 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Freeman v. State3/27/2002
mon at approximately 10:50 p.m. the night of the shooting to investigate J.I.'s complaint. Trooper Aye pulled Minimon over somewhere in Soldotna. He discussed with Minimon the incident at the Freeman residence that had occurred earlier in the day. Trooper Aye suspected Minimon of drinking and driving, but did not have enough to arrest him for driving while intoxicated. He issued Minimon a citation for reckless driving based on J.I.'s previous statement, drove him to a residence, and dropped him off. Minimon's car remained approximately a half mile from where he had been dropped off. Trooper Aye's report indicated he left Minimon's residence at 11:10 p.m. Christensen called 911 from the Freeman residence at approximately 11:13 p.m. (Freeman's residence is located south of Soldotna; from the record it is unclear how far away Minimon was at the time of the shooting.)
Judge Link did not preclude Freeman from introducing evidence that would implicate Minimon. Instead, Judge Link only limited the evidence after ruling that some of it was more prejudicial than probative under Evidence Rule 403. Judge Link ruled that the incident involving Minimon at Freeman's residence before the shooting was admissible, including the 911 call from J.I. He ruled that Minimon's past domestic violence convictions and Escalita's 911 call, on the other hand, were not admissible.
Nonetheless, Freeman was able to introduce much of the evidence he proposed. In addition, Freeman was entitled to present his theory of defense during summation, where he argued Minimon had the opportunity and the motive to kill J.I. and Eason. He also argued that Minimon had attempted to kill J.I. earlier in the evening and played the 911 call to the jury a second time. Freeman attempted to impeach the credibility of Trooper Aye by asking the jury to disregard Trooper Aye's notation of the time he left the residence, as it was probably incorrect. If Trooper Aye's time was incorrect, then Minimon had the opportunity to return to the Freeman residence and kill J.I. and Eason. We conclude Judge Link did not err in limiting the evidence that Freeman was allowed to introduce that implicated Minimon. Freeman was given substantial leeway to present his theory to the jury.
3. William Edwards
The second identifiable suspect Freeman intended to implicate was Edwards. Edwards was J.I.'s ex-boyfriend of four years. Domestic violence was documented between Edwards and J.I. Edwards had been convicted of third-degree assault for assaulting J.I. in 1995. At the time of the shooting, Edwards was still on probation for the assault. J.I. indicated to Dr. Wald that Edwards had "followed [J.I. and Martin]" around the state for several years. Freeman wanted to argue that Edwards had several motives for killing J.I. First, Edwards was rumored to want legal custody of Martin. Second, Edwards had spent six months in prison for assaulting J.I. (and was still on probation at the time of the shootings). Lastly, J.I. had sold all of Edwards's property while he was in prison. Freeman argued the reason for the lack of evidence against Edwards was because the police immediately suspected Freeman and failed to adequately investigate any other suspects, including Edwards.
Judge Link found the evidence insufficient to raise a reasonable doubt as to Freeman's guilt and thus concluded there was no basis to introduce the evidence under Smithart. Judge Link also found the evidence was very prejudicial and only minimally probative.
But, on cross-examination, Judge Link allowed Freeman to ask Alaska State Trooper Sergeant John Glick about his investigation of Edwards. Trooper Glick admitted knowing that Edwards had been convicted of a
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.
|
|