|
|
|
'Gastankgate' attorneys file motions for dismissalThis article was originally published in the the Amador Ledger Dispatch on May 21, 1999, and is reproduced here with its permission. JACKSON—Clyde Blackmon and Bud Lewis, attorneys for defendants named in a gas tank removal case, have this week filed motions for dismissal against their clients citing prosecutorial misdeeds. Some 13 motions were filed, the bulk of which was completed by Clyde Blackmon, the attorney for Robert Womack who is facing 19 criminal charges handed down by a special grand jury called by the Amador District Attorney and special prosecutor David Irey of Stockton. Motion to suppress search warrantsBlackmon has filed a motion to suppress the October 30, 1998 and Jan. 11, 1999 search warrant conducted at the Womack's Ridge Road home because, the motion states, the warrant was overbroad, illegal and violated Fourth Amendment rights. He is prepared to proceed with an evidentiary hearing to demonstrate the overbroad execution of the search warrants if the prosecution contests the allegations, he said. The defense attorney cites the Fourth Amendment prohibits general, exploratory searches resulting from overbroad execution of a warrant in flagrant disregard for the limitations of the warrant. Russell Moore, who headed the searches, is also mentioned for having knowingly misrepresented facts to the magistrates who signed the warrants. Moore represents the environmental unit of the California Highway Patrol and also headed, along with others, the excavations at the Bosse Ranch, owned by the Womack children. Moore's affidavit to the facts contained misrepresentations, the motion claims, about county health official statements, no mention that the removed gas tank had been found or the reward offered to gain its return and unproved allegations of "white collar" crimes. Personal effects were seized which had no bearing on the investigation, it adds. Motion to disqualify prosecutorsA motion was also filed Monday to disqualify Riebe and Irey since, he said, it appears his client is unlikely to receive fair treatment in the criminal proceedings. "Knowing the grand jury proceedings would be made public, Irey placed the irrelevant, inadmissible and prejudicial evidence in record," the motion states. Irey is a San Joaquin Deputy District Attorney and an official of the California District Attorneys Association which pressed the prosecution. "Prosecutors made numerous public statements on television and radio that were prejudicial to Mr. Womack," the suit alleges. "Because the chief prosecutor must be disqualified and because he has few deputies (5), the entire Amador County District Attorney's office must be disqualified," it continues. "The chief prosecutor, the district attorney, has shown bias by making his views widely available on radio and television, Blackmkon writes, adding that personal questions were also asked, of which the only purpose was to hold "Womack up to contempt before the grand jury." Information was sought which was not relevant nor appropriate to ethical prosecution, the suit claims. There was a "callous disregard for propriety" and improper questioning prejudicial to Womack during grand jury proceedings; hearsay and speculation were elicited from witnesses, the motion charges. Transcripts of radio and television interviews of Riebe and Irey were made and introduced as exhibits in the motions. Both are alleged to have cited non-existent violations against Womack. Penal Code 936.5Listing Penal Code 936.5, Blackmon's motion to dismiss cites as illegal, "the conduct of the grand jury proceedings by an unauthorized special counsel." He understands the penal code to allow a special counsel only on the request of a grand jury and with a special order of the Superior Court Judge when other, local alternatives are exhausted. This is understandable, Blackmon said, since local prosecutors have a better understanding of local concerns and priorities and are responsible to the electorate. All the rules of the code were flouted in this case, he added and Irey directed the event, selecting witnesses and subpoenaed and interrogated them. Attorney Bud Lewis also filed similar paperwork for his client David Mason III, citing a lack of sufficient evidence, alleging Mason was not legally indicted and discriminatory prosecution of the defendants. All motions are set for a June 25, 1:30 p.m. hearing. David Irey also filed reasons why he feels Lewis should not represent Mason. Aware of Irey's effort in the last several months, Mason has indicated he is not changing attorneys. The third person in the case is Mark Sherrill who is also facing illegal tank removal charges. Copyright © 1999 Amador Ledger Dispatch |
|
| Masthead |
E-mail, Postal, Phone and Fax Contact Information |
|
the
Bureaucracy