 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Moeller8/30/2000
rickson, 525 NW2d at 711). What Moeller essentially contends is that he not only has a constitutional right to a speedy trial, but he also has a constitutional right to not have a speedy trial. This argument wholly lacks merit.
[ ] Moeller had approximately ten months from the date the remittitur was filed in Moeller I to prepare his defense. This is an adequate amount of time. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying his continuance requests.
ISSUE 2.
[ ] The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Moeller's request for a continuance of the pre-trial DNA admissibility hearing.
FACTS
[ ] After we reversed Moeller's first conviction, a status hearing was held and a proposed scheduling order was presented to the parties. The court established January 13, 1997, as the date for a Daubert admissibility hearing pertaining to anticipated DNA evidence. On August 23, 1996, Moeller filed an objection to such date, claiming that it afforded insufficient time to prepare. The objection was overruled.
[ ] On December 11, 1996, State filed motions identifying the DNA evidence it planned to introduce at trial, which was to be the subject of the scheduled January hearing. Six days later, Moeller's counsel filed a request for the continuance of the Daubert hearing, claiming that they would not have adequate time to discover and review the results because State had not yet completed testing on all anticipated DNA evidence. After a hearing, the trial court granted Moeller's motion and re-scheduled the Daubert hearing to March 3, 1997.
[ ] On February 19, 1997, Moeller filed a third Daubert hearing continuance request. He claimed that his counsel had not received the DNA test results in time to conduct a meaningful review, that they had underestimated the amount of time necessary to prepare, and that there now existed a conflict between the hearing date and the defense expert's schedule. The trial court denied the motion as untimely, stating in a letter opinion that the defense had approximately three months' advance notice of the specific DNA testing which State intended to introduce at trial.
[ ] At the Daubert hearing on March 3-4, 1997, the defense requested and received a standing objection to any testimony concerning the admissibility of the DNA evidence. Moeller's attorneys conducted virtually no cross-examination of State's experts and presented no expert of their own to rebut State's testimony concerning PCR testing of the various DNA markers. The trial court subsequently granted State's motion to admit the DNA evidence, finding that it met the Daubert standards of relevance and reliability.
[ ] In regard to Moeller's claim that he was not adequately prepared for the hearing, the trial court stated:
The Defendant was afforded every opportunity to present evidence and choose not to take advantage of that opportunity. The court would assume that counsel for the defendant would argue that they were not afforded an "opportunity" because they were not given the time that they wanted to prepare ... .
...
A fair interpretation of facts indicates that the defense's claims that they had no witnesses, had been unable to consult with their consultant, and had not had adequate time to secure expert witnesses for the hearing or to commence the preparation of the "intricacies" in connection with the DNA is not credible. The court would conclude that the decision by the defense not to present witnesses or examine witnesses at the Daubert hearing was a tactical decision made with the intent to create the appearance of error and not the result of bei
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 South Dakota DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|