John Michael "Scully" O'Sullivan
John Michael "Scully" O'Sullivan, Taken from us way too soon...
Article in San Francisco Daily Journal - the Legal Reporter
The following article appeared in the SF Daily Journal. The statements that a "flow" of cases would result is ridiculous - how many cases are the DA and the murdered co-defendants in a pre-existing Federal Civil Rights lawsuit? I'd guess not too many...but anyway - pray we win.
From:
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 14:10:11 -0700
To:
Subject: Daily Journal Article
By Greg Katz
Daily Journal Staff Writer
The wife of a slain man lost her bid Friday to make motions in an Amador County murder case, despite invoking Marsy's Law, the ballot measure designed to give victims' interests a place at counsel table during criminal proceedings.
Krista Clem-O'Sullivan, whose husband was killed in August, wished to ask the court to disqualify the district attorney, alleging impartiality.
But Amador County Superior Court Judge David S. Richmond said she had no standing to make that argument, citing an appellate decision that the criminal justice system has "no place ... for intervention by a victim pursuing personal concerns about the case," according to attorneys who were present. Dix v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.3d 442 (1991).
The case adds another example to an expanding catalog of legal confusion created by the measure, passed by voters as Proposition 9 in November 2008, to expand the role of victims in criminal trials. It amended the state constitution to allow lawyers representing victims to appear in court, but that goal has proven elusive in practice.
In at least one other case, a victim's attorney was denied access to court. Issues of how victims can pursue other Marsy's Law rights through attorneys, such as a right to withhold medical records from prosecutors, have arisen elsewhere.
Before the Amador County case, John O'Sullivan had sued District Attorney Todd D. Riebe in federal court in January 2008, alleging that he failed to prosecute longtime foe Kenneth Zimmerman, who he believed damaged his property.
Zimmerman has since been charged with shooting O'Sullivan to death. He has pleaded not guilty. People v. Zimmerman, 09CR15841 (Amador Super. Ct., filed Aug. 19, 2009).
His widow, Clem-O'Sullivan, who is allegedly the victim of criminal threats from Zimmerman, said in court papers that she believes the district attorney cannot impartially handle a case involving someone who has sued him.
Her lawyer, Bilenda Harris-Ritter, vowed an appeal of the judge's ruling. She said denying victims standing to file motions negates the ballot measure.
"If we can't file motions, we don't have any rights," said Harris-Ritter, a Folsom-based lawyer who represents victims through a grant from the National Crime Victim Law Institute in Oregon. "If you can't enforce it, it doesn't exist."
The district attorney and attorney general had opposed giving the victim standing.
"One can see all sorts of potential minefields as to how this would interfere with the orderly disposition of justice," said Riebe, particularly in domestic violence cases, where victims are often reluctant witnesses.
Defense attorney Richard P. Cotta, also opposed the motion. Cotta said that giving the victim standing would be tantamount to acknowledging that she is Zimmerman's victim, though the defendant has not been convicted of anything.
"My real concern here is that, by elevating persons who are the purported victims of criminal activities to the point that they have ... a quasi-standing in a criminal matter, [it] usurps the jury's right to determine what the facts are," said Cotta, of Jackson law firm Ciummo & Associates.
But he did agree that the district attorney should be recused and made that argument in court, based on O'Sullivan's lawsuit.
That motion was also denied.
greg_katz@dailyjournal.com
From:
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 14:10:11 -0700
To:
Subject: Daily Journal Article
By Greg Katz
Daily Journal Staff Writer
The wife of a slain man lost her bid Friday to make motions in an Amador County murder case, despite invoking Marsy's Law, the ballot measure designed to give victims' interests a place at counsel table during criminal proceedings.
Krista Clem-O'Sullivan, whose husband was killed in August, wished to ask the court to disqualify the district attorney, alleging impartiality.
But Amador County Superior Court Judge David S. Richmond said she had no standing to make that argument, citing an appellate decision that the criminal justice system has "no place ... for intervention by a victim pursuing personal concerns about the case," according to attorneys who were present. Dix v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.3d 442 (1991).
The case adds another example to an expanding catalog of legal confusion created by the measure, passed by voters as Proposition 9 in November 2008, to expand the role of victims in criminal trials. It amended the state constitution to allow lawyers representing victims to appear in court, but that goal has proven elusive in practice.
In at least one other case, a victim's attorney was denied access to court. Issues of how victims can pursue other Marsy's Law rights through attorneys, such as a right to withhold medical records from prosecutors, have arisen elsewhere.
Before the Amador County case, John O'Sullivan had sued District Attorney Todd D. Riebe in federal court in January 2008, alleging that he failed to prosecute longtime foe Kenneth Zimmerman, who he believed damaged his property.
Zimmerman has since been charged with shooting O'Sullivan to death. He has pleaded not guilty. People v. Zimmerman, 09CR15841 (Amador Super. Ct., filed Aug. 19, 2009).
His widow, Clem-O'Sullivan, who is allegedly the victim of criminal threats from Zimmerman, said in court papers that she believes the district attorney cannot impartially handle a case involving someone who has sued him.
Her lawyer, Bilenda Harris-Ritter, vowed an appeal of the judge's ruling. She said denying victims standing to file motions negates the ballot measure.
"If we can't file motions, we don't have any rights," said Harris-Ritter, a Folsom-based lawyer who represents victims through a grant from the National Crime Victim Law Institute in Oregon. "If you can't enforce it, it doesn't exist."
The district attorney and attorney general had opposed giving the victim standing.
"One can see all sorts of potential minefields as to how this would interfere with the orderly disposition of justice," said Riebe, particularly in domestic violence cases, where victims are often reluctant witnesses.
Defense attorney Richard P. Cotta, also opposed the motion. Cotta said that giving the victim standing would be tantamount to acknowledging that she is Zimmerman's victim, though the defendant has not been convicted of anything.
"My real concern here is that, by elevating persons who are the purported victims of criminal activities to the point that they have ... a quasi-standing in a criminal matter, [it] usurps the jury's right to determine what the facts are," said Cotta, of Jackson law firm Ciummo & Associates.
But he did agree that the district attorney should be recused and made that argument in court, based on O'Sullivan's lawsuit.
That motion was also denied.
greg_katz@dailyjournal.com
Views: 115
About
© 2024 Created by Michael I. Pulskamp.
Powered by
