Post by Admin on May 20, 2007 17:10:52 GMT -5
The State of Ohio Versus George W Skatzes.
The Court: Court’s in session
Would you see if the representatives of the State of Ohio are here, please?
Mr Day: I mentioned to them that you were ready to go, Your Honor.
The Court: All right, thank you. Case number 83CR-3, The State of Ohio Versus George W Skatzes.
Mr Williams, I’ve read your written motion to the Court. Unless you have any additional material you wish to inform the court of at this time, why don’t you call your first witness.
Mr Williams: Thank you, Your Honor. I’d first like to point out that one of the parties to this action is not present in the courtroom. My client, Mr Skatzes.
I did not realize or feel that I needed to make arrangements to have him here, feeling that this is a part of the trial. RULE 43, presence of the defendant, requires that he be present at the arraignment and every stage of the trial. I realize it’s an hour to Columbus and an hour back and a lot of paperwork before that, so I don’t anticipate him being here. But I would like to object to his non-presence. And I will call my first witness who will be Mr Douglas MaGillivray.
Mr Heaton: Your Honor, we’d ask for a separation of witnesses.
Mr Williams: We would, too, Your Honor.
The Court: Anyone that’s been called to testify here today will step out in the waiting room.
Mr Williams: Perhaps before I’d call you, Mr MacGillivray, I’d like to preface my calling of the witnesses with just a brief statement of what I intend to do here today.
If the Court please, the Court’s aware that two motions for a new trial have been filed. One was based upon newly discovered evidence. The other one based on sever other grounds that we have listed in our motion. Including the weight of the evidence, the admission into evidence of similar or other acts; the Court refusing to enforce a subpoena duces tecum that was properly issued and served; the fact that the prosecutor’s continual misconduct throughout the course of the case has caused my, did cause my client to have an unfair trial. Again, they are all listed in the particular motion.
What I intend to do is to show the Court and preserve for the record the dealings between the State of Ohio and one of the witnesses or potential witnesses that was never called, Mr Danny Stanley. I intend to show to the court that due to statements and information passed to Mr Stanley from members of the prosecution team, whether they be police officers or investigators for the prosecutor’s office, that Mr Stanley was basically advised that it would be in his best interest not to talk to me prior to the trial. And as a result of that and his fear of the State of Ohio taking action against him in some way should he do anything to help the defense, he remained silent and chose not to talk, although he wanted to talk to me. And that will be his testimony. And he will give information that will show clearly that there is evidence and was evidence that if I had been able to discover it, it would in my opinion, have resulted in a different verdict than the one we had in this courtroom.
By calling these witnesses I also intend to show how the State of Ohio has since Mr Stanley signed the affidavit, which was attached to the motion for a new trial, all of his fears about retribution taken against him by the State of Ohio have come true. The have done a number of things in stripping him of certain freedom and moving him from one location to another. And now it appears they’re going to attempt to not live up to their agreement that they had with him if he would agree to cooperate with them in the prosecution of this case.
I believe these things are all important in showing a pattern of misconduct and showing that the newly discovered evidence would have resulted in a different verdict had we known this prior to the trial.
I don’t know if Mr MacGillivray has any statement he would like to make or---
Mr HEATON: Your Honor, very briefly, they way that I read, the way that I read Mr Williams’ motion here for a new trial with a supplemental memorandum based upon newly discovered evidence. The second motion, I believe, is for an order setting aside the judgement of conviction of sentence. And that motion doesn’t not request a new trial.
I don’t really care, I would point out to the Court that the matters contained in the motion filed May 13th, 1983, that the matters contained in the motion filed May 13 1983, being seven matters.
They are based upon matters before the Court and rulings of the Court during trial. I believe that this evidentiary hearing should be directed toward and specifically toward newly- discovered evidence.
MR WILLIAMS: Well, I would assure the Court that I do not intend to spend very much time at all defending upon the seven listed reasons that we ask for a new trial. As the Court can see, we asked—this motion was filed pursuant to Criminal Rule 33, which is the motion for a new trial. So even though it wasn’t stated as motion for a new trial, we did say Criminal Rule 33, which is exactly that.
THE COURT: All right. You want to call your first witness please?
. MR WILLIAMS: Yes. We will, I will call Mr MacGillivray, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Raise your right hand.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
By Mr Williams
Q Sir, would you state your name and your occupation or your title?
A. Douglas MacGillivray, prosecuting attorney of Logan County, State of Ohio.
Q. And were you the prosecuting attorney in October of 1979 at the time of Mr Smith’s death?
A. Yes.
Q. And you’ve been prosecutor ever since?
A. Yes
Q Up until this point. And basically at some point after Mr Smith’s body was discovered, you took over as being the leader of the investigation team on solving this particular matter. You coordinated the various police departments---
A. My office did, yes.
Q. It’s my understanding that at some point last summer you were contacted by Jack Benton and given information concerning Jimmy Rogers’ and George Skatzes’ involvement in a series of criminal offenses?
A. Some of the officers in the county, were, yes
Q. And that was conveyed to you?
A. Yes
Q. And also a mention of Danny Stanley’s involvement in a number of armed robberies was given to you. Or given to your office?
A. Yes
Q. And as a result of that, isn’t ---Mr Stanley was brought from Lebanon or London Correctional Institution to Bellefontaine; and you discussed the evidence you had against him and asked him to basically turn State’s evidence or testify on behalf of the State of Ohio in return for a package deal where he would get immunity and various other things. Is that correct?
A. That’s correct.
Q. And he was given---you did take steps to get him immunity from prosecution for any statements he might make in court concerning any criminal activity he was involved in, is that correct?
A. That’s correct.
Q. And at the trial of this case, I’m sure the record reflects it, but he was not called by the State of Ohio as a witness.
A. That’s correct.
The COURT: Excuse me Mr Williams. I don’t know who all’s been called as a witness here this morning, so we have a motion for separation of witnesses. Anyone that’s called to testify will remain in the waiting room. And you’ll have to keep the Court advised if any witnesses come in.
Mr WILIAMS: I see no witnesses at this point Your Honor.
By Mr Williams.
Q. In a transcript that was provided me on discovery which indicates a hearing, or I guess a meeting at your office Wednesday, November 3, 1982, you preface the meeting and the question of Danny Stanley with a statement concerning I guess, the arrangement you made with Danny Stanley concerning his testimony and what he would gain as a result of that.
A. That is correct.
Q. To your knowledge, does this particular statement—I believe it was made by you—does it contain in its entirety the arrangement you had with Danny Stanley or was there anything else not mentioned or left out?
A. I doubt that it contained everything that was specified.
Q. You do mention immunity from prosecution and attempt to help him obtain shock probation or reduction of sentence out of the county he was convicted. And you indicate—is that correct?
A That’s correct.
Q. You indicated that since he would be testifying against Mr Skatzes, who I believe was still a fugitive at that time, and other people, that his life could possibly in danger if he stayed in the state penal system; is that correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. So you indicated to him that you would take steps to keep him out of the penal system and either keep him here in Logan County or when Lima State opens up as part of the Adult Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, you would have him transferred there.
A. That was his request, yes.
Q. And at the time he would come up for parole, you indicated to him that you would take the necessary steps, write letters, and do what you could to make sure the parole board would give him the most favourable consideration.
A. That is correct.
Q. Was part of the arrangement –although it’s not written down here, its not part of the transcript- was part of the arrangement that you would, that he would be housed and would stay in the Bellefontaine city jail---
A. I don’t--- he may have been told that by a police officer, but he was never told that by me.
Q. So he may have had that impression that that was part of his --?
A. I don’t know
Q. Now, Danny Stanley gave you a, information concerning his involvement with Jimmy and George Skatzes in various crimes throughout the state of Ohio, is that true?
A. That’s correct
Q. And as a result of his giving you this information, did you not nolle the original indictment in this case and take the case back to the grand jury and come up with a new indictment that you felt more accurately reflected the facts of this situation.
A. I honestly can’t recall the reason for the nolle, whether it was--- I, I just can’t answer that now.
Q.Okay. For example, do you recall that there was, one of the ---Count Three of the indictment charged George Skatzes and Jimmy Rogers with the robbing of a family named Casper in Hardin County.
A. Yes
Q. And you later learned, I guess, through Danny telling you that Becky Boop had told him that she and Jimmy were responsible for that particular robbery.
A. If that’s in the statement I was---
Q. No, sir; that’s not in the statement.
A. Well, I think Becky Boop told me that.
Q. Okay. Now, Becky Boop was arrested in January of this year, was she not? Taken into custody, actually placed in the Logan County Jail?
A. I, I honestly can’t say. I can’t refute that, though, I just can’t recall.
Q. Okay. Do you know, are you aware that Danny Stanley was responsible for her finally cooperating with the police here locally?
A. He volunteered to try to get her to tell the truth, yes.
Q. Now, you remember all the concerns I had at the pretrial motions about the Logan County Jail?
A. I, I can’t honestly say. I can’t refute that, though. I just can’t recall.
More to be added
The Court: Court’s in session
Would you see if the representatives of the State of Ohio are here, please?
