Lost Password?
No account yet? Register

Games

Arcade
Sudoku
Hughes trial set to move forward in November PDF Print E-mail
Written by Elizabeth Larson   
Saturday, 20 October 2007
LAKE COUNTY – A San Francisco man's murder trial appears to be on schedule to start early next month after a motion to have the District Attorney's Office recused from the case was denied last week.


Judge William McKinstry on Oct. 11 turned down defense attorney Stuart Hanlon's request that District Attorney Jon Hopkins and his office be removed from prosecuting the case of 23-year-old Renato Hughes.


Hughes is facing trial for the murders of Christian Foster and Rashad Williams on Dec. 7, 2005, as Lake County News has reported.


Hughes did not shoot the two young men, who in fact were shot by Clearlake Park resident Shannon Edmonds, from whose home the men were allegedly fleeing from a robbery attempt.


However, Hopkins alleges Hughes is responsible for their deaths under a provocative act law, which holds a person responsible for the death of accomplices in a crime that is likely to result in a lethal response.


Hanlon has fought to have the trial removed from Lake County over this past year.


Last week, Hanlon went before McKinstry – the retired Alameda County Superior Court judge assigned to the case – to ask that Hopkins and his office to be recused from prosecuting Hughes.


Hanlon alleged that Hopkins should be removed from the case because he is refusing to prosecute Shannon Edmonds for trying to force his girlfriend, Lori Tyler, to commit suicide with him on Aug. 3.


The state Attorney General's Office sent Senior Assistant Attorney General Gerald Engler to lodge that agency's opposition to the motion, for which Engler argued there was no justification, Hopkins reported.


“We lost the recusal motion,” said Hanlon, which means he can't call Hopkins as a witness in the case relating to prosecuting Edmonds in the double-suicide attempt.


Hopkins denied that he has decided not to charge Edmonds relating to the suicide matter.


“At this point there has not been a determination made to file charges,” he said Friday.


Hopkins said Hanlon is attempting to transfer the attention from Hughes' alleged actions to Edmonds in order to get the jury to decide in his favor.


McKinstry ruled that evidence relating to Edmonds' alleged prior drug dealing in Lake and Mendocino counties will be admissable during the trial, said Hanlon.


In addition, McKinstry ruled that evidence regarding a shotgun found near the crime scene weeks later will be admitted, Hopkins reported,which was evidence Hanlon had wanted blocked.


Aqeela El-Amin Bakheit, president of Lake County's branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, was in court for the hearing. She said McKinstry also ruled that if Edmonds is to testify in the case he cannot invoke the Fifth Amendment – which protects individuals from self-incrimination – which he did, 147 times, during preliminary testimony.


The two sides must go before McKinstry Monday afternoon to argue the issue of whether or not the attempted suicide should be disclosed during the trial.


After that, Hopkins said jury selection is set to start Oct. 23 and 24, with four panels of jurors to be called over those two days.


Hanlon and Hopkins both explained that on the initial days of jury selection jurors will complete a questionnaire, which the prosecution and defense will go over before the jurors return for further questioning Oct. 30.


Based on their answers on the questionnaire, some of the jurors may be questioned in private about possible biases, said Hanlon.


If he doesn't believe he can get a fair jury based on the questionnaires, Hanlon said he could ask for a new jury.


Hopkins, who will prosecute the case himself, said that he hopes that a jury will be selected in time for the trial to get under way Nov. 6.


Next week Hopkins said he expects to have a better idea of how long the trial could last. He expects it to last all of November – with the court taking a week off for the Thanksgiving holiday – and into December.


The first two weeks of the trial will take place in Judge Arthur Mann's Department 3 courtroom, while Mann is away, said Hopkins. Then the trial will be moved around to available courtrooms.


E-mail Elizabeth Larson at This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it


Discuss this article on the forums. (0 posts)

Trackback(0)
Comments (6)Add Comment
5th Amendment
written by Donna Christopher, October 20, 2007
issues are troubling. If the shooter is being deprived of this basic constitutional right (yeah, like that is a stretch in this day and age) does that mean there is some type of immunity agreement that has been reached? Perhaps this is a two birds with one stone tactic, use A to put away B then put away B also. I assume/hope the defendant retained his right to the 5th although I imagine he can't wait to tell his side. And the cloud over the Courthouse deepens.
Shooter originally
written by superstarr60, October 20, 2007
pleaded 5th amendment right 147 times doing preliminary hearings, although the sitting judge warned the shooter he must plead the 5th and not answer any questions or should he answer one question he would relinquish his right to use 5th amendment.

