Charles Village Court Watch

James Cureton is charged with the murder of Tanise Ervin and the attempted murder of two others on Gorsuch Avenue in Better Waverly on March 12, 2011.  He was scheduled to appear this morning at 11 before Judge Michael Reed in part 45 reception court.

Shortly before 11, while court was in recess, I took a break.  At 11:53, when I returned, Judge Reed was back on the bench and Cureton was in the courtroom speaking to his attorney Jack Rubin.

At 11, the case was called by the two assistant state's attorneys handling the case, Larai Everett and Richard Gibson.  A 15 minute bench conference  was followed by a short recess for Judge Reed to check one thing.  After another bench conference in which the attorneys all could be seen with their calendars, Judge Reed announced that the case was being sent to part 26 in room 113 (Courthouse West), which is the courtroom of Judge Lawrence Fletcher-Hill.

At noon, before Judge Fletcher-Hill, the case was called for scheduling purposes, and the defense attorney waived his client's presence for that purpose.  The judge announced which days he had other commitments, and the attorney's announced their conflicts.  The trial will take about 7 days total including 5 days of testimony before the jury.

Judge Fletcher-Hill stated that he was thinking about having one pool of jurors for voir dire (where members of the jury panel are questioned concerning whether they have previous knowledge of the case, whether they know any of the expected witnesses, and whether they have any bias concerning the case) Tuesday afternoon, then another on Wednesday, with the panels combined for final jury selection.  More about his later.

Court adjourned until 2 p.m., when some preliminary motions would be heard.

When court reconvened, Judge Fletcher-Hill ruled that he would hear motions to suppress a photo identification and about whether the jury would hear about gang activities.  Also, the witnesses will be sequestered, i.e. no potential witness is to hear the testimony of another witness, and the judge admonished those in the courtroom audience not to communicate with potential witnesses about testimony.  As far as I know, no potential witnesses are on my email list, and I hope that any potential witness will avoid reading whatever I post on North Baltimore Patch until after the trial.  Sequestration of witnesses is a useful technique for better arriving at the truth in a trial, and the goal of all of us should be to see the truth arrived at by the jury.  Let me add that anyone who has read my reports on this case who is on the jury panel should answer yes to the question about whether anyone on the panel knows more than the judge has stated about the case.  In a previous case I covered, someone on my email list did so answer, and I felt proud that she did so.

The judge now heard a defense motion to dismiss the indictment because the defendant had been denied the right to a speedy trial.  The gist of what the two sides stated was that there have been many postponements, but some were by defense or mutual request, some because no judge was available for trial at the time, and some to give all parties time for investigation or because an attorney, including the defense attorney, had another commitment at the time.  The state said that there has been no prejudice to the defendant.  The defense stated that one witness formerly was friendly but is now hostile after having been summoned repeatedly to court, but in response to a question from the judge, admitted that the witness is still available.

Judge Fletcher-Hill ruled that although the delay has been substantial and unfortunate, it is not out of line.  The state has not intentionally delayed the process to prejudice it.  The defense has constantly pressed for a speedy trial.  The defense has not shown actual prejudice but can make a claim only about one witness.  Thus, the right to a speedy trial has not been violated.

Motions concerning the photo array and the gang issue will be heard Tuesday morning.  On the gang issue, both sides agreed that the testimony will be proffered