To summarize, our cases hold that good cause for change of venue means proof that a defendant cannot get a fair trial in the county where the offense occurred because of the existence of extensive present hostile sentiment. Here, defendant presented no evidence of the existence of poisonous prejudice against him, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion.
Sette, S. Pratt's appointed lawyer moved the trial court to appoint additional, more experienced counsel to help in both cases. He faced the prospect of defending Pratt in these two armed robbery cases, and had been appointed to represent another criminal defendant to be tried in the same term. The court denied the motions, filed January 23, the next day; and on January 27, trial of the Westover case began. The judge's orders stated that the motions had no legal precedent, were untimely and ".
H1 Page Headline Goes Here
Our Court has not written about the due process and equal protection arguments implicit in the situation presented here, where the government is represented by able and experienced prosecutors and an indigent defendant has as his appointed counsel a self-proclaimed inexperienced though certainly not inarticulate lawyer. Authorities elsewhere hold that inexperience alone is not proof of ineffectiveness of counsel.
The degree of his expertness is proved by the trial record. See, United States v. Kelley, F. Easter, F. Williams v. Twomey, F.
Edward Pratt | Baker Donelson
Commonwealth of Virginia, F. Gonzales, 40 Ill. Commonwealth, S.
Crockett, S. O'Guin, 26 Mich. Peoples, 28 Ohio App. In People v. Blevins, Ill. This interesting case, 67 years old, contains meaningful language:. The Illinois court said that ". This record shows that by reason of the inexperience of plaintiff in error's counsel incompetent evidence of a highly prejudicial nature was introduced by the prosecution on the trial. The Pratt records disclose no such defects in the defense, and other errors in the trials make exhaustive development of this point unnecessary. However, we agree with those authorities that place upon the trial court the responsibility to see that oppression does not occur in criminal cases because of prosecutorial overmatch with defense counsel.
Defendant contends that the court in the Westover trial should have permitted defense counsel to question some of the prospective jurors individually, or should have itself questioned them individually, following answers these jurors gave suggesting possible prejudices, when they responded to the court's general inquiries of the panel.
McMillion, W. And in State v. Beacraft, W. Pendry, W. Code, ". If a party believes that a juror is subject to a challenge for cause, he may even introduce evidence in support of his objection to the juror. In Pendry, the defense unsuccessfully challenged four jurors for cause, then asked leave of the court to question each of them in chambers to explore certain matters disclosed on voir dire. Instead, the court addressed a general inquiry to the whole panel.
We held, "That procedure, although unobjectionable, may not have been as desirable as allowing a procedure which would have permitted possible matters of bias or prejudice to be more fully explored so that there could have been no question of lack of qualification on the part of any juror and so that peremptory challenges might have been more intelligently made.
We wrote in W. Human Rights Commission v. Tenpin Lounge, Inc. The question then is whether under these principles, the trial judge abused his discretion. He asked questions submitted by the defense, of the jury as a whole.
Four jurors responded that they were related by blood or marriage to, or a close friend of, a law enforcement officer, and the judge was requested to ask certain additional questions of those jurors based upon their responses to the prior question. The court refused to submit individual questions to the specific jurors, refused to excuse them, and made no further inquiry of the panel about police officer relationships.
West, W. This Court held that his counsel should have been allowed to challenge for cause one of the original panel of jurors because he was an employee of the Department of Public Safety state police. See, State v. Wilson, supra; State v. Siers, supra; State v. Messer, 99 W. Hatfield, 48 W. It was therefore an abuse of discretion and reversible error for the court in the Westover trial to refuse to question, individually, those jurors who had disclosed relationship or close association with police officers; or alternatively simply to excuse them. The state introduced into evidence the jacket worn by defendant at the time of his warrantless arrest and a diagram taken from the pocket of the jacket.
Defendant objected to the admission of these items, requesting a hearing outside the presence of the jury to determine if they had been obtained incident to a lawful arrest. The exhibits were allowed into evidence without such hearing. The general rule is that when evidence is obtained from a defendant at the time of his arrest without a search warrant, the arrest must be legal.
Rabinowitz, U. As stated in 22A C. The rule in West Virginia is best pronounced in State v. Harr, W. Harr was convicted of felonious and unlawful possession of marijuana for sale upon evidence of a purchase made by an undercover agent.
rannalingdi.gq The Court, through Justice Caplan, wrote:. According to Harr, then, the right to a hearing out of the jury's presence about the lawfulness of an arrest from which evidence is produced, exists when defendant objects that the evidence was obtained through illegal search illegal here because it was incident to an alleged invalid arrest. Denial of the hearing was reversible error.
The Acme appeal presents an additional basis for reversal: the court chose jurors to complete its panel by an improper procedure.
The prosecuting attorney moved the court to order the Monongalia County sheriff ". Risk, W. The new jurors were drawn from the jury commissioners' list. Lutz, 85 W. The majority of our cases have held that statutes dealing with jury selection are directory. Hankish, W. Scott T. Pratt Of Counsel Long Beach scott. Scott was one of the original seven shareholders of KYL, having been at the firm for over 45 years. In recent years much of his time has been devoted to the representation of businesses involved in the oil industry.
Scott has also tried numerous cases involving professional liability claims against attorneys and insurance industry professionals. For years he was the primary defense counsel for the largest errors and omissions carrier involved in insuring insurance brokers and agents in California. He has also been involved in numerous coverage disputes involving the representation of both insurers and insureds.
Craig received his undergraduate and law degrees from Duquesne University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. He earned his law degree while working for a City of Pittsburgh Council member, who recently retired from the Pennsylvania State Senate.
- Top Authors?
- Contact Our Los Gatos, Ca Real Estate Law Firm for More Information.
- The Trials of Lawyer Pratt by Bert Goolsby!
After graduating from law school, Craig worked for seven years as an assistant city solicitor for the City of Pittsburgh. During his tenure with the City of Pittsburgh Law Department, he primarily handled civil rights litigation involving the City of Pittsburgh Police Department. In , Craig was named the chief deputy of the Civil Rights Unit and maintained that position until being named the first deputy city solicitor in March of In addition to his responsibilities as first deputy city solicitor, Craig mentors aspiring and new attorneys as an adjunct professor in the Intensive Trial Advocacy Program at Temple University School of Law, judging law school moot court competitions and being a faculty member of the National Institute of Trial Advocacy.
Clay joined the Law Department in September as chair. Prior to joining the Law Department, Clay was a dependency and custody master in family court in Chester County. He heard cases brought by the Department of Children, Youth and Families, as well as private petitioners. He presided over shelter care, adjudicatory, and permanency review hearings involving cases ranging from parental neglect, and physical and sexual abuse of minor children. Clay led a team to develop and pilot a successful truancy model aimed at reducing or eliminating incidents of truancy in Chester County.