Sunday, December 5, 2010

Ricardo Juarez has a new attorney Daralynn Pritz and his case has been sent to the 2nd Appellate District. Was there corruption in this Santa Barbara murder trial?

Attention Danalynn Pritz for Ricardo Juarez's Lawyer,
It is mine and many others opinion that Ricardo Juarez was framed for a crime he may have had only some involvement in. I have seen your court docket and have no doubt that court reporter Sharon Reinhold is stalling on purpose. In another case I have researched she claims to have lost the felony sentencing transcripts all together. As far as the DNA evidence in the Juarez trial Barbara Burns the local forensic officer would not verify how or what was gathered and sent to the lab while she took the stand, she said the receiving lab would have to answer those questions about her work. There is a clear picture in the Santa Barbara Independent showing Mr. Juarez in hand cuffs still wearing his gloves and shoes both allegedly later contained DNA evidence. As for the Whisper tape the F.B.I. was involved in some unknown capacity and defense attorney Karen Adkins had to petition the court to try an obtain a copy of the enhanced version. That 3 page motion was filed on 02/21/08, during the trial I am not sure if that indecent was mentioned. The criminal minutes show a clear an bias move to steer this trial to Trial Judge Brian Hill before a preliminary hearing had been scheduled. They accomplished this feat by filing a 170.6 motion against Judge Eskin during PX setting.This type of action was again recently attempted and Judge Anderson let it be known he was unhappy about being ordered to do so with his comments to the media. I have yet to find an 80 page motion that was filed mid December 07 on Mr. Juarez's behalf. Also I have found only a partial motion filed on 08/20/07. During Mr. Juarez's second or third appearance in court the criminal minutes reflect all special allegations had been denied by the court. Finally in a motion filed 1/22/08 by the prosecution 2 things jump out at me from this 30 page document. On page 19 Mr. Franklin makes reference the earlier granting of use immunity for the prosecutions witness Ricardo R. in order to testify against the against the defendant for murder. In line 9 of page 19 of this motion and I quote” Ricardo R. was granted immunity from prosecution for the murder and than testified” when in fact he had already had his case concluded in this matter in juvenile court.I have a second serious concern of misconduct by the Santa Barbara District attorneys office in this same motion and that starts on page 27. On page 27 starting with line four I quote “which simply re-alleges the charge alleged in the felony complaint, upon which defendant was held to answer after a six day preliminary examination.’. While yes it is true that after these matters had been concluded and Mr. Juarez’s charges were dropped a second preliminary hearing would be later held and that proceeding did last 6 days. What I would like investigated is how the District attorney could make a reference to that proceeding which would not take place for at least 2 months into the future. I will take the time to fax you the copies of everything I have just referenced and hope it helps Ricardo. A life was lost and my heart goes out to Angel Linares family. I will sit on any jury and convict a criminal when I am called to do so. All I ask is that our courts and its officers do so in a just and legal manner. This fight was allowed to take place and obtaining the 911 calls will help reflect what really transpired. I have a blog @ which cover this and other topics. My name is Larry Mendoza, please feel free to contact me with any questions you may have.
1st case#1218867 2nd case #1257189
You might want to reference Efren Cruz and his case in Santa Barbara as well for similarities.

If our Santa Barbara Superior Courts are "Just" while all the stalling to the upper courts?

Docket (Register of Actions)
The People v. Juarez
Division 6
Case Number B214315
Date Description Notes
03/02/2009 Notice of appeal lodged/received (criminal).   N/A dtd 2/20/09. Fr J. 187(a)PC; SP 17 yrs. DOB: 2/6/93.
(See Sect. 5:10, Calif. Style Manual, Fourth Edition) The nondisclosure policy does not apply where the minor is held to answer as an adult in criminal proceedings.
03/03/2009 Notice to reporter to prepare transcript.   1st amended, dated 02/27/09
03/13/2009 Notice to reporter to prepare transcript.   2nd amended, dated 03/10/09
03/25/2009 Notice to reporter to prepare transcript.   3rd amended; DTD: 3/20/09
04/10/2009 Received copy of document filed in trial court.   Certified Copy of Affidavit of Court Report for Extension of time to file The Record on Appeal to 5/05/09 dated 4/06/09
05/05/2009 Received copy of document filed in trial court.   Certified Copy of Affidavit of Court Reporter for extension of time to file the record on appeal to 06/10/09
06/03/2009 Requested - extension of time   by CSR S. Reinhold (CSR#7794) rex to file rt's on 7/30/09
06/09/2009 Granted - extension of time.  
07/22/2009 Requested - extension of time  
07/23/2009 Granted - extension of time.   **to file rportr's transcript by CSR S. Reinhold** **NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS**
08/17/2009 Record on appeal filed.   ****C-4 (1060), R-32 (7554), S-1 (envelope)****
09/24/2009 Counsel appointment order filed.   attorney D. Pritz for appellant (aob+30)
10/22/2009 Record omission letter received.   dtd 10/20/09 by attorney D. Pritz for aplt; clerk's transcript
10/22/2009 Motion/application to augment record filed.   by aplt; clerk's (copies of People's trial exhibits Nos. 40-CD Rom and 222-CD Rom, and the defense trial exhibit No. 255-audio recording) + 30 day eot
10/26/2009 Received:   SBSC request for supplemental record dtd 10/23/09
10/28/2009 Augmentation granted. (See order.)   We grant appellant's motion to augment the record on appeal with the People's trial exhibits Nos. 40 and 222, and the defense trial exhibit No. 255. The clerk of the superior court shall transmit these original exhibits to the clerk of this court forthwith. Appellant's counsel may make arrangements to view the exhibits with the clerk of this court. Appellant's opening brief is due 30 days from the lodging of the exhibits with this Court.
10/29/2009 Supplemental record/transcript filed.   c-1 (253) **omitted docs**
11/03/2009 Exhibits received from county clerk.   SBSC No. 1257189 - People's trial exhibits Nos. 40 and 222, and the defense trial exhibit No. 255 (30 days frm lodging aob due)
11/04/2009 Telephone conversation with:   attorney Pritz for aplt; informing her exhibits requested are available for viewing (aob due w/in 30 days)
12/04/2009 Requested - extension of time  
12/04/2009 Granted - extension of time.  
12/31/2009 Requested - extension of time  
01/04/2010 Granted - extension of time.  
02/03/2010 Requested - extension of time  
02/04/2010 Granted - extension of time.  
03/05/2010 Requested - extension of time  
03/05/2010 Granted - extension of time.  
04/07/2010 Requested - extension of time  
04/07/2010 Granted - extension of time.  
05/06/2010 Requested - extension of time  
05/07/2010 Granted - extension of time.   **NO FURTHER**
06/11/2010 Default sent to court appointed counsel.  
06/17/2010 Appellant's opening brief. Defendant and Appellant: Juarez, Ricardo
Attorney: Danalynn Pritz
07/12/2010 Requested - extension of time  
07/12/2010 Granted - extension of time.  
09/16/2010 Requested - extension of time  
09/16/2010 Granted - extension of time.  
10/07/2010 Application filed to:   for permission to file respondent's brief in excess of word limit (28,557 total words)
10/07/2010 Received:   Respondent's Brief (oversized) (**need permission to file**)
10/07/2010 Respondent's brief. Plaintiff and Respondent: The People
Attorney: Office of the Attorney General
(permission - oversized - 28,557 total words)
11/03/2010 Requested - extension of time  
11/04/2010 Granted - extension of time.  
11/30/2010 Modified criminal address.   per arb, aplt now at OHC instead of Norwalk Reception
11/30/2010 Appellant's reply brief. Defendant and Appellant: Juarez, Ricardo
Attorney: Danalynn Pritz
11/30/2010 Case fully briefed.

No comments: