GUILTY AZ - Officer Anthony Holly, 24, fatally shot, Glendale, 19 Feb 2007 #1

[Chelly]

Received following answer from courthouse:

Trial will be at held at South Court Tower, 175 W Madison St. Map to court on website http://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov

 

[geevee]

Received following answer from courthouse:

Trial will be at held at South Court Tower, 175 W Madison St. Map to court on website http://superiorcourt.maricopa.gov

Woohoo, you got the location, step one is done. And yeah, even Motel 6 would cost a shiny penny staying for the duration of the trial, maybe you could just pick what seems like the best week or two to be there, having you on location to make reports would be really awesome, not to mention being able to watch Juan in person, probably get to shake his hand, and maybe sip a cocktail with the Divas after court once or twice. Sounds like a real plan, woman. lol

Judge: "Call your next witness, please..."

Defense: "Your honor, we call Mr. Juan Martinez to the stand."

Judge: "That guy? The prosecutor?? He'll wipe the floor with you even from the witness chair! Are you sure you passed the bar? And I don't mean Gilhooleys on the corner!"

That's so rich, can't believe they're trying this, too bad it won't get far but I'd love to read the response mentioned in the minute entry.

 

[Nymeria]

Does anyone know exactly WHY they are wanting to call Juan to the stand?

 

[geevee]

Does anyone know exactly WHY they are wanting to call Juan to the stand?

Nope, the minute entry was the first I'd seen about it, though I haven't scoured the docket and past entries to see if there's anything else mentioned.

 

[Chelly]

Woohoo, you got the location, step one is done. And yeah, even Motel 6 would cost a shiny penny staying for the duration of the trial, maybe you could just pick what seems like the best week or two to be there, having you on location to make reports would be really awesome, not to mention being able to watch Juan in person, probably get to shake his hand, and maybe sip a cocktail with the Divas after court once or twice. Sounds like a real plan, woman. lol

Judge: "Call your next witness, please..."

Defense: "Your honor, we call Mr. Juan Martinez to the stand."

Judge: "That guy? The prosecutor?? He'll wipe the floor with you even from the witness chair! Are you sure you passed the bar? And I don't mean Gilhooleys on the corner!"

That's so rich, can't believe they're trying this, too bad it won't get far but I'd love to read the response mentioned in the minute entry.

I can't figure out the def strategy in calling Juan as a witness. Maybe I need to go back and do some more reading on this case.

 

[geevee]

Me either Chelly, and there's not much info on the docket, there's this:

4/2/2014 NOT - Notice - Party (001) 4/2/2014
NOTE: DEFENDANT�S LIST OF POTENTIAL TRIAL WITNESSES

and then there's this 6 days later:

4/8/2014 MOT - Motion - Party (001) 4/8/2014
NOTE: MOTION TO PRECLUDE DEFENDANT FROM CALLING PROSECUTOR AS WITNESS

and no minute entry mentioning it until the one on the 17th saying the matter was tabled until the Court could consider Defendant's response to the State's motion to preclude calling the prosecutor (response wasn't filed until the 21st). Very curious though.

 

[Chelly]

Me either Chelly, and there's not much info on the docket, there's this:

4/2/2014 NOT - Notice - Party (001) 4/2/2014
NOTE: DEFENDANT�S LIST OF POTENTIAL TRIAL WITNESSES

and then there's this 6 days later:

4/8/2014 MOT - Motion - Party (001) 4/8/2014
NOTE: MOTION TO PRECLUDE DEFENDANT FROM CALLING PROSECUTOR AS WITNESS

and no minute entry mentioning it until the one on the 17th saying the matter was tabled until the Court could consider Defendant's response to the State's motion to preclude calling the prosecutor (response wasn't filed until the 21st). Very curious though.

Agree. I also spent some hours digging and found no mention elsewhere! Maybe the defense is just being obnoxious. Couldn't find anything on the defense attorneys either.

