From Ricardo Juarez, Corey Lyons, Peter Jeschke, Johnson, Santa Barbara Superior Court Judge Brian Hill the corruption must BE STOPPED!

I was reflecting this morning on how in the past I have shared some serious concerns through this blog. One main area of concern for me is how defendants who appear in our Santa Barbara Superior Courts either have there civil rights violated or never have the law applied to their case. An to make matters worse the abuser's of the Law are the same people who's sworn duty it is to uphold them. I have written hundreds of postings over these last two years and I am about to add another. Lets look at a recent mistrial that occurred in our Santa Barbara Superior Court. 

We will we be looking at the Lyons mistrial. Superior Court Judge Brian Hill ruled that a witnesses testimony in which he shared his opinion (HEAR SAY) could influence the jury to such a degree that it was possible the defendant could not receive a fair trial—explaining it’s the jury’s job to determine guilt or innocence, not the witnesses’—Judge Hill said “that Corey would now be unable to receive a fair trial”. Wow the judge is on a first name basis with the defendant. Judge Brian Hill felt the only proper way to move forward is to scrap all proceedings thus far(1 month into the trial) and start the trial over with a new jury,

Now excuse me for being blunt here but just does Judge Brian Hill think he is? He is obviously suffering from some type of god complex and needs to have the reins taken away via a recall or voted out during the next Judicial election. A person is who is said to have a "God complex", does not believe he is god, but acts so arrogantly that he might as well believe his is appointed to act by God. Some believe that "God complexes" are particularly common in arrogant, highly educated, worldly, or powerful people. THE DEFENSE REST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

All that happen to create this mistrial is that while on the witness stand the defendants brother Tom was asked if anyone else in the family felt that COREY was guilty. He answered yes and gave there name and explained the when and where of that conversation. Now since the named sibling is available to testify on there own the court in this instance will not allow that testimony.

Here is what I feel about the Lyons mistrial

When you consider the amount of alleged irregularities in other recent Court case's that Judge Brian Hill has presided over. An than factor in that most of those allegations resulted in no corrective actions being taken by Judge Hill or the court Well that just makes this declaration of a mistrial seem extremely out of line. One would have thought a simple correction with clear instructions to the jury from Judge Hill would suffice. Thus allowing the trial to continue until a verdict could be rendered. An upon further review Judge Hill had in fact already handed down two rulings addressing the witnesses testimony. Now one of those rulings instructed the jury to strike the entire testimony of Tom Lyons.

Judge Hill they same Judge that had 3 jury's in a row come back with concerns that the proceedings in his court room were basis to the defendant. Judge Hill who had a jury listen to both closing arguments and adjourn to deliberate and come to a verdict. So the jury is in the deliberating room and the first question the asked the courts after months of testimony was how did the law apply. Judge Hill how did that get corrected so as the verdict came back guilty? The defendant did not receive a fair trial. Young Ricardo Juarez

http://www.noozhawk.com/article/121510_judge_declares_mistrial_in_lyons_trial/

Judge Declares Mistrial in Lyons Double-Murder Trial

Testimony from the defendant's brother is ruled prejudicial; attorneys will set a new trial date

A judge has declared a mistrial in the Corey Lyons double homicide trial, so attorneys will meet Friday to set a new trial date, Senior Deputy District Attorney Gordon Auchincloss said.

Defense attorney Bob Sanger objected to the prejudicial testimony of Tom Lyons, the brother of the defendant, Corey Lyons, and victim Daniel Lyons.

In response to a question from Auchincloss, Tom Lyons apparently answered that multiple family members believed that Corey Lyons had committed the crimes, which Sanger successfully argued was prejudicial. The jury and four alternates were selected in October and have been listening to testimony for more than a month. Now, both attorneys will have to start from scratch with jury selection

http://www.keyt.com/news/local/Mistrial-Declared-in-Lyons-Case-111883209.html

Mistrial Declared in Lyons Case

KEYT Producer

Story Created: Dec 14, 2010 at 3:06 PM PST

Story Updated: Dec 14, 2010 at 10:34 PM PST

Santa Barbara - A mistrial has been declared in the double murder trial of Corey Lyons. Judge Brian Hill granted the request this afternoon after hearing arguments this morning.

