Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Standard-Examiner: Defense, Prosecution Continue Sparring in Matthew David Stewart Case - Updated

Sodden question: "How exactly do these Weber County prosecutors sleep at night?"

The Standard provides more information in the 1/4/12 Ogden Shootout story this morning, with this Tim Gurrister writeup, which puts the focus upon several pending defense motions:
Of particular significance is the motion seeking the appointment of a second defense investigator, to which a niggardly county prosecutor's office has entered its formal opposition. In that connection Mr. Gurrister's morning story incorporates this somewhat bizarre language from the prosecution's opposition papers:
“One of the most basic notions in the body of law dealing with indigent defense is that an indigent defendant is not automatically entitled to whatever expert or resource he chooses, regardless of the expense,” Deputy Weber County Attorney Chris Allred wrote in his motion opposing Richards’ request for the additional investigator.

“Rather, the United States Supreme Court has held that an indigent defendant is only entitled to the ‘basic tools of an adequate defense’ … the state is not required to purchase for the indigent defendant all the assistance that his wealthier counterpart might buy.”
Putting it all in perspective, we'll refer via the lower link to one page on the defendant's "Help Matthew Stewart" support website, which, includes, among other things, the side-embedded graphic image which helpfully characterizes the shocking current disparity between the resources of the prosecution and defense teams, respectively. Here's the pertinent page link, which provides further information:
The defense isn't exactly "asking for the moon," it seems to us. Looking at the graphic, or examining the more detailed information contained on the website, it becomes painfully apparent that Matthew Stewart's defense won't even come close to "leveling the playing field" with the addition of one single additional defense investigator. Nor will the additional investigator's measly $10 thousand fee break the Weber County bank.

Why the prosecution continues to stonewall Mr. Stewart's lawyers remains a mystery to us. At present, it's obvious that Mssrs. Richards, Bushell and Albright seek merely the "basic defense tools...," and very definitely NOT an extravagant "Cadillac Defense."

Here's another sodden question, folks: "How exactly do these Weber County prosecutors sleep at night?" In a circumstance where Mr. Stewart is fighting for his very life, the stonewalling county prosecutors treat this matter as some kind of sick parlor game... or so it seems to us.

How 'bout a little more professional courtesy and a little less mindless "sparring" from the legal representatives of the people of the State of Utah (the prosecution) we ask?

The floor's open, O Gentle Ones.

Who'll be the first to toss in their own 2¢?

Update 2/29/11 8:06 a.m.: There's a new story up on the SL-Trib site, reporting that according to a recent court filing, prosecutors seized "16 plants" at Defendant Matthew Stewart's home. So much then for the spurious rumors that Stewart was operating a commercial "grow operation." Additionally, the Trib reports that the "Weber County Attorney’s Office made the claim Tuesday in paperwork seeking to permanently seize Stewart’s home...":
As one sage SL-Trib reader commented:
SIXTEEN, that's SIXTEEN plants !!!!!!!!! One dead, six (including Stewart) injured, FOR WHAT ? TWELVE hyped up troopers to seize SIXTEEN plants??
Here's another:
The War on Drugs causes more harm to society than the drug use they are trying to control.
Sheesh, folks... this story gets ever crazier by the minute, dunnit?

1 comment:

Post a Comment

© 2005 - 2013 Weber County Forum™ -- All Rights Reserved