Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Melongo's Motion Requesting Judge Goebel To Reconsider His 10-25-12 Ruling Denying Her Motion

Melongo's Motion Requesting Judge Goebel To Reconsider His 10-25-12 Ruling Denying Her Motion

Ratings: (0)|Views: 52|Likes:
Published by anacondakay044
Melongo's Motion To reconsider asking Judge Goebel to reconsider his ruling denying her motion. Melongo alleges that the Judge misrepresented the facts of her motion and misapplied the law
Melongo's Motion To reconsider asking Judge Goebel to reconsider his ruling denying her motion. Melongo alleges that the Judge misrepresented the facts of her motion and misapplied the law

More info:

Published by: anacondakay044 on Nov 02, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

12/04/2012

pdf

text

original

 
State
Of
Illinois,
v.
Annabel
K.
Melongo
IN
THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOISCRIMINAL DIVISIONPlaintiff,NO.10CR0809201
J
;0
I
U •
, ,
.L
)
)
)
))))
))
))
Judge Steven J. GoebelDefendant,
Motion
To
Reconsider October 25
th,
2012, Ruling
NOW
COMES
Annabel
K.
Melongo, Pro
Se,
and
asks
this Honorable Court
to
reconsider its October
25
th
,
2012, ruling denying the defendant's
motion
to
dismiss the
indictment
based on perjury and discoveryviola
ti
ons.
As
grounds
of
this
motion
,the Defendant states:
J
2
1.
When first filed in Rolling Meadows,
IL,
06300688, the above charges were dismissed
in
that
courton January 10
th
,
2007,
for
lack
of
evidence.2.
On
January
li
h,
2007,
the
state indicted the
defendant at
2650 California Ave.on
the
same
ch
arge
s,
07CR2341 ("07gr
an
d jury"
).
3.
That
indictment
was superseded in May 28
th
of
2008, by
the
present
case
08CRI0502 ("08 grand
jury")
.Detective
Martin
was thesolestate's witness atbo
th
indictments.4.The defendant,
as
a Pro
Se,
authored
the
first version
of
the motion
to
dismiss on October 28
th
,
2009.
She
later
amended
it
on January 8
th,
2010.5.The day she was supposed
to
argue
her motion,
March 3
rd,
2012, Judge Brosnahan ordered apsychologica! evaluation onhe
r.She
was arrestedduring th
at
sessionandcharged
wit
heavesdropping.6.While in jail,
the
defendant hired a
new
lawyer.
Mr
.Albukerk
rewrote
her
motion
to
dismiss basedon perjury and discovery violationsand filedit on
Ju
ly 26
th,
2010. The state switched election
to
the
eavesdropping
case
on
that
same day.
7.Pr
osecution r
es
umed on
the
presentcase af
te
r
th
edismi
ssa
l
of th
e
ea
vesd
ropp
ing
ca
se onJune 19
th
,
2012.8. On October 9
th
and
15
th
,
2012,
the
defendant
argued
her
motion
to
dismiss.9.
On
October
25
th
,
2012, Judge Goebel denied
that motion
by misinterpreting its facts andmisapplying
the
law, by ignoringtheactualand substantial prejudices done
to
the
defendant
andby ignoring the egregious discovery violations
of
the
prosecution.The present
motion
isan
atte
mp
t
to
addressand correct those fact
s:
1
 
