworn out before the
Honorable Wayne Gruber to search black 2012 Ford Fusion.
From the Mental Eval, bottom of page 7 and continued on page 8:
Information obtained from the Affidavit for Warrant of Arrest for Arron M. Lewis, Facts Constituting Probable Cause :
7 . On September 28, 2014, Investigators executed a Search Warrant on the 2014 Ford
Fusion Lewis was driving. Investigators found duct tape, a baseball bat, and rope in the
vehicle
http://media.arkansasonline.com/news/documents/2015/02/26/CK_Image.pdf
My question is, are all these talking about the same Search Warrant for 2012 Ford Fusion?
Was the same Search Warrant for Ford Fusion where the rope, tape and ball bat were noted on Affidavit for the Kidnapping Warrant that was issued at 4:37 pm Sunday, Sept 28, 2014, the same that the Pros is stating was sworn out before Judge Gruber at 11:58 pm the same date, Sunday, Sept 28, 2014?
Does that Sworn Out before Judge Gruber mean same as in the doc in this case? http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/case_docs/988.pdf
MOTION TO SUPPRESS PHYSICAL EVIDENCE FROM FAULTY WARRANT FOR
2012 BLACK FORD FUSION
https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i...resent2?DMS_ID=NFCB626U76Z601I2SMHZ3004VBQVEP
1. On or about September 28, 2014, members of the Pulaski County Sheriff’s ** we do not know what time Affidavit was filed or
filed an affidavit for a search warrant of Defendant's vehicle. what it says.
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE FROM SEARCH OF 2012
BLACK FORD FUSION
https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i...resent2?DMS_ID=0KNGNRPZMBPM4L70D9TRKKAL66LAC3
8. On September 28, 2014, at 11:58 p.m., a search warrant was sworn out before the
Honorable Wayne Gruber to search black 2012 Ford Fusion.
From the Mental Eval, bottom of page 7 and continued on page 8:
Information obtained from the Affidavit for Warrant of Arrest for Arron M. Lewis, Facts Constituting Probable Cause :
7 . On September 28, 2014, Investigators executed a Search Warrant on the 2014 Ford
Fusion Lewis was driving. Investigators found duct tape, a baseball bat, and rope in the
vehicle
http://media.arkansasonline.com/news/documents/2015/02/26/CK_Image.pdf
arkansasmimi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2014
- Messages
- 10,161
- Reaction score
- 114
10/16/2015
01:20 PM SUBPOENA RETURN BY PROSECUTOR
Entry: MICHAEL HENDRIX NOVEMBER 16 2015 OH @8:30AM
Images No Images
10/16/2015
01:20 PM SUBPOENA RETURN BY PROSECUTOR
Entry: S A STEPHEN BURROUGHS FBI NOVEMBER 16 2015 OH @8:30AM
Images No Images
10/16/2015
01:20 PM SUBPOENA RETURN BY PROSECUTOR
Entry: S/A CHRIS CONE NOVEMBER 16 2015 OH @8:30AM
https://caseinfo.aoc.arkansas.gov/c...=P&case_id=60CR-14-3928&begin_date=&end_date=
01:20 PM SUBPOENA RETURN BY PROSECUTOR
Entry: MICHAEL HENDRIX NOVEMBER 16 2015 OH @8:30AM
Images No Images
10/16/2015
01:20 PM SUBPOENA RETURN BY PROSECUTOR
Entry: S A STEPHEN BURROUGHS FBI NOVEMBER 16 2015 OH @8:30AM
Images No Images
10/16/2015
01:20 PM SUBPOENA RETURN BY PROSECUTOR
Entry: S/A CHRIS CONE NOVEMBER 16 2015 OH @8:30AM
https://caseinfo.aoc.arkansas.gov/c...=P&case_id=60CR-14-3928&begin_date=&end_date=
arkansasmimi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2014
- Messages
- 10,161
- Reaction score
- 114
10/16/2015
01:20 PM SUBPOENA RETURN BY PROSECUTOR
Entry: S/A CHRIS CONE NOVEMBER 16 2015 OH @8:30AM
Chris Cone
Arkansas Attorney General's Offce
Little Rock, Arkansas AreaLaw Enforcement
Current
Arkansas Attorney General's Office
Previous
Pulaski County Sheriff's Office, Sherwood Police Department
Education
Arkansas Tech University
Summary
Digital forensics examinations of all types of electronic devices using a variety of open source and commercial tools.
