STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPERIOR COURT STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, Plaintiff, v. CODY ELLLER, Defendant. ) ) ) ) CASE NO.

226-2011-CR-429 JUDGE JACKLYN COLBURN Oral Argument Requested

EMERGENCY MOTION OF MOVANT CHRISTOPHER KING, J.D., OFKINGCAST.NET, TO UNSEAL THE RECORD FOR TODAYS SCHEDULED HEARING BACKGROUND Note: The Court has partially unsealed this case by public hearing. In May, 2011, a car and a motorcycle collided at 4:30 a.m. in Pelahm, NH. The Defendant, Cody Eller, was driving the car that struck the motorcycle and a Jury of his peers convicted on or about 9 November, 2013 of Second Degree Assault and Reckless Endangerment. Unfortunately for the Cause of Justice the trial was tainted by the presence of the States lead witness, Pelham Senior Officer Eugene Stahl. It seems that Officer Stahl is on the Laurie list for a case that Movant cannot locate, however Movant has conducted research into another case in which Officer Stahl arguably misled and verbally manipulated a Defendant at roadside.1 Movants research indicates that the Defendant in the DUI case of Saviano v. Dir., N.H. DMV, 151 N.H. 315 (2004) was the benefactor of the Officers forked tongue because while the ALS suspension was sustained, on information and belief, the DUI case was dismissed.2
1

The principle of the Laurie list is that it protect the public against abusive of untrustworthy police officers because Defense Counsel may cross-examine them more critically. 2 Officer Stahl was cleared of excessive force charges by the New Hampshire Attorney General, the same office that allowed area police to destroy evidence and to violate Mr. Paulhus Miranda Rights while impersonating Assistant Attorneys General in a case from this very courthouse just a few short years ago. Some of this is documented by forensic pathologist Paul Irwin Kish on Movants Journal Page, Chris Kings First Amendment Page as linked via KingCast.net

"The plaintiff also argues that admitting the result of the PBT at the ALS hearing violated his due process rights. He asserts that the officer's advice regarding the PBT "would have led a reasonable person to believe that the result of the PBT would not be used against him," and that his advice was "lacking in fundamental fairness and offensive to the universal sense of fair play." Be that as it may, the State procured a Guilty Verdict in large part relying on the testimony of Officer Eugene Stahl, and immediately thereafter the State disclosed the Laurie list information to Counsel for Defendant, who filed several post trial Motions, most likely A Motion to Set Aside the Verdict, a Motion to Compel and Motion for New Trial. The Court sealed the entire file at that point, depriving the American Public of knowing why Officer Stahl is on the Laurie list and how Defendant believes it affected his trial. Movant spent several days in trial and has posted the video of the States closing argument, which is transcribed hereinbelow: "It's a simple case either you believe what everybody said in the initial part of this investigation including the Defendant or you believe what Mr. Eller said after he met with his investigators because they are totally different things. Mr. Eller welcomes the opportunity to come up here and to tell his story because he hasn't had the chance to tell his story before -- but that wasn't true he was interviewed by the police at the scene and he could have said anything he wanted to and what did he say I'm not gonna let him pass me. And he was asked did you drive over the line to hit him intentionally he said yes I wasn't gonna let him pass. Then we learn he was given the he was given the opportunity to talk to officer Stahl shortly after the accident And he agreed to talk to him and then he changed his mind and said no I'd rather talk to my mother first. There was the 300 feet south of Gordon Drive..... That was explained by Officer Stahl that he made a mistake that was backfilled by the computer system and it wasn't where he i ntended to put it in and he owned up to it. that's one of the deals of being a prosecutor you have to try your case with all its warts and wrinkles. You can't make stuff up and we're not trying to tell you he didn't do it wrong he did do it wrong. [The crash] was someplace north of where the defense says the case was predicated on. The officer was kind of amazed at this statement as Atty Kaye said this is unusual for someone some up and confess to a crime off the bat did you cross that line into the car and what did he say yes I did it intentionally i wasn't going to let him pass. still no sign of an SUV....... 2

.Would that be something that you would mention to a police officer? Of course it is. When he was given the opportunity to explain Officer Stahl said he waive his Miranda Rights but he would not talk to him because he wanted to talk to his mother, Cody Eller said Oh no I gave him a statement he just didn't write it down. I gave him a statement. There's no grey area there somebody is just not telling the truth..... so that's the way it happened... you know...."