 

[YESorNO]

I found some old info on Hulsey's former offenses:

http://www.azcorrections.gov/Inmate...MI=B&SearchType=SearchInet&ReportLength=TOP_5

And some reports from 2007:

http://www.realpolice.net/forums/archive/t-65089.html

This from The Trial Divas about an oral argument that was being debated for what the defense claims is an act of “bad faith destruction of evidence" (12/20/13):

"Meanwhile, an oral argument was being debated for what the defense claims is an act of “bad faith destruction of evidence.” The defense is stating that tiny bullet fragments from Hulsey and Holly were tossed out by the Medical Examiner and not preserved for evidence that could be used during trial. Some bullet fragments from Hulsey’s leg were according to the defense, “thrown out,” on the request of a detective during the examination. “Police can’t throw out evidence,” stated defense attorney Michael Reeves. The defense also maintains they have two experts that can support this argument. Hulsey’s attorney is asking that the death penalty be dismissed because they feel the bullet fragments were from the other officer’s gun that was on the scene. The defense is insinuating it was Officer Goitia’s bullet that killed Holly, not a bullet from Hulsey’s gun.

... a witness by the name of Goita Kostis came forward with her counsel to explain to the judge she will be invoking her 5th amendment rights. The defense made clear they want to be able to question Kostis before her rights are invoked. Juan Martinez for the state upheld his position that he didn’t want Kostis to be questioned. Judge Kreamer says that he will allow some questioning by the defense but Kostis can use her 5th amendment right to not answer."

http://thetrialdivas.com/2013/12/30/juan-martinez-is-busy-with-pre-trial-hearings-for-bryan-wayne/

 

[Chelly]

Thanks YESorNO for providing the links. Love useful info! So, it seems possibly Juan has been called as a defense witness because bullet fragments were not preserved as evidence. However, it was the ME who supposedly tossed them out. So, the ME would be testifying on that issue. Still not clear why def is wanting to call Juan as witness. Guess we will learn soon enough.

BBM below:


http://thetrialdivas.com/2013/12/30/juan-martinez-is-busy-with-pre-trial-hearings-for-bryan-wayne/

Meanwhile, an oral argument was being debated for what the defense claims is an act of “bad faith destruction of evidence.” The defense is stating that tiny bullet fragments from Hulsey and Holly were tossed out by the Medical Examiner and not preserved for evidence that could be used during trial. Some bullet fragments from Hulsey’s leg were according to the defense, “thrown out,” on the request of a detective during the examination. “Police can’t throw out evidence,” stated defense attorney Michael Reeves. The defense also maintains they have two experts that can support this argument. Hulsey’s attorney is asking that the death penalty be dismissed because they feel the bullet fragments were from the other officer’s gun that was on the scene. The defense is insinuating it was Officer Goitia’s bullet that killed Holly, not a bullet from Hulsey’s gun.

While, Judge Kreamer stated “Yes, the fragments should have been preserved, there was a witness that saw Hulsey shoot Officer Holly.” Judge Kreamer went on to say that, “The witnesses do have conflicting statements, but that the evidence suggests Hulsey was the shooter.” Juan made a short comment that this incident of the bullet fragments not being preserved was not done in bad faith and it was only looked at as potential evidence. Judge Kreamer stated he will take all this “Under Advisement.

 

[YESorNO]

Some more info:

Case Documents
Filing Date Description Docket Date Filing Party
4/25/2014 OBJ - Objection/Opposition. - Party (001) 4/25/2014
NOTE: Defendants Objection to States Proposed List of Photographs

4/25/2014 NOT - Notice - Party (001) 4/25/2014
NOTE: Defendants Notice Regarding Photographs to be Presented at Trial

4/25/2014 NOT - Notice - Party (001) 4/25/2014
NOTE: Defendants Amended Notice Regarding Photographs to be Presented at Trial

4/23/2014 MOT - Motion - Party (001) 4/23/2014
NOTE: Defendants Motion to Compel the State to Disclose All of the Expert Witnesses From Shot Spotter

4/22/2014 NOT - Notice - Party (001) 4/22/2014
NOTE: NOTICE REGARDING DISCLOSURE OF PATSY JONES� ADDRESS

4/22/2014 005 - ME: Hearing - Party (001) 4/22/2014

4/21/2014 SDO - Order to Seal Documents - Party (001) 4/24/2014
NOTE: EX PARTE MOTION FOR ORDER: ORDER: MOTION TO SEAL: MINUTE ENTRY DATED 04/17/14

http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/CriminalCourtCases/caseInfo.asp

What is a "Shot Spotter"????