Sanger claims testimony by Lyon's eldest brother included hearsay that Sanger called prejudicial. Sanger argued the jury may find that testimony difficult to forget.

http://www.independent.com/news/2010/dec/15/square-one/

Square One,Judge Declares Mistrial in Lyons Murder Case

---

Wednesday, December 15, 2010

By Tyler Hayden (Contact

In an attempt to prove his brother Corey is responsible for the shooting deaths of their brother Daniel and his partner, Barbara Scharton, Tom Lyons uttered in court Monday that he and other family members were convinced of Corey’s guilt right after the two murders took place. Finding that testimony far out of bounds and prejudicial hearsay, Judge Brian Hill ruled that Tom’s opinion could influence the jury to such a degree—explaining it’s the jury’s job to determine guilt or innocence, not the witnesses’—that Corey would now be unable to receive a fair trial. (JUDGE REEFERS TO THE DEFENDANT BY HIS FIRST NAME, HUMM)The only proper way to move forward is to scrap all proceedings thus far and start the trial over with a new jury, he explained on Tuesday.

Judge Hill’s Tuesday ruling was his second about Tom Lyons’ testimony and was met with reserved disappointment by Auchincloss. He had argued strenuously against Hill’s Monday decision to strike all of Tom’s statements from the record; that testimony, Auchincloss said, was so central to the People’s case that to lose it would be “fatally crippling” and that he’d rather just have a new trial. After the final ruling was handed down, he said, “The judge made his call. That’s how the system works, so I don’t second-guess it.” One jury member, Booker T. Warren, said he’s glad Hill made what he considers the right call, as Tom’s testimony “really tilted the scales to the prosecution” for him. “I’m glad the system works,” he said. “You need a fair trial.”

Here is what I feel about the Lyons mistrial

When you consider the amount of alleged irregularities in other recent Trial Court case's that Superior Court Judge Brian Hill has presided over. An that most of those allegations resulted in no corrective actions being taken by Judge Hill or the trial court Well that just makes this declaration of a mistrial seem extremely out of line. One would have thought a simple correction with clear instructions to the jury from Judge Hill would suffice. Thus allowing the trial to continue until a verdict could be rendered. An upon further review Judge Hill had in fact already handed down two rulings addressing the witnesses testimony. Now one of the rulings instructed the jury to strike the entire testimony of Tom Lyons. So since Judge Hill had done so prior to declaring a mistrial one has to wonder why the two rulings were even needed.

I was just wondering why COREY was able to receive such obvious preferential treatment and RICARDO (Juarez)cannot even get his court transcripts forwarded to his appeal in a timely manner. District Attorney Joyce Dudley is this the "JUST" courts you spoke of during your campaign?

You are correct I am holding back but I am not healthy enough at this time to properly attack what is really on my mind. This posting took all of about ten minutes to put together since it was actually just some research I already had partially structured. 

Answer me this District Attorney Dudley; will todays guilty verdict get the defendants the same lenient sentencing as convicted sex offenders Jeschke and Johnson? 50 years posable and only 3 years served between them? 

Another thing how did "Corey" Lyons ever get that home he built for his brother approved? Seems to me that huge eye sore just across the street from Shoreline Park fails to me any kind of conformity with the rest of the mesa community what so ever. In fact I have openly wondered if "Corey" felt betrayed by his brother? I mean some one had to call in a ton of favors to build that monster, and than to fight over the cost,  That just seems dirty to do that after it was built, Joyce Dudley what do you think?

By the way it took Santa Barbara District Attorney just two months after being sworn into office to go after an individual "Gang Injunction" your kidding me right? Does the with holding of evidence create a mistrial for framed defendant Ricardo Juarez? It appears from the documents below that Public Defender Karen Adkins challenged whether the Santa Barbara Police and your D.A.'s office was withholding a F.B.I. enhanced version of the "whisper tape", did they Mrs. Dudley?

Damn I am upset but I just cannot sit up long enough to create a well thought posting about how upset I am right now.!

Where was Santa Barbara Superior Court Judge Brian Hill's concerns for Ricardo Juarez and his right to a fair trial? Why was the fact that the F.B.I. had some sort of responsibility with the " Whisper Tape" left out of the trial?

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   **8.25**
11/30/2010	Case fully briefed.

	Impressions 50,000
Current 30 day Data with my Blog www.santabarbaracriminalcourt corruption.blogspot.com