Mr Day: I mentioned to them that you were ready to go, Your Honor.
The Court: All right, thank you. Case number 83CR-3, The State of Ohio Versus George W Skatzes.
Mr Williams, I’ve read your written motion to the Court. Unless you have any additional material you wish to inform the court of at this time, why don’t you call your first witness.
Mr Williams: Thank you, Your Honor. I’d first like to point out that one of the parties to this action is not present in the courtroom. My client, Mr Skatzes.
I did not realize or feel that I needed to make arrangements to have him here, feeling that this is a part of the trial. RULE 43, presence of the defendant, requires that he be present at the arraignment and every stage of the trial. I realize it’s an hour to Columbus and an hour back and a lot of paperwork before that, so I don’t anticipate him being here. But I would like to object to his non-presence. And I will call my first witness who will be Mr Douglas MaGillivray.
Mr Heaton: Your Honor, we’d ask for a separation of witnesses.
Mr Williams: We would, too, Your Honor.
The Court: Anyone that’s been called to testify here today will step out in the waiting room.
Mr Williams: Perhaps before I’d call you, Mr MacGillivray, I’d like to preface my calling of the witnesses with just a brief statement of what I intend to do here today.
If the Court please, the Court’s aware that two motions for a new trial have been filed. One was based upon newly discovered evidence. The other one based on sever other grounds that we have listed in our motion. Including the weight of the evidence, the admission into evidence of similar or other acts; the Court refusing to enforce a subpoena duces tecum that was properly issued and served; the fact that the prosecutor’s continual misconduct throughout the course of the case has caused my, did cause my client to have an unfair trial. Again, they are all listed in the particular motion.
What I intend to do is to show the Court and preserve for the record the dealings between the State of Ohio and one of the witnesses or potential witnesses that was never called, Mr Danny Stanley. I intend to show to the court that due to statements and information passed to Mr Stanley from members of the prosecution team, whether they be police officers or investigators for the prosecutor’s office, that Mr Stanley was basically advised that it would be in his best interest not to talk to me prior to the trial. And as a result of that and his fear of the State of Ohio taking action against him in some way should he do anything to help the defense, he remained silent and chose not to talk, although he wanted to talk to me. And that will be his testimony. And he will give information that will show clearly that there is evidence and was evidence that if I had been able to discover it, it would in my opinion, have resulted in a different verdict than the one we had in this courtroom.
By calling these witnesses I also intend to show how the State of Ohio has since Mr Stanley signed the affidavit, which was attached to the motion for a new trial, all of his fears about retribution taken against him by the State of Ohio have come true. The have done a number of things in stripping him of certain freedom and moving him from one location to another. And now it appears they’re going to attempt to not live up to their agreement that they had with him if he would agree to cooperate with them in the prosecution of this case.
I believe these things are all important in showing a pattern of misconduct and showing that the newly discovered evidence would have resulted in a different verdict had we known this prior to the trial.
I don’t know if Mr MacGillivray has any statement he would like to make or---
Mr HEATON: Your Honor, very briefly, they way that I read, the way that I read Mr Williams’ motion here for a new trial with a supplemental memorandum based upon newly discovered evidence. The second motion, I believe, is for an order setting aside the judgement of conviction of sentence. And that motion doesn’t not request a new trial.
I don’t really care, I would point out to the Court that the matters contained in the motion filed May 13th, 1983, that the matters contained in the motion filed May 13 1983, being seven matters.
They are based upon matters before the Court and rulings of the Court during trial. I believe that this evidentiary hearing should be directed toward and specifically toward newly- discovered evidence.
MR WILLIAMS: Well, I would assure the Court that I do not intend to spend very much time at all defending upon the seven listed reasons that we ask for a new trial. As the Court can see, we asked—this motion was filed pursuant to Criminal Rule 33, which is the motion for a new trial. So even though it wasn’t stated as motion for a new trial, we did say Criminal Rule 33, which is exactly that.
THE COURT: All right. You want to call your first witness please?
. MR WILLIAMS: Yes. We will, I will call Mr MacGillivray, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Raise your right hand.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
By Mr Williams
Q Sir, would you state your name and your occupation or your title?
