OCR Text |
Show North Star Brewer Plea Bargains; New Trial Date Is Set PANGUITCH The number of defendants is down to seven and the number of their attorneys increased in-creased by one for the spring trial in the North Star Expeditions case after a long day in Sixth District Court in Panguitch where Judge K.L. Mclff heard a variety of motions from both sides. At the end, he moved the trial date from early March to April 29 because of the sheer amount of work involved in preparing for the complex case. Just before noon on Jan. 18, former North Star counselor Brent Brewer entered into an agreement with the state that reduced third degree felony charges against him to a class B misdemeanor, and placed him under nine months probation, removing him from all proceedings except the potential to be called as a witness, perhaps a hostile witness for the state. Judge K.L. Mclff met in chambers cham-bers with attorney Jim Bradshaw and his clients Lance Jaggar and Bill Henry as Bradshaw again sought separate counsel for his two clients, previously denied by the judge. Mclff said he was convinced by Bradshaw's six points of poten- tial conflict and recognized a need for separate counsel. Bradshaw, for the purpose of the day's hearing, continued to represent both North Star owners until another attorney could be appointed for one of the two. Assistant Attorney General Rob Parrish unsuccessfully argued his motion to allow introduction of evidence from the Challenger trial. Challenger's owner, Steve Carti-sano, Carti-sano, was acquitted after being accused in the 1990 death of 16-year-old Christen Chase in that youth wilderness program. Both Jaggar (as field director) and Henry had worked for Challenger and Jaggar subsequently served as a witness for the state at the trial. Parrish tried to show that Jaggar was the common link between the two programs, in which the state wanted to establish that the same errors made in the Challenger program were being made in North Star, against the state's regulations. Since it is incumbent upon the state to establish criminal intent in (See Brewer Plea Bargains; North Star Trial Apr. 29 On Page 5A) Brewer Plea Bargains; North j Star Trial Date Set For Apr. 29 j From Pa up. 1 the trial, Parrish told the judge he needed Challenger evidence to do so. Bradshaw argued that the law is specific; it does not permit the use in court of prior acts to say that what a person has once done, he will continue to do. "It is precisely what the rule excludes that the state is trying to do ... that because somehow they the defendants did it in Challenger, they did it North Star." Judge Mclff said, "I believe the state can establish modus operandi in the North Star business without the necessity of going back to the Challenger program. I think there is direct evidence of the circumstances circum-stances that existed in the program. Direct evidence as to each of the defendants." In denying the state's motion to utilize Challenger evidence, the judge left the door open in case the defense brings it up at trial. "If during the course of the trial, there is something that arises from the defense which should fairly be rebutted by reference to that evidence evi-dence which I now exclude, then I'll examine that at that time." For the present he chose to say, "The prejudicial impact of the evidence ... is greater in my mind than its value and I don't consider it necessary for the state's case. The state prevailed, however, against the defendants' request that the Indian names by which they were known to North Star participants parti-cipants not be used in court. Bradshaw claimed that using names other than the defendants' actual names tends to be prejudicial but, more importantly, frustrating and confusing, making it difficult for everyone to follow testimony. Assistant Attorney General Craig Barlow disagreed, arguing that the "children who will testify in many cases don't know the actual names of the defendants. In fact they were prohibited from using their actual names." Judge Mclff agreed with the state saying, "If I have to choose between the lawyers and the judge being confused and the witnesses, I'm going to choose us." In denying the defense's motion, he said, "We'll do the best we can to make it understandable." The judge denied a defense motion that sought to prevent the introduction of autopsy photographs photo-graphs at the trial. Bradshaw had claimed that the photos were irrelevant since they were not taken while Aaron was still alive and thus failed to accurately depict his condition before his death. Barlow argued that the graphic photographs were necessary to show loss of body mass, deterioration, blisters, etc. The judge agreed to permit their use as evidence at trial. Attorney Floyd Holm success-: fully argued his motion asking dismissal of class B misdemeanor charges against his three clients defendants Jeff Hohenstein, Craig Fisher and Sonny Duncan. The three were charged with failing to report child abuse, but they were also charged with felony child abuse. Founding his argument on the 5th Amendment, Holm reasoned that under the charges filed, his clients could not have reported abuse without incriminating themselves. them-selves. The judge agreed and dismissed dis-missed the misdemeanor charges against them. In other action, Judge Mclff ruled that no cameras will be allowed in the courtroom or in the courthouse during the trial. "This case has the propensity to become more of a circus than any of us would like," he said. He also is considering a gag rule preventing press interviews during the trial. "I'm not sure that's something a court has the jurisdiction to really control," said Bradshaw. "Before I became counsel to this case, there was a huge amount of very, very negative coverage which I thought was very inappropriate. ... I certainly certain-ly think it's inappropriate at this point to say you can't talk after there's been all that negative publicity pub-licity for my clients." Judge Mclff said he did not plan to sequester the North Star jury. "So I'm really reluctant to have lawyers granting interviews to media officials during the course of the trial; it has potential for jury exposure." He advised the group of attorneys to be prepared to talk about the issue when they return to court on Feb. 15. |