OCR Text |
Show Atty. savs information could clear client By JUDY JENSEN Asst Managing Editor FARMINGTON An attorney for a former Ogden man charged ; with possession of a controlled substance alleges the Davis County attorney's office withheld information informa-tion that could clear his client. David M. Bown, attorney for Sylvester Scott, argued before 2nd District Court Judge Douglas L. Comaby on Tuesday that he had asked the county attorney's office on several occasions to get "notes, reports or recordings by anyone involved in-volved in the case." He told the judge the county attorney's office had failed to provide the information. informa-tion. Scott is incarcerated in the Utah State Prison on a parole violation allegation based on the 2nd District Court case. Bown told the judge of a number of documents he had "uncovered" by his own investigation which indicated in-dicated there are many records the county attorney's office is withholding. "I'm concerned with the lack of discovery on the part of the county attorney's office. They may not be withholding information intentionally, inten-tionally, but they may be derelict in their duty to investigate this case," Bown said. Scott is a second defendant in a case where Davis County Metro Strike Force officers filed charges. Elaease Steward of Riverdale is already serving time in the Davis County jail for her part in the crime. Bown told the court that Steward had admitted she was a 'heavy drug user and that the cocaine found on the premises was hers, not my client's." He explained the conversation conver-sation during which that information informa-tion was given was not a part of the information provided to him by the county attorney's office. "We have a right to her statements," said Bown. County Attorney Mel Wilson disagreed. "From what I can gather he's talking about statements that may have been made to other agencies. agen-cies. We don't have access to all of those. Everything we have in our file we've provided," he said. "I can't believe a police officer doing his job wouldn't record that kind of statement," said Judge Cor-naby. Cor-naby. He warned Wilson saying, "If it doesn't exist now, it doesn't exist in court at the time of the trial." 'He's talking about witnesses. He has access to those witnesses," argued Wilson. 4 'He should ask them about statements they may or may not have made. We don't have the right to give him information from everyone so he may use them," Wilson said. "Of course they don't want to use them," exploded Bown, 'they help me! I've not even been given information on the probation report," he said. "If the other defendant testifies the cocaine was Mr. Scott's, I want to be able to impeach her with prior statements. The only way to protect me is to I order them to provide the informa-j informa-j tion or I will move to not allow her j to be a witness," Bown said. "The information is not ex- culpatory, it's criminatory,' retorted Wilson. j "He's asking to know what she's said to people," said Judge Cor-naby. Cor-naby. "I don't think I have the right to tell adult probation what to release," said Wilson. In exasperation, Comaby instructed in-structed Bown to file his motion limiting the testimony of witnesses ; against Scott to the information he has already been provided. "I'm going to close pretty tightly on 1 what's allowed in this trial," Cor- naby said. Asking for clarification of the judge's remarks, Wilson queried as to his intent. "It's inconceivable to me that there are not written statements by your witness. It becomes very convenient con-venient for them not to be in your possession," Comaby told Wilson. "If you call a witness who gives information that was not disclosed earlier and he says 'It wasn't in my report, but I knew it I won't allow it If you don't put the burden on the county attorney's office to provide all of the information, then agencies could give you just enough to bind the defendant over for trial and give you the rest at the trial," said Cor-naby. Cor-naby. He added he was not accusing the County Attorney's office of that practice, but he made it clear that in this case no testimony would be allowed about statements not provided pro-vided to the defense counsel before trial. |