 

[Bernina]

Just so you know, I'll be here when this trial starts!!!!! I will be available for "twitter" updates on the thread, seems I'm getting the hang of it over on the CMMD thread........:floorlaugh:........but really hoping, as all the rest of the :juanettes: are, that we'll have a streaming feed from some news source there in Phoenix. Keep your fingers crossed!!!

We all missed what was probably another interesting case, the DeVault trial (still in deliberations in the penalty phase) because local news stations claimed there was little, if no interest, in that trial. :facepalm: Aren't all Death penalty cases interesting?!?!?!?!

I'll be here the 12th, in, out, and back in....have an appointment mid day in "town", urgh, but have the rest of the weeks (and months) pretty clear!

See you kids on the 12th!!!:seeya:

 

[Chelly]

Just so you know, I'll be here when this trial starts!!!!! I will be available for "twitter" updates on the thread, seems I'm getting the hang of it over on the CMMD thread........:floorlaugh:........but really hoping, as all the rest of the :juanettes: are, that we'll have a streaming feed from some news source there in Phoenix. Keep your fingers crossed!!!

We all missed what was probably another interesting case, the DeVault trial (still in deliberations in the penalty phase) because local news stations claimed there was little, if no interest, in that trial. :facepalm: Aren't all Death penalty cases interesting?!?!?!?!

I'll be here the 12th, in, out, and back in....have an appointment mid day in "town", urgh, but have the rest of the weeks (and months) pretty clear!

See you kids on the 12th!!!:seeya:

Bernina, This is the best news I have heard all year! You will be our eyes and ears if there is no live stream. Thank you! :loveyou:

 

[Chelly]

Some more info:

Case Documents
Filing Date Description Docket Date Filing Party
4/25/2014 OBJ - Objection/Opposition. - Party (001) 4/25/2014
NOTE: Defendants Objection to States Proposed List of Photographs

4/25/2014 NOT - Notice - Party (001) 4/25/2014
NOTE: Defendants Notice Regarding Photographs to be Presented at Trial

4/25/2014 NOT - Notice - Party (001) 4/25/2014
NOTE: Defendants Amended Notice Regarding Photographs to be Presented at Trial

4/23/2014 MOT - Motion - Party (001) 4/23/2014
NOTE: Defendants Motion to Compel the State to Disclose All of the Expert Witnesses From Shot Spotter

4/22/2014 NOT - Notice - Party (001) 4/22/2014
NOTE: NOTICE REGARDING DISCLOSURE OF PATSY JONES� ADDRESS

4/22/2014 005 - ME: Hearing - Party (001) 4/22/2014

4/21/2014 SDO - Order to Seal Documents - Party (001) 4/24/2014
NOTE: EX PARTE MOTION FOR ORDER: ORDER: MOTION TO SEAL: MINUTE ENTRY DATED 04/17/14

http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/CriminalCourtCases/caseInfo.asp

What is a "Shot Spotter"????

Shot spotter is a device that detects and conveys location of gunfire
http://www.shotspotter.com/technology

 

[Niner]

Marking my spot! Thanks Nore for the link!

Chelly - hope you get to attend the trial!! Especially, if Juan has to take the stand! :loveyou:

 

[Chelly]

If judge allows live streaming, what is SOP? Set up by local media or MSM? Sorry, don't know the protocol.
Thanks.

 

[Chelly]

Marking my spot! Thanks Nore for the link!

Chelly - hope you get to attend the trial!! Especially, if Juan has to take the stand! :loveyou:

Thanks Niner, There are a lot of if's involved, but I am not dismissing the notion of trying to see some of the trial in person.

 

[YESorNO]

I was wondering who Patsy Jones is, so I went Google-ing and checked the court docs.

