This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
) ) ) JUDGE JACKLYN COLBURN Oral Argument Requested ) CASE NO. 226-2011-CR-429
REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF EMERGENCY MOTION OF MOVANT CHRISTOPHER KING, J.D., OF KINGCAST.NET, TO UNSEAL THE RECORD FOR TODAY’S SCHEDULED HEARING BACKGROUND As previously noted, it is possible that the conviction in this case was obtained unlawfully as Officer Eugene Stahl may have been subject to substantial cross-examination based on some level of dishonest conduct that placed him on the Laurie List in the first place. Unfortunately for the Cause of Justice the trial was tainted by the presence of the State’s lead witness, Pelham Senior Officer Eugene Stahl. As anticipated, the State issued a rote recitation of RSA 105:13b, which is inapplicable herein because the Laurie List is not truly part of a police officer’s personnel file. It exists separately from his or her file and it is shared with Prosecutors throughout the State. Therefore the Compelling Governmental Interest in sharing that information about a police officer who has gone that far beyond the line of acceptable conduct outweighs that officer’s purported Right to Privacy. Remember, these are people who carry guns and badges and who are entrusted by the public to behave in a manner that dignifies their profession. Having violated that public trust they simply cannot at this point reasonably expect that the Court will perpetually hide their misdeeds, because those misdeeds were substantial enough to warrant placement on the Laurie List.
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. 406 A.H. 119 N. the DUI case was dismissed. the State procured a Guilty Verdict in large part relying on the testimony of Officer Eugene Stahl. 151 N. Hobbs controls this issue: In New Hampshire.. v.H." Be that as it may. DMV.It seems that Officer Stahl is on the Laurie list for a case that Movant cannot locate. to gather news. on information and belief. and immediately thereafter the State disclosed the Laurie list information to Counsel for Defendant. a Motion to Compel and Motion for New Trial.2 "The plaintiff also argues that admitting the result of the PBT at the ALS hearing violated his due process rights. Court. 315 (2004) was the benefactor of the Officer’s forked tongue because while the ALS suspension was sustained. 22) (other citations omitted). CONST. State v. though not unlimited. [the New Hampshire Supreme Court] has adopted standards that govern pretrial [*4] criminal 1 As previously noted.H. most likely A Motion to Set Aside the Verdict.2d 137 (1979) (citing N. 710. "To effectuate this right. who filed several post trial Motions. I. however Movant has conducted research into another case in which Officer Stahl arguably misled and verbally manipulated a Defendant at roadside.net 2 .H. art.1 Movant’s research indicates that the Defendant in the DUI case of Saviano v. “Chris King’s First Amendment Page” as linked via KingCast. "the press has been held to have a State constitutional right. 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."Keene Publ'g Corp. pt. Cheshire County Super. N." and that his advice was "lacking in fundamental fairness and offensive to the universal sense of fair play. Dir. 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. 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 Movant’s Journal Page. 711.
Id. need to know and we are fully entitled to know. Accordingly. 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." Id.H. which outweighs the public's right of access to those records. at 128 (citations omitted). See id." Id. Id.hearings and establish a presumption in favor of open judicial proceedings and unsealed court records. at 127 (quoting Globe Newspaper Co. the fact remains in this case that the public interest in honest and efficacious policing outweighs the privacy interest. "[P]art I. Further.2d 911 (1992). 612 A. because that privacy interest has already been suspended by way of circulation to all prosecutors and their support staff. at 130. As anyone following this case knows. that is. accessibility. absent the defendant's showing of a sufficiently compelling interest for nondisclosure. "part I. While that case deals with the sealing of information on a Defendant. [U]nder the constitutional and decisional law of this State. accountability and responsiveness of government. supra). 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. 136 N. and none can reasonably be implied. 127. and that in turn is the problem." Petition of Keene Sentinel. a sufficiently compelling interest. (quotation omitted).. We do not know the exact nature of the problems that have befallen Officer Stahl…. The supreme court noted that "[t]hese constitutional provisions make no explicit distinction between civil and criminal records. article 8 of the New Hampshire Constitution provides for the openness." Id. my bias as a former Assistant State We 3 .. the press and the public's constitutional [*6] right of access to court records prevails and the records currently at issue must remain unsealed. 121.
in which the public’s trust in the system has been completely compromised. and unless the record is unsealed this case will always be tainted.com/watch?v=x1HzuJNgZvw At this point the entire case 3 Movant. has a vested interest in seeing that Cody Eller is brought to Justice if he did something wrong. 4 . must be unsealed. vigorous and thorough prosecution. So disclosure is in the State’s best interests in the Long Run. former Assistant State Attorney and Civil Rights Attorney Movant is not going to support a conviction at all costs mentality. as a life-long motorcyclist.Attorney was in favor of swift. However that prosecution and conviction cannot come at all costs in any civilized society. however that is not good enough in a circumstance like this.3 http://www. as a life-long motorcyclist. However.youtube. The Court did the Right thing in allowing for a public hearing on the issue. So it is up to this Court to determine whether New Hampshire is a civilized society in this instance.
5 . 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. Movant was correct on that matter as well.As such. These arguments neatly dovetail with the Open Court arguments that Movant issued against Cody Eller’s attorneys at the outset of the case. 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.
Esq.S.____________________________________ Christopher King. Kent Smith. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This Motion was duly served via First Class U. 302 Broadway # 2 Methuen. Esq. J. NH 03060 __________________________________ Christopher King. MA 01844-6834 Karinne Brobst. 6 .D. Mail 6 February. Esq.D. J. Hillsborough County Prosecutor 30 Spring Street Nashua. 2013 to: Jeffrey Kaye.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?