This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
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 TODAY’S 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 State’s 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 Movant’s 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 Officer’s forked tongue because while the ALS suspension was sustained, on information and belief, the DUI case was dismissed.2
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 Movant’s Journal Page, “Chris King’s First Amendment Page” as linked via KingCast.net
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 -... Mr. The Court sealed the entire file at that point. that's one of the deals of being a prosecutor you have to try your case with all its warts and wrinkles. 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... 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.. most likely A Motion to Set Aside the Verdict. Movant spent several days in trial and has posted the video of the State’s closing argument.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. Eller said after he met with his investigators because they are totally different things. 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.. 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 immediately thereafter the State disclosed the Laurie list information to Counsel for Defendant. the State procured a Guilty Verdict in large part relying on the testimony of Officer Eugene Stahl. depriving the American Public of knowing why Officer Stahl is on the Laurie list and how Defendant believes it affected his trial." Be that as it may."The plaintiff also argues that admitting the result of the PBT at the ALS hearing violated his due process rights. who filed several post trial Motions. There was the 300 feet south of Gordon Drive.. And he was asked did you drive over the line to hit him intentionally he said yes I wasn't gonna let him pass. 2 . 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. a Motion to Compel and Motion for New Trial.. still no sign of an SUV... [The crash] was someplace north of where the defense says the case was predicated on. 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." and that his advice was "lacking in fundamental fairness and offensive to the universal sense of fair play.
. 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. and how does it in any measure outweigh the public’s 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." CENTRAL QUESTION What is the compelling governmental interest that the Court is attempting to protect.is fostered and further fomented by the Court’s current actions and When did the Prosecutor discover the Laurie List problem? Let’s assume arguendo that the State didn’t know about it. so that's the way it happened. or whether the approach is narrowly-tailored because the officer is not entitled to any protection once he is on the Laurie list. you know..……. in Open Court. Cody Eller said Oh no I gave him a statement he just didn't write it down.3 LEGAL ARGUMENT Movant respectfully requests an Oral Argument... 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. I gave him a statement.Would that be something that you would mention to a police officer? Of course it is. The answer must be yes. 3 3 ... There's no grey area there somebody is just not telling the truth.. would the investigation have proceeded any differently... The public mistrust of police – high as it already is -. The question is.
"part I. Cheshire County Super.H. art." Id.2d 911 (1992)."Keene Publ'g Corp. (quotation omitted). pt. article 8 of the New Hampshire Constitution provides for the openness. v. 22) (other citations omitted)." Id. though not unlimited. I. Further. 121. State v.2d 137 (1979) (citing N. 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. 612 A. 127.H.H. 710." Petition of Keene Sentinel. 406 A. [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. to gather news. Court. 136 N. "To effectuate this right. "[P]art I. Hobbs controls this issue: In New Hampshire. The supreme court noted that "[t]hese constitutional provisions make no explicit 4 .it is the responsibility of a vigilant Fourth Estate to seek access to these records. "the press has been held to have a State constitutional right. accessibility. CONST. This is why Movant publicly implored the Union Leader as noted in this screen capture showing the related video of Prosecutor Kent Smith’s closing argument. accountability and responsiveness of government. 711. 119 N.
596. 153 N. [U]nder the constitutional and decisional law of this State. Public scrutiny of a criminal trial enhances the quality and safeguards the integrity of the factfinding process. 2d 248 (1982)). at 126 (quoting Globe Newspaper Co. with benefits to both the defendant and to society as a whole. 606. 5 . absent the defendant's showing of a sufficiently compelling interest for nondisclosure. the institutional value of the open criminal trial is recognized in both logic and experience. thereby heightening public respect for the judicial process.S. Ct. v. 102 S. See id. public access to the criminal trial fosters an appearance of fairness. Accordingly. 2613. Ed. the press and the public's constitutional [*6] right of access to court records prevails and the records currently at issue must remain unsealed. and none can reasonably be implied. the principle of Openness and transparency resonates with a much fuller tone because this case involves an officer of the law. that is. at 130. Id. at 128 (citations omitted). In sum.distinction between civil and criminal records. 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 that case deals with the sealing of information on a Defendant. With respect to criminal matters. the supreme [*5] court has acknowledged that there is a "constitutional right of access to criminal trials. supra). 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.H. 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. which outweighs the public's right of access to those records." Id. 457 U. Court. Moreover. a sufficiently compelling interest." Associated Press. Super.Id. 73 L. at 127 (quoting Globe Newspaper Co.. And in the broadest terms. [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.
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. in turn. willing and able to file this Motion as of Friday. In all cases. resulted in court cases [***13] being tainted. 6 . 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. From State v." We do not know the exact nature of the problems that have befallen Officer Stahl…. "Laro was also asked to submit to polygraph examinations concerning other incidents. According to Russell.While the State may argue that New Hampshire has traditionally held personnel files exempt from public disclosure. The first suspension was for [*331] neglect of duty. and that in turn is the problem. 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 Court’s 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. Laurie 129 NH 325 (1995) we saw the problem was very deep and very far ranging and the public was entitled to discover it. Movant was ready." Russell also noted that the Boxford Police Department had sent Laro to a psychologist. it was determined that he was not being truthful and this. who concluded that "Laro should not be entrusted with a gun and badge and that he should be referred to counseling. 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. In point of fact.
4 Movant. been attached. as a life-long motorcyclist. 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. At this point the entire case must be unsealed.This discovery led Union Leader’s Nancy West to write Sunday’s 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. 4 7 . however that is not good enough in a circumstance like this.” 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. has a vested interest in seeing that Cody Eller is brought to Justice if he did something wrong. as a life-long motorcyclist. “State wrongfully withheld cop Eugene Stahl Laurie list info in Cody Eller road rage case. However. not the full investigation. So disclosure is in the State’s best interests in the Long Run. and unless the record is unsealed this case will always be tainted. until Kaye pointed out referenced attachments in one document that hadn't. Assistant Hillsborough County Attorney Karinne Brobst then told Colburn she provided only a police summary of the investigation. in fact. This discovery led Movant to note tin his video. in which the public’s trust in the system has been completely compromised. former Assistant State Attorney and Civil Rights Attorney Movant is not going to support a conviction at all costs mentality. The Court did the Right thing in allowing for a public hearing on the issue.
Movant was correct on that matter as well. Respectfully submitted.com/watch?v=x1HzuJNgZvw As such. ____________________________________ Christopher King. That is how the Fourth Estate operates in the Modern Era.youtube. 8 . and that is why we now have courtroom video of this trial.D. 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.http://www. These arguments neatly dovetail with the Open Court arguments that Movant issued against Cody Eller’s attorneys at the outset of the case. J.
Hillsborough County Prosecutor 30 Spring Street Nashua. MA 01844-6834 Karinne Brobst. Esq. Kent Smith. J.CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This Motion was duly served via First Class U.S. Esq.D. 9 . Esq. Mail 6 February. 2013 to: Jeffrey Kaye. NH 03060 __________________________________ Christopher King. 302 Broadway # 2 Methuen.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.