 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Freeman v. State3/27/2002
on to question Martin's veracity. Therefore, Judge Link did not err in concluding that Freeman did not meet the second requirement of Pickens.
In addition, Freeman did not present any reason to believe that an additional, more in-depth psychiatric or psychological examination would produce any material information. In other words, Freeman never established with any specificity what a psychiatric examination of Martin would have accomplished. We conclude that Judge Link did not abuse his discretion in refusing to order Martin to undergo a psychological examination.
Judge Link's Refusal to Disclose Additional Documents he Reviewed During the in Camera Review.
Freeman contends that Judge Link erred in refusing him additional access to Martin's and J.I.'s confidential records. Freeman does not, of course, have access to the confidential material he claims Judge Link should have disclosed to him. In essence, Freeman asks us to review the documents Judge Link examined in camera and independently determine whether Judge Link abused his discretion in failing to disclose some of those documents. We have reviewed the records and conclude that Judge Link did not err in determining that the records failed to contain information that would have been material to Freeman's defense.
Judge Link's Refusal to Allow Cheryl Toppa to Testify to Martin's Untruthfulness.
At trial, Freeman attempted to introduce testimony through Cheryl Toppa that J.I. had the opinion that Martin was untruthful because of his severe psychological problems. But when Toppa testified outside the presence of the jury, she stated that she did not believe that J.I. held the opinion that Martin was untruthful. Judge Link ruled that Freeman had failed to meet the requirements of Alaska Evidence Rule 608, which allows the credibility of a witness to be attacked by evidence in the form of opinion or reputation. It seems clear that Judge Link did not abuse his discretion. He properly determined that Toppa did not have any relevant evidence to give about Martin's reputation for untruthfulness.
Judge Link's Limitations on Freeman's Ability to Introduce Evidence That Other Suspects Could Have Committed the Homicides.
Freeman made an offer of proof to show that J.I. lived a hard, rough lifestyle and a number of people could have killed her. Freeman also wanted to implicate three specific individuals in the shootings - Ed Minimon, William Edwards, and Martin.
Law and Discussion
In Smithart v. State, the Alaska Supreme Court discussed the limitations on a defendant's ability to introduce evidence that a person other than the defendant committed the crime charged. Although the defendant may generally argue that a multitude of other persons committed the crime, before a defendant implicates a specific individual, he must establish a direct link that connects the other person to the offense charged. In other words, "evidence of the third party's guilt is admissible only if the defense can produce evidence that `tend to directly connect such other person with the actual commission of the crime charged.'"
The defendant is required to show more than that the third person had a motive to commit the crime charged or the third person had an opportunity to commit the crime. For example, in Smithart, the defendant could show that another individual had "opportunity, consciousness of guilt, and forensic evidence" that implicated the third person. Similarly, in Garner v. State, the defendant was charged with first-degree murder for killing his girlfriend's eighteen-month-old son. The central question at trial was the identity of the perpetrator
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Alaska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|