The defendant asked the court clerk that handles appeal issues about the PD internal investigation record first part of Aug. She said it was not included as part of the file because it was not given to her. She said she talked to the judge (after defendant asked her about it) and he had it under lock and key in his office. Back near the end of March the judge wrote an order saying he found nothing irregular in the record and access to the defendant was denied but the record would remain sealed and become a part of the file for this case. BotXXXXX XXXXXne is he did not let court clerk's office know about it. Four months have passed since the judge said the record would be a part of the file. The judge just wrote an order a few days ago to have the court clerk unseal the record to make copies and send original to appeal court. The court clerk just made a supplement to the record and supposedly mailed that to appeal court clerk and defendant a few days ago. But on the supplement index where it asked the date the record was filed with the court clerk she put N/A instead of the date she received it which was around mid Aug. (The judge wrote is order to unseal Aug 13) So I am wondering is that a problem with the 4 month gap where no one is saying officially where this record was. The judge does not say in his order and the court clerk does not give a date when she received it.
The defendant personally received a copy of the sealed PD internal investigation record a couple of days ago. Isn't this odd that the judge is now allowing the defendant to see the record after the trial is over?
Also there were statement by the interviewing officer about how he felt the defendants credibility was low because defendant said in his written statement the pipe could be used for any kind of tobacco but the lab test showed the substance contained thc. So in this statement the judge is reading all of this information in camera and the defendant had to chance to cross examine the officer about his statements. In addition the officer never asked the Sgts why they wanted to search the defendant in the first place which was a central issue in the complaint. Isn't there some law against judges getting evidence that supports the states position but not letting the defendant know about it?
In this situation the judge found out about the test results from the lab through this officer but this lab tech never appeared in court for cross examination. So there are two people the the defendant surely would have wanted to cross examine, the officer and the lab tech, if he had been given a chance to see this report doing trial. This seems very wrong. What is your opinion?
You stated "I believe that no one should have been allowed to testify about a lab test and that it was not admissible unless the lab tech testified." So how does the defendant say this was error? Does he say it was error because the officer gave lab test results via the internal investigation record viewed by the judge but he nor the lab tech showed up to testify?
The report was not admitted into evidence. The judge got information about the lab test results simply by the investigating officer saying in his report " ..I had the pipe sent to the OSBI for analysis. When I recieved the OSBI return, I found the pipe tested positive for Cannabis (Marijuana containing Tetrahydrocannabinol), schedule I..."
He did not say he considered the lab test results but during sentencing he ask the prosecutor "there was an OSBI test wasn't there?" the prosecution
"yes" Judge "ok, there will also be $150 charge for that test.." But whether he said he considered it or not he is a human being and I think any rational person would consider it. He did say he felt all points had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt and I don't see how he could have come to that conclusion without considering those test results because there were no field test performed.
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided “as is”. To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the “Verified” symbol in the Expert’s profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).