A. Douglas MacGillivray, prosecuting attorney of Logan County, State of Ohio.
Q. And were you the prosecuting attorney in October of 1979 at the time of Mr Smith’s death?
A. Yes.
Q. And you’ve been prosecutor ever since?
A. Yes
Q Up until this point. And basically at some point after Mr Smith’s body was discovered, you took over as being the leader of the investigation team on solving this particular matter. You coordinated the various police departments---
A. My office did, yes.
Q. It’s my understanding that at some point last summer you were contacted by Jack Benton and given information concerning Jimmy Rogers’ and George Skatzes’ involvement in a series of criminal offenses?
A. Some of the officers in the county, were, yes
Q. And that was conveyed to you?
A. Yes
Q. And also a mention of Danny Stanley’s involvement in a number of armed robberies was given to you. Or given to your office?
A. Yes
Q. And as a result of that, isn’t ---Mr Stanley was brought from Lebanon or London Correctional Institution to Bellefontaine; and you discussed the evidence you had against him and asked him to basically turn State’s evidence or testify on behalf of the State of Ohio in return for a package deal where he would get immunity and various other things. Is that correct?
A. That’s correct.
Q. And he was given---you did take steps to get him immunity from prosecution for any statements he might make in court concerning any criminal activity he was involved in, is that correct?
A. That’s correct.
Q. And at the trial of this case, I’m sure the record reflects it, but he was not called by the State of Ohio as a witness.
A. That’s correct.
The COURT: Excuse me Mr Williams. I don’t know who all’s been called as a witness here this morning, so we have a motion for separation of witnesses. Anyone that’s called to testify will remain in the waiting room. And you’ll have to keep the Court advised if any witnesses come in.
Mr WILIAMS: I see no witnesses at this point Your Honor.
By Mr Williams.
Q. In a transcript that was provided me on discovery which indicates a hearing, or I guess a meeting at your office Wednesday, November 3, 1982, you preface the meeting and the question of Danny Stanley with a statement concerning I guess, the arrangement you made with Danny Stanley concerning his testimony and what he would gain as a result of that.
A. That is correct.
Q. To your knowledge, does this particular statement—I believe it was made by you—does it contain in its entirety the arrangement you had with Danny Stanley or was there anything else not mentioned or left out?
A. I doubt that it contained everything that was specified.
Q. You do mention immunity from prosecution and attempt to help him obtain shock probation or reduction of sentence out of the county he was convicted. And you indicate—is that correct?
A That’s correct.
Q. You indicated that since he would be testifying against Mr Skatzes, who I believe was still a fugitive at that time, and other people, that his life could possibly in danger if he stayed in the state penal system; is that correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. So you indicated to him that you would take steps to keep him out of the penal system and either keep him here in Logan County or when Lima State opens up as part of the Adult Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, you would have him transferred there.
A. That was his request, yes.
Q. And at the time he would come up for parole, you indicated to him that you would take the necessary steps, write letters, and do what you could to make sure the parole board would give him the most favourable consideration.
A. That is correct.
Q. Was part of the arrangement –although it’s not written down here, its not part of the transcript- was part of the arrangement that you would, that he would be housed and would stay in the Bellefontaine city jail---
A. I don’t--- he may have been told that by a police officer, but he was never told that by me.
Q. So he may have had that impression that that was part of his --?
A. I don’t know
Q. Now, Danny Stanley gave you a, information concerning his involvement with Jimmy and George Skatzes in various crimes throughout the state of Ohio, is that true?
A. That’s correct
Q. And as a result of his giving you this information, did you not nolle the original indictment in this case and take the case back to the grand jury and come up with a new indictment that you felt more accurately reflected the facts of this situation.
A. I honestly can’t recall the reason for the nolle, whether it was--- I, I just can’t answer that now.
Q.Okay. For example, do you recall that there was, one of the ---Count Three of the indictment charged George Skatzes and Jimmy Rogers with the robbing of a family named Casper in Hardin County.
A. Yes
Q. And you later learned, I guess, through Danny telling you that Becky Boop had told him that she and Jimmy were responsible for that particular robbery.
A. If that’s in the statement I was---
Q. No, sir; that’s not in the statement.
A. Well, I think Becky Boop told me that.
Q. Okay. Now, Becky Boop was arrested in January of this year, was she not? Taken into custody, actually placed in the Logan County Jail?
A. I, I honestly can’t say. I can’t refute that, though, I just can’t recall.
Q. Okay. Do you know, are you aware that Danny Stanley was responsible for her finally cooperating with the police here locally?
A. He volunteered to try to get her to tell the truth, yes.
Q. Now, you remember all the concerns I had at the pretrial motions about the Logan County Jail?
A. I, I can’t honestly say. I can’t refute that, though. I just can’t recall.
More to be added