The older court docs:

7/7/2008 OBJ - Objection/Opposition. - Party (001) 7/8/2008
NOTE: CONTINUING/TO THE WITHHOLDING OF INFORMATION CONCERNING PATYSY'S JONES' PRIOR BAD ACTS AND PRIOR CRIMES FINDABLE INTHE "INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION"; DEFENDANTS MOTION TO REPRESENT HIMSELF; THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE LAST DAY'S DEPOSITION TESTIMONY OF MS. JONES

8/3/2007 NOT - Notice - Party (001) 8/6/2007
NOTE: OF THE NAMES OF POLICE WITNESSES WHO APPARENTLY DEALT WITH PATSY JONES (THE DEPOSITION WITNESS)/THESE WITNESSES ARE TO BE INTERVIEWED PRIOR TO THE CONTINUATION OF THE DEPOSITION

7/2/2007 MOT - Motion - Party (001) 7/11/2007
NOTE: TO SUPPRESS DEPOSITION OF PATSY JONES

6/25/2007 MOT - Motion - Party (001) 6/27/2007
NOTE: ADDENDUM TO OMNIBUS / CONCERNING THE DEPOSITION OF THE WITNESS

6/22/2007 028 - ME: Status Conference Set - Party (001) 6/22/2007

6/20/2007 MOT - Motion - Party (001) 6/22/2007
NOTE: OMNIBUS / CONCERNING THE DEPOSITION OF THE WITNESS PATSY JONES

Google:

I only found this on Google from The Trial Divas, but I couldn't access because it seems that their blog is a Protected Blog now and you need to log-in???

"http://thetrialdivas.com/ is marked private by its owner. If you were invited to view this site, please log in below."

Anyway, this is what I found on Google:

"Nov 15, 2013 - Next to follow was Bryan Wayne Hulsey, he was escorted in and he's a big man. ... I would like to know why Patsy Jones hasn't been discussed..."

There doesn't seem to be much on this trial. You'd think there would be a lot more attention in the media after all these years.

 

[YESorNO]

Thanks Niner, There are a lot of if's involved, but I am not dismissing the notion of trying to see some of the trial in person.

That would be really great to have you in the courtroom for updates.
I can't do "streaming", so I have to rely on Twitter or TV- if it's televised by someone.

 

[Bernina]

If judge allows live streaming, what is SOP? Set up by local media or MSM? Sorry, don't know the protocol.
Thanks.

I *think* the standard is for cameras from the local media pool. MSM would have to submit for an approval to have their cameras because the size of the standard courtroom only has space for one camera and operator, without having to move the trial to another court room or building.
The Arias trial was moved to a larger courtroom before it began specifically because of the motion granted to Court Tv/HLN to broadcast.
So it comes down to what the court can accommodate, given the time period of the trial and the courtrooms available.
Local news stations have a protocol of local, county, state news being more significant to their viewership as far as where they put their camera crews...ie, does it effect the average Phoenician? Fires, city/county/state legislation, auto accidents on main thoroughfares, shootings, drownings, criminal investigations, etc, etc, etc.

I kinda wonder if after the Arias/HLN "thing", Judges in Maricopa county might not want MSM in their courtrooms?

Honestly, the defense, some witnesses, and HLN "milked" everything they could out of that trial as far as motions and revenue. I don't think CMJA would have been on the stand as long, LaViolette (sp), nor her ilk making "face time", and the constant motions from the defense about "misconduct" from various parties had HLN NOT been there. :twocents:

 

[Bernina]

Looking through the minutes on the case:
Seems the local KTVK channel 3 has put in for media coverage........

The third-party Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum (filed March 10, 2014
by Daniel C. Barr on behalf of KTVK-TV) is GRANTED and the subpoena duces tecum is
hereby quashed. (item 6, page 2 of the 04-02-2014 minutes)

The Court has received a camera request for this case. Defendant objects to camera
coverage of the trial. The Court will set argument on Defendant’s objection if necessary. (pg.2 of 01/17/2014)

And, if you read the minutes from the case, it sounds soooooo Arias.