|
|
|
HARRISBURG —
The pre-trial situation is getting heated in the courtroom as the trial of Raymond Moss approaches.
A Wednesday Circuit Court motion hearing, involving a request for additional disclosure, revolved around something called a “request for witness inducement.” It can been seen all the time on primetime cop shows, and is fairly common in real life, too: A witness with a checkered background or an outstanding warrant knows something that may help break an unrelated case. In exchange for telling the police what he or she knows, the witness will get a break in their own case.
It is not always that simple.
The prosecution contends there are no inducements for witnesses in the Moss case; the defense contends otherwise.
Attorney Fred Turner, representing Moss, on Wednesday argued several of the State’s witnesses were able to receive lesser, if any, sentences after agreeing to cooperate with the State on the Moss trial.
“The State is bending over backwards to protect their witnesses who all just recently changed their stories,” Turner contended.
However, whether or not witnesses changed the date of the incident to a time when Moss was not incarcerated, as they had originally claimed, was not the major issue in the motion hearing.
The main issue before the court was if the State has not disclosed any witness inducements to the defense — if there are any in existence.
Assistant State’s Attorney Eva Walker on Wednesday told the court she is not aware of any inducements.
The argument is expected be settled and the defense and court will soon find out which side is correct as Judge Mark Clarke ordered the State to “produce and provide to defense transcribed police reports of all interviews with all witnesses, to be completed by Nov. 18.”
The next motion hearing in the Moss case will be held 1 p.m. Wednesday, Nov. 23.
“That will be a date of some significance,” said Clarke, who appeared to be exasperated.
The pre-trial situation is getting heated in the courtroom as the trial of Raymond Moss approaches.
A Wednesday Circuit Court motion hearing, involving a request for additional disclosure, revolved around something called a “request for witness inducement.” It can been seen all the time on primetime cop shows, and is fairly common in real life, too: A witness with a checkered background or an outstanding warrant knows something that may help break an unrelated case. In exchange for telling the police what he or she knows, the witness will get a break in their own case.
It is not always that simple.
The prosecution contends there are no inducements for witnesses in the Moss case; the defense contends otherwise.
Attorney Fred Turner, representing Moss, on Wednesday argued several of the State’s witnesses were able to receive lesser, if any, sentences after agreeing to cooperate with the State on the Moss trial.
“The State is bending over backwards to protect their witnesses who all just recently changed their stories,” Turner contended.
However, whether or not witnesses changed the date of the incident to a time when Moss was not incarcerated, as they had originally claimed, was not the major issue in the motion hearing.
The main issue before the court was if the State has not disclosed any witness inducements to the defense — if there are any in existence.
Assistant State’s Attorney Eva Walker on Wednesday told the court she is not aware of any inducements.
The argument is expected be settled and the defense and court will soon find out which side is correct as Judge Mark Clarke ordered the State to “produce and provide to defense transcribed police reports of all interviews with all witnesses, to be completed by Nov. 18.”
The next motion hearing in the Moss case will be held 1 p.m. Wednesday, Nov. 23.
“That will be a date of some significance,” said Clarke, who appeared to be exasperated.