In other words Donna, the shooter put his 5th amendment protection in jeopardy doing the preliminary hearings. Defense attorney challenged the shooter's picking and choosing what questions he would answer and others he didn't wish to answer.

I believe the California Supreme Court reviewed that matter and concluded that the shooter's 5th amendment rights was compromised and now the shooter will have to answer all questions or no questions.

Hope this clears up any confusion as to the shooter being possibly denied his 5th amendment right, as far as the immunity...who knows what the D.A. will decide.

The two birds & one stone theory! Is far fetched given the mentality of this D.A.
Thanks Superstarr60
written by Donna Christopher, October 21, 2007
For the clarification, it was quite a puzzlement as is this entire case. I invoke curiosity when a "victim" needs to invoke the 5th. :wink:
justice
written by James, October 21, 2007
Almost two years, so much for a speedy trial. Justice has been denied that long. I will say it again, when you have insanity and you treat it as normal this is what we end up with.

Sound like alot of games to me so I'm
here to say the DAs. office has no cloths on.

Good info superstarr60
Thanks
In my opinion -
written by superstarr60, October 21, 2007
it would appear when someone invokes the 5th,they may have some corpability or perhaps things didn't quite happen the way they said it did. Then again, one could look at that same tactic as trying to conceal the real truth whatever that maybe.

Nevertheless, the only people know what happened to bring them where they presently, was the shooter; his family members who were there; the two deceased young men and the young man now on trial who didn't kill anyone!

Until all of those people and whatever other witnesses, unassociate witnesses are sworn under oath and take the witness stand, will any of us in the public hear the real truth of why the shooter shot these young men that many times in the back?

Who or what was trying to protect is a good question? Media statements are mostly b.s. in general, cause a lot of public theories are just what it is...Theories! Not fact!. This D.A. has repeatly attempted to sway the local public's thinking regarding the guilt of this young man who Hopkins is holding for the killings. And to add insult to jury Hopkins invoke the buzz words 'Home Invasion' which appears nowhere in the California Penal Code.

Robbery, Assault with intent to commit great bodily harm, Robbery with a weapon, etc... are Penal Code statues. The latter - Home Invasion - is a fear tactic buzz word to generate fear into the hearts of most, given the violent nature of that incident.

Hopkins (Nython)spun fear into the public sector by using such sling terms loosely in my opinion, to see if he could get the big bang for a few bucks and seat a frighten jury to get a conviction based upon Hopkins fear tactics.
Not anything based upon evidence or witness statements or any fairness in the process for either party.

Hopkins didn't expect the resistance he has been met with from a well seasoned attorney with more years of experience than Hopkins is in age.
Now Hopkins is really going to have to put all of his text book trial and law school experiences into practice on this one.

Will be interesting to see who can be the best entertainer and give the best showmanship before a jury who hasn't been frighten out of their wits by Hopkins 'Buzz Words' instead these 13 people will listen to the propondance of the evidence presented and the witness testimony before a 'Rush to Judgement' comes into play.

Now that is what I call 'Due Process' and fairness in the judical system. Either way this case goes - there are no winners anyway, because the lost of life, the serevely juried and the traget nature of this whole case.

We all should watch this case closely and hope and pray we are never confronted with anything like this. Am sure the entire community will need to find some closure after this one is decided by a jury.
advise
written by James, October 23, 2007
I will assure you that this government with the persons in control, justice will not be paramount. I have seen first hand the oath thay took can be supperseded by "do you think your special." Keep you mouth shut and seek legal help as soon as possible. Thay are corrupt and political inbreds and the only person that understood their Oath was Denise Rushing all the others are tyrants. If it is true you get the government you deserve we are one sorry lot. God help us. Hope there is time.

Write comment
You must be logged in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.

busy
Last Updated ( Wednesday, 24 October 2007 )
 
< Prev   Next >

Choose language

Powered By Page_Cache by Ircmaxell
Generated in 1.0965189933777 Seconds