CENTRAL QUESTION What is the compelling governmental interest that the Court is attempting to protect, and how does it in any measure outweigh the publics Right to Know about a police officer who is already on the Laurie List that should have been provided to the Defendant in this case? We need not reach the question of whether the Court is using the Least Restrictive Means to protect that purported interest, or whether the approach is narrowly-tailored because the officer is not entitled to any protection once he is on the Laurie list.3 LEGAL ARGUMENT Movant respectfully requests an Oral Argument, in Open Court, on the merits of this Motion just as he successfully addressed an Open Court at the outset of this trial when he prevailed in favor of media access. The public mistrust of police high as it already is -- is fostered and further fomented by the Courts current actions and

When did the Prosecutor discover the Laurie List problem? Lets assume arguendo that the State didnt know about it. The question is, would the investigation have proceeded any differently. The answer must be yes.
3

it is the responsibility of a vigilant Fourth Estate to seek access to these records. This is why Movant publicly implored the Union Leader as noted in this screen capture showing the related video of Prosecutor Kent Smiths closing argument.

State v. Hobbs controls this issue:

In New Hampshire, "the press has been held to have a State constitutional right, though not unlimited, to gather news."Keene Publ'g Corp. v. Cheshire County Super. Court, 119 N.H. 710, 711, 406 A.2d 137 (1979) (citing N.H. CONST. pt. I, art. 22) (other citations omitted). "To effectuate this right, [the New Hampshire Supreme Court] has adopted standards that govern pretrial [*4] criminal hearings and establish a presumption in favor of open judicial proceedings and unsealed court records." Id. Further, "part I, article 8 of the New Hampshire Constitution provides for the openness, accessibility, accountability and responsiveness of government." Petition of Keene Sentinel, 136 N.H. 121, 127, 612 A.2d 911 (1992). "[P]art I, article 8 [also] specifically provides that in aid of the foregoing the public's right of access to governmental proceedings and records shall not be unreasonably restricted." Id. (quotation omitted). The supreme court noted that "[t]hese constitutional provisions make no explicit
4

distinction between civil and criminal records, and none can reasonably be implied." Id. [U]nder the constitutional and decisional law of this State, there is a presumption that court records are public and the burden of proof rests with the party seeking closure or nondisclosure of court records to demonstrate with specificity that there is some overriding consideration or special circumstances, that is, a sufficiently compelling interest, which outweighs the public's right of access to those records.Id. at 128 (citations omitted). With respect to criminal matters, the supreme [*5] court has acknowledged that there is a "constitutional right of access to criminal trials." Associated Press, 153 N.H. at 126 (quoting Globe Newspaper Co. v. Super. Court, 457 U.S. 596, 606, 102 S. Ct. 2613, 73 L. Ed. 2d 248 (1982)). [T]he right of access to criminal trials plays a particularly significant role in the functioning of the judicial process and the government as a whole. Public scrutiny of a criminal trial enhances the quality and safeguards the integrity of the factfinding process, with benefits to both the defendant and to society as a whole. Moreover, public access to the criminal trial fosters an appearance of fairness, thereby heightening public respect for the judicial process. And in the broadest terms, public access to criminal trials permits the public to participate in and serve as a check upon the judicial process--an essential component in our structure of self-government. In sum, the institutional value of the open criminal trial is recognized in both logic and experience. Id. at 127 (quoting Globe Newspaper Co., supra). Accordingly, absent the defendant's showing of a sufficiently compelling interest for nondisclosure, the press and the public's constitutional [*6] right of access to court records prevails and the records currently at issue must remain unsealed. See id. at 130.
While that case deals with the sealing of information on a Defendant, the principle of Openness and transparency resonates with a much fuller tone because this case involves an officer of the law, who carries a gun and a badge and who is entrusted with our tax dollars to make critical decisions in the fraction of a second.

While the State may argue that New Hampshire has traditionally held personnel files exempt from public disclosure, the fact that any individual police officer is on a Laurie list should NEVER be considered to fall under that exemption because it is a matter of public concern more than it is a matter of private concern. From State v. Laurie 129 NH 325 (1995) we saw the problem was very deep and very far ranging and the public was entitled to discover it, as anyone may now read the Lexis case for example where it reads at 330: Russell further indicated that on two occasions Laro had been suspended from the Boxford department. The first suspension was for [*331] neglect of duty, and the second was for an incident which occurred while Laro [**553] was not on duty, in which he threatened a civilian with a weapon. According to Russell, "Laro was also asked to submit to polygraph examinations concerning other incidents. In all cases, it was determined that he was not being truthful and this, in turn, resulted in court cases [***13] being tainted." Russell also noted that the Boxford Police Department had sent Laro to a psychologist, who concluded that "Laro should not be entrusted with a gun and badge and that he should be referred to counseling." We do not know the exact nature of the problems that have befallen Officer Stahl.. and that in turn is the problem. In point of fact, Movant was ready, willing and able to file this Motion as of Friday, 1 Februrary 2013 when further developments at the Courthouse led him to this revision after reviewing the Courtroom video footage and the representations of counsel and the Courts reaction to discovering that the State has STILL not provided all of the relevant Laurie information: The State provided a summary version of the Laurie investigation that did not include all of the attachments.

This discovery led Union Leaders Nancy West to write Sundays news story Nashua judge hears case for vacating road-rage conviction over credibility issues in which she noted : [Judge Jacklyn] Colburn insisted she had no reason to believe any material had been withheld from Stahl's personnel record, until Kaye pointed out referenced attachments in one document that hadn't, in fact, been attached. Assistant Hillsborough County Attorney Karinne Brobst then told Colburn she provided only a police summary of the investigation, not the full investigation. This discovery led Movant to note tin his video, State wrongfully withheld cop Eugene Stahl Laurie list info in Cody Eller road rage case, in which he noted that Counsel in these circumstances Must provide the whole Universe while noting that he is not saying Eugene Stahl is a bad cop but merely that the contents of the information contained in the Laurie investigation must be made public in light of the compelling governmental interest in granting the public reasonable access to information on law enforcement personnel who carry guns and badges and who make split-second life and death decisions. Movant took time to briefly address the Court at the close of the proceedings on 1 Feb 2013 on this issue, noting that he was going to file this Motion. The Court did the Right thing in allowing for a public hearing on the issue, however that is not good enough in a circumstance like this, in which the publics trust in the system has been completely compromised. At this point the entire case must be unsealed.4

Movant, as a life-long motorcyclist, has a vested interest in seeing that Cody Eller is brought to Justice if he did something wrong. However, as a life-long motorcyclist, former Assistant State Attorney and Civil Rights Attorney Movant is not going to support a conviction at all costs mentality, and unless the record is unsealed this case will always be tainted. So disclosure is in the States best interests in the Long Run.
4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1HzuJNgZvw

As such, the Court must now unseal the Court file and cast asunder the cloak of secrecy that too often blights the sunshine from New Hampshire Courts. These arguments neatly dovetail with the Open Court arguments that Movant issued against Cody Ellers attorneys at the outset of the case. Movant was correct on that matter as well, and that is why we now have courtroom video of this trial. That is how the Fourth Estate operates in the Modern Era. Respectfully submitted, ____________________________________ Christopher King, J.D. 8

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This Motion was duly served via First Class U.S. Mail 6 February, 2013 to: Jeffrey Kaye, Esq. 302 Broadway # 2 Methuen, MA 01844-6834 Karinne Brobst, Esq. Kent Smith, Esq. Hillsborough County Prosecutor 30 Spring Street Nashua, NH 03060

__________________________________ Christopher King, J.D.