A.
Misinterpretation of facts
and
misapplication of law
a.Misrepresentation
of
facts
i.
According
to
the
us/ega/.
com
website, prosecutorial misconduct amounts
to
violation
of
court
rules
or
ethical standard
of
law practice.Examples
of
such conduct are
courtroom
misconduct(making im
pr
operremarks
or
improperly in
tr
oducing evidenced
es
ignedto prejudice
the
jury), evidence misconduct (hiding, destroying, tampering evidence
or
case
files
or
records), falling
to
disclose evidence negating
guilt
,presenting false andmisleadi
ng
evidence,
use
of
unreliable and
untruthful
witnesses, hiding
the
hearsay's
nature
f)f
awitnes5.__mDng these,
the
defendant
based
her
motion
to
misconduct
related
to
an
untruthful
witness (perjury) and evidence (destroyi
ng
evidence favorabletotheaccused andfailingto discloseevidencene
ga
ting h
er
guilt).Although Judge Goebel,on Oct.3
rd
,
2012,
encouraged
the
defendant's
to
use hearsay evidence duringher argument,
the
defendant never did.
She
presented documents
that
were produced
either
by the Schiller Park police
or
sent
to
Detective
Martin or the
prosecuto
r.
Therefore, Judge Goebel can't equate
the
facts
of
this
motion
to
prosecutori
al
misconduct based on hearsay. Detective
Martin
was an occurrence witness
NO
T
ahearsay witness.
II.
On
page
3
o
fth
e
Oc
tobe
r
25
th
,
2012,
transcr
ipt
("The transcript"),
th
ejud
ge
stat
es
"I'm
not
try
i
ng
to
slight
your
intelligence in any way, shape
or
form,
but
you did havedifficu
lty
asking
the
proper
questions and getting the evidence
that
you neededin."Contrary
to
the
judge's statement, the
defendant
puts in
10
exhibits:
the
Schiller Park
Investigative Report {m3rkedasPetitioner's exhibit
1),
the
DB
grami
jury
transnipt
(marked
as
Petitioner's exhibit
2),
the
Comcast's subpoena response
for
subscriberinformationrelated
to
the
defen
dant
(marked
as
Petitioner'sexhib
it
3),
th
e Comcast's subpoena response regarding
the
alleged
IP
address used
for
the
intrusion (marked
as
Petitioner's exhibit 4),
the
email exchange between Mrs.Carol Spizzirri and BrianSalerno,
the
first expert (marked
as
Petitioner's exhibit 5),
the
email between KyleFrench and Detective
Martin
(marked
as
Petitioner's exhibit 6),
the
email betweendetective
Martin
and DonPeters,
the
second expert hired (marked
as
Petitioner'sexhibit
7),
the
personal and confidential
report
sent
to
Mrs. Carol
Spizz
irri and detectiveMa
rti
nbyDon Peters(
mar
ked
as
Pe
ti
tione
r's exhibit 8),
th
etranscripto
fth
e
Oc
tober 9
th,
2012,
argument (marked
as
Petitioner's exhibit
9)
and finally
the
07
grandj
ury
transcript(marked
as
Petitioner's exhibit 10).Except
for
petitioner's
exhibit
9,
all thesedocuments were given
to
the
judge. Moreover,
petitioner's
exhibits
I,
3,
4,5,7 were
2
 
also attached
to
the
original
motion
.Therefore, stating
that
the
defendant had difficulty
putting
in
the
necessary evidenceis a misrepresentation
of
the
facts.
Addit
ionally, at
the
closing
of
the
October 15
th
,
2012, hearing,
the
defendant filed
an
Amended
Memorandum
of
Defendant
Argument
On
Motion
To
Dismi
ss
Computer TamperingCharges
("AmendedM
emorandum
")whichwas a summary of
her
hearing and shouldhave been used
as
a guideline
if
judge Goebel had
difficulty
ascertaini
ng
the
defendant'sviews. Apparently,judge Goebel overlooked
that
memorandum.
iii.Also on page 3
of
the
transcript,the judge, citing
People v.Sampson,
406
III.
App.
3d
1054,943
N.E.2d
783,348lU.Dec.
175,
states
"The
grounds are
alittlebitdfffer
ent
as
it
dealt mostly
with
hearsay in
the
Grand Jury. However, it does cite and go
into
perjury,which are
the
groundsallegedhere by
Ms
.Me!ongo."That'saiso amisrepresentationof
Sampson.
Not
only are
the
grounds completely
different
as
explained below,
but
also,t
hat
case doesn
't
go i
nt
o perju
ry
at alLIn f
act
,
an
A
crobat
Reader
sea
r
ch
ofthe
word
"
perjury"
returned no occurrence
of
it;whereas
the
same search on
the
word
"hearsay"returns 18 occurrences on a 12-page document; whi
ch
in itselfis indicative
of
what
that
case
is
about
.iv.Finally on page
7
of
the transcript, judge Goebel states"additionally,the alleged discovery violationf
or
failingto preser
ve
the compute
r,
I
don't find
that
risesto thelevel
of
a due process
or
violation
that
would
warrant
dismissal
of
the
charges in thisca
se as
welL"That's amisrepresenta
tion
of
what
'sstatedinthe
defendant
's
motion
and
Amended Memorandum.
Both motions explicitly state
that the
defendant's laptop was
damaged, making
-an
inuependent re
vi
ew
of
it
impossible,
that
ev
idence
favorable
to
the
accused was
not
preserved in
SALF
's computers and servers,
that
said evidence
is
forever lostandftnaHy
that
the-state,
fer
over
six
years,has faHed
to
tende
rexcu1patory
evidencerequested by
the
defendan
t.
b.Misapplication
of
lawi.While dismissing the defendant's
motion
on October
25
th,
2012,Judge Goebel used
Sampson
as
the
guiding
authority
.However,
that
"circuit court agreed
with the
defendant
that
the
case
was controlled by
People
v.
Oliver,
368 III. App.
3d
690,698-99, 307 III.
Dec.
38,8
59
N.
E.2
d38 (2006) in whi
ch
the cou
rt
held thata prosecutor engaged in misconduct at
the
grand
jury
proceedings by
withholding the
hearsay nature
of
awitness's
testimony
and
thereby
violated
the
defendant'sdueprocess rights",
Sampson
at
1059.The defendant's
motion
is
not about
hearsay
orthe
prosecutor
withholding
the
hearsay nature
of
Detect
ive
Martin's testimony;
rathe
r,her motion
is
about perjury
3

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->