Judge considers motion to dismiss

BY COLBY FRAZIER
DAILY SOUND STAFF WRITER

Arguing that her client’s constitutional rights were violated during a 12-day preliminary hearing last August, Deputy Public Defender Karen Atkins told a Superior Court judge yesterday the findings at that hearing should be dismissed.
“There were a number of shortcuts that were taken that I think violated my client’s constitutional rights and when that occurs [a defendant] is entitled to another preliminary hearing,” Atkins said.


Judge Frank Ochoa didn’t rule on whether or not he would dismiss Judge Brian Hill’s Aug. 21 ruling that sufficient evidence exists to have a trial for 14-year-old Ricardo Juarez, who has been charged with murdering Luis Angel Linares, 15, during a downtown gang brawl on March 14, 2007.
Instead, Ochoa ordered the prosecution and defense to return next Monday with more case law about certain aspects contained in Atkins’ nearly 80-page motion for dismissal.
At the heart of that motion, according to Atkins, are several aspects dealing with the manner in which Hill handled the preliminary hearing, which she said is one of the longest of its kind in this county’s history.
One of the key points of Atkins’ motion that was the focus of much discussion yesterday, was her objection to Hill taking a videotaped police interrogation of Juarez home to view it, rather than doing so in the courtroom.
Atkins said she intended to view the taped confession in court and cross-examine Det. Gary Segal, who conducted the interrogation.
Atkins said she believes Hill watched the tape in private in order to expedite the lengthy preliminary hearing and in doing so, breached Juarez’s constitutional rights.
“He was trying to save, all told, maybe two to three hours in what was a very long prelim,” Atkins said. “I would rather by far have had this done right the first time. I have better things to do than challenge the prelim, but I had to.”
By challenging Hill’s ruling, Atkins said she is not denying there may be sufficient evidence to have her client stand trial, but if there is, it should be done lawfully.
“If the law’s been violated that’s grounds for a new prelim,” she said. “It’s not legal to take evidence outside of the public.”
Senior Deputy District Attorney Hilary Dozer said he believes the preliminary hearing was handled appropriately and believes Ochoa will see it that way as well.
“I think Judge Hill did rule properly,” Dozer said.
Because the rules of a preliminary hearing are vastly different from those that dictate an actual trial, Ochoa questioned whether Hill’s decision was acceptable since all parties involved, including Atkins and Juarez, had an opportunity to view the tape.
Dozer said the request by Atkins to have Hill’s decision reviewed by another judge is common, especially in a case of such magnitude.
Atkins’ disapproval of Hill’s handling of the preliminary hearing was clear before it was even over.
As it became clear Hill was ready to make a ruling without affording Atkins the opportunity to dissect the interrogation tape in court, she said with a raised voice, “We’re talking about the life of a 14-year-old.” Immediately after Hill ruled, she told a Daily Sound reporter of her intentions to file a motion to dismiss the judge’s decision.
Further compounding Atkins’ spirited comments at the end of the hearing, was that she believes, and still believes, that Juarez is not the person who is responsible for killing Linares.
Going against regular preliminary hearing convention, where the defense rarely presents evidence, Atkins called several witnesses, some of who said another boy, referred to as Ricardo R., said he killed Linares.
Atkins said yesterday she called witnesses and presented evidence in the hope that Hill would at least make a finding that Juarez, who is being tried as an adult, should not be facing life in prison on a murder charge.
“We feel that there was very strong evidence that our client was not the person who inflicted the fatal injury,” Atkins said.
When Monday rolls around, Atkins said she believes Ochoa needs only to look at whether or not a constitutional violation occurred. If the judge comes to the conclusion that this is the case, which she hopes he does, there’s only one way he can rule.
“What I would like him to do is apply the correct standard to what happened and if he does that I think he’s going to have to grant my motion,” she said.