Coles Co. (ECWd) –
This article is related to our previous articles, found here and here, and we encourage everyone to read them to gain a better understanding of the entire process taking place in the courts.
We have obtained the City of Mattoon’s Motion to Quash, and as promised, we are providing it for everyone to read by downloading it at this link. The response to that motion can be viewed at this link.
As most of our readers know, we are not attorneys and our input on this matter is simply our opinion based on years of reading case law and working with multiple law firms in this state on more legal matters than we ever thought possible.
We urge everyone to read these documents slowly several times and pay attention to what is stated, how it is stated, and the case law provided in support of their arguments. We also urge looking up the case law cited and read them, as it will provide a wealth of knowledge and tends to educate the readers on how certain determinations are made by the courts.
One part of a paragraph that jumped out at us in the motion to quash is found in paragraph 7.
“The documents requested, if any are in possession of the Mattoon Police Department, are totally irrelevant to the case at bar.”
If any are in the possession of the Mattoon Police Department?
If they are not in the possession of the Mattoon Police Department, there is no need to spend more taxpayer money on a lengthy motion to quash. A simple one-sentence response is all that is needed; we don’t have the records requested. The fact that it was not done tends to indicate the records are in the possession of the Police Department.
Irrelevant to the case at bar?
Anyone reading the letter in question from the city of Arcola, which outlines numerous items that would bring the officer’s credibility to the forefront, we believe, would find the information to be in fact relevant to the defendant’s case at bar.
In Paragraph 8, the city points to People vs Carey in support of their arguments and then quotes language used in that case that actually came from a case involving former President Nixon, United States vs Nixon.
While Nixon was pointed to as the source used in Carey, we wonder why they pointed to the Carey case initial rather than Nixon. Is it because context has value to the defense in this case? In the Nixon case, the following quote points to a much bigger issue: integrity of the judicial system and public confidence.
“The very integrity of the judicial system and public confidence in the system depend on full disclosure of all the facts, within the framework of the rules of evidence. To ensure that justice is done, it is imperative to the function of courts that compulsory process be available for the production of evidence needed either by the prosecution or by the defense.“
The defendant’s response to the motion to quash points to the Nixon case and specifically, the above portion of the provided quote that is in bold.
It will be interesting to say the least to see how these matters are resolved in the court, and we will update with new articles accordingly.