Experience
Special Agent - Digital Forensics Examiner
Arkansas Attorney General's Office
March 2013 Present (2 years 8 months)Little Rock
Digital Forensics Examiner responsible for investigating a variety of electronic evidence (mobile devices, computer systems, removable media, etc.) involved in criminal cases.
(Open)1 organization
Investigator
Pulaski County Sheriff's Office
November 2010 February 2013 (2 years 4 months)Little Rock, Arkansas Area
I am responsible for investigating a variety of criminal cases as well as missing person cases along with being a member of the Arkansas Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force.
Patrol Deputy
Pulaski County Sheriff's Office
January 2010 November 2010 (11 months)
Patrol Officer and Detective
Sherwood Police Department
September 1998 August 2007 (9 years)Sherwood, AR
Investigated a variety of criminal cases including property crimes, crimes against persons and missing persons cases.
https://www.linkedin.com/pub/chris-cone/28/984/5b7
01:20 PM SUBPOENA RETURN BY PROSECUTOR
Entry: S/A CHRIS CONE NOVEMBER 16 2015 OH @8:30AM
Chris Cone
Arkansas Attorney General's Offce
Little Rock, Arkansas AreaLaw Enforcement
Current
Arkansas Attorney General's Office
Previous
Pulaski County Sheriff's Office, Sherwood Police Department
Education
Arkansas Tech University
Summary
Digital forensics examinations of all types of electronic devices using a variety of open source and commercial tools.
Experience
Special Agent - Digital Forensics Examiner
Arkansas Attorney General's Office
March 2013 Present (2 years 8 months)Little Rock
Digital Forensics Examiner responsible for investigating a variety of electronic evidence (mobile devices, computer systems, removable media, etc.) involved in criminal cases.
(Open)1 organization
Investigator
Pulaski County Sheriff's Office
November 2010 February 2013 (2 years 4 months)Little Rock, Arkansas Area
I am responsible for investigating a variety of criminal cases as well as missing person cases along with being a member of the Arkansas Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force.
Patrol Deputy
Pulaski County Sheriff's Office
January 2010 November 2010 (11 months)
Patrol Officer and Detective
Sherwood Police Department
September 1998 August 2007 (9 years)Sherwood, AR
Investigated a variety of criminal cases including property crimes, crimes against persons and missing persons cases.
https://www.linkedin.com/pub/chris-cone/28/984/5b7
Renee110
Stop letting criminals off the Hook!
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2013
- Messages
- 1,509
- Reaction score
- 230
bumping this up for Beverly. I have just finished spending a week reading from thread 1, and I am now immersed in this case. I am shocked and surprised at Carl Jr stating that CL was the "mastermind" and behind this "plan". I didn't see that one coming. And even after following Travis Alexander's murder, and I followed that one religiously, I am still amazed at the self indulgence of AL and his filings and his .... indulgence! I feel so sorry for Beverly's family, and for Crystal's children and ex husband... I can't imagine trying to deal with this on a personal level. I hope like anything that this isn't like JA's trial, and drags on for years and years.
And I am so in awe of the sleuther's we are fortunate to have here. I have no doubt that LE reads this forum and gets intel and tidbits to follow up on. We are fortunate indeed to have people like mimi and more that can sleuth the way they do.
And I am so in awe of the sleuther's we are fortunate to have here. I have no doubt that LE reads this forum and gets intel and tidbits to follow up on. We are fortunate indeed to have people like mimi and more that can sleuth the way they do.
https://caseinfo.aoc.arkansas.gov/c...=P&case_id=60CR-14-3928&begin_date=&end_date=
New request for disclosure of codefendent statements.
New request for disclosure of codefendent statements.
The last entry was in January 2015, motion to dismiss divorce case by Arron M. Lewis. I guess it's still on hold.
https://caseinfo.aoc.arkansas.gov/c...=P&case_id=60DR-14-4528&begin_date=&end_date=
Okay, I've may have been sleeping, but did I miss this being discussed before? Carl Jr. posted an update on the trial on his FB page a little over 3 weeks ago.
He mentions they will have to identify his mother's voice on a ransom recording AND he stole some of ALs thunder by going ahead and saying that AL is going to say that BC was involved in a "love triangle" with AL and CL (we already suspected this from what he said in his jailhouse interview).
Anyway, is this the first time we've had actual confirmation of a ransom demand? I know we had theorized, but is this the first time we've heard someone actually say it?
If I missed this earlier in the thread, excuse me! My brain is mush these days! LOL
He mentions they will have to identify his mother's voice on a ransom recording AND he stole some of ALs thunder by going ahead and saying that AL is going to say that BC was involved in a "love triangle" with AL and CL (we already suspected this from what he said in his jailhouse interview).
Anyway, is this the first time we've had actual confirmation of a ransom demand? I know we had theorized, but is this the first time we've heard someone actually say it?
If I missed this earlier in the thread, excuse me! My brain is mush these days! LOL
Very random thought.....I wonder if AL is going to use the (what I believe to be imaginary ) 'love triangle' to try to pin the entire thing on CL? Saying she was jealous?
Otherwise, I'm just not seeing how it would be relevant (even if it did happen.....which I'm sure it didn't ).
Otherwise, I'm just not seeing how it would be relevant (even if it did happen.....which I'm sure it didn't ).
arkansasmimi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2014
- Messages
- 10,161
- Reaction score
- 114
Starting to get to the interesting part (legal) to me. The Defense filed Motion to invoke Marital Privilege on Oct 1... Oct 16 State file their Response to that Motion and Oct 30 (last Friday) filed an Addendum to their Response. Today, Nov 2 the Defense filed a Reply to the States Motion....
10/16/2015
08:54 AM RESPONSE TO MOTION FILED JOHNSON, JOHN F
Entry: TO EXCLUDE BASED ON MARITAL PRIVILEGE:ST
Images WEB
https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i...resent2?DMS_ID=O3DLR3EGOTD1U4J26ZT4ZRBK4JGRJX
10/30/2015
12:08 PM RESPONSE TO MOTION FILED JOHNSON, JOHN F
Entry: none.
Images WEB
https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i...resent2?DMS_ID=NSEAXFVK9PKBVMXV8CZCIQ3NPYN7OY
11/02/2015
12:00 PM RESPONSE/REPLY JAMES JR , WILLIAM OWEN
Entry: Reply to State's response on spousal privilege
Images WEB
https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i...resent2?DMS_ID=19IUODYR4J0D6IRWJL5MTB5KLJAU5G
ETA: For Reference
Rule 504. Husband-Wife Privilege.
(a) Definition. A communication is confidential if it is made privately by any person to his or her spouse and is not intended for disclosure to any other person.
(b) General Rule of Privilege. An accused in a criminal proceeding has a privilege to prevent his spouse from testifying as to any confidential communication between the accused and the spouse.
(c) Who May Claim the Privilege. The privilege may be claimed by the accused or by the spouse on behalf of the accused. The authority of the spouse to do so is presumed.
(d) Exceptions. There is no privilege under this rule in a proceeding in which one [1] spouse is charged with a crime against the person or property of (1) the other, (2) a child of either, (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.
Associated Court Rules:
Arkansas Rules of Evidence
Group Title:
Article V. Privileges
https://courts.arkansas.gov/rules-a...s/court-rules/rule-504-husband-wife-privilege
10/16/2015
08:54 AM RESPONSE TO MOTION FILED JOHNSON, JOHN F
Entry: TO EXCLUDE BASED ON MARITAL PRIVILEGE:ST
Images WEB
https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i...resent2?DMS_ID=O3DLR3EGOTD1U4J26ZT4ZRBK4JGRJX
10/30/2015
12:08 PM RESPONSE TO MOTION FILED JOHNSON, JOHN F
Entry: none.
Images WEB
https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i...resent2?DMS_ID=NSEAXFVK9PKBVMXV8CZCIQ3NPYN7OY
11/02/2015
12:00 PM RESPONSE/REPLY JAMES JR , WILLIAM OWEN
Entry: Reply to State's response on spousal privilege
Images WEB
https://contexte.aoc.arkansas.gov/i...resent2?DMS_ID=19IUODYR4J0D6IRWJL5MTB5KLJAU5G
ETA: For Reference
Rule 504. Husband-Wife Privilege.
(a) Definition. A communication is confidential if it is made privately by any person to his or her spouse and is not intended for disclosure to any other person.
(b) General Rule of Privilege. An accused in a criminal proceeding has a privilege to prevent his spouse from testifying as to any confidential communication between the accused and the spouse.
(c) Who May Claim the Privilege. The privilege may be claimed by the accused or by the spouse on behalf of the accused. The authority of the spouse to do so is presumed.
(d) Exceptions. There is no privilege under this rule in a proceeding in which one [1] spouse is charged with a crime against the person or property of (1) the other, (2) a child of either, (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.
Associated Court Rules:
Arkansas Rules of Evidence
Group Title:
Article V. Privileges
https://courts.arkansas.gov/rules-a...s/court-rules/rule-504-husband-wife-privilege
arkansasmimi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2014
- Messages
- 10,161
- Reaction score
- 114
10/16 Filing
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO EXCLUDE BASED ON MARITAL PRIVILEGE
Comes now the State of Arkansas, by and through John F. Johnson, Deputy Prosecuting
Attorney, and for its response to the defendant’s motion states the following:
1. The defendant is charged with capital murder.
2. Following his arrest, the defendant was advised of his rights on multiple occasions and
made multiple statements to the members of the Pulaski County Sherriff’s Office and the
FBI regarding the events surrounding the death of Ms. Beverly Carter.
3. Following his arrest, the defendant made several statements to the media regarding the
murder of Ms. Carter and how he came to target her.
4. Following his return to the Arkansas Department of Corrections, the defendant contacted
the media and gave an on camera interview regarding the death of Ms. Carter.
5. On September 25, 2015, the defendant met with Dr. Melissa Dannacher of the Arkansas
State Hospital for the purpose of a second mental evaluation. In his first mental
evaluation the defendant declined to discuss the homicide. For his second evaluation, the
defendant brought with him a handwritten, highly detailed narrative regarding the death
of Ms. Carter. In this narrative the defendant attempts to explain the evidence contained
in the investigative file that he had been supplied via discovery.
6. While the defendant was incarcerated, but prior to Crystal Lowery entering a negotiated
plea of guilty, the defendant wrote several letters to Lowery regarding the murder of Ms.
Carter, suggesting things that Lowery should say in her defense.
7. One of the letters included affidavits written and signed by the defendant, Lewis. The
affidavits are statements by this defendant pertaining to certain evidence against the
defendant and Lowery wherein the defendant is making certain assertions about that
evidence. In the letter the defendant instructs Lowery to present the affidavits to a third
party (presumably some branch of law enforcement or a jury). As evidence of her
innocence.
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO EXCLUDE BASED ON MARITAL PRIVILEGE
Comes now the State of Arkansas, by and through John F. Johnson, Deputy Prosecuting
Attorney, and for its response to the defendant’s motion states the following:
1. The defendant is charged with capital murder.
2. Following his arrest, the defendant was advised of his rights on multiple occasions and
made multiple statements to the members of the Pulaski County Sherriff’s Office and the
FBI regarding the events surrounding the death of Ms. Beverly Carter.
3. Following his arrest, the defendant made several statements to the media regarding the
murder of Ms. Carter and how he came to target her.
4. Following his return to the Arkansas Department of Corrections, the defendant contacted
the media and gave an on camera interview regarding the death of Ms. Carter.
5. On September 25, 2015, the defendant met with Dr. Melissa Dannacher of the Arkansas
State Hospital for the purpose of a second mental evaluation. In his first mental
evaluation the defendant declined to discuss the homicide. For his second evaluation, the
defendant brought with him a handwritten, highly detailed narrative regarding the death
of Ms. Carter. In this narrative the defendant attempts to explain the evidence contained
in the investigative file that he had been supplied via discovery.
6. While the defendant was incarcerated, but prior to Crystal Lowery entering a negotiated
plea of guilty, the defendant wrote several letters to Lowery regarding the murder of Ms.
Carter, suggesting things that Lowery should say in her defense.
7. One of the letters included affidavits written and signed by the defendant, Lewis. The
affidavits are statements by this defendant pertaining to certain evidence against the
defendant and Lowery wherein the defendant is making certain assertions about that
evidence. In the letter the defendant instructs Lowery to present the affidavits to a third
party (presumably some branch of law enforcement or a jury). As evidence of her
innocence.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
Online statistics
- Members online
- 85
- Guests online
- 1,568
- Total visitors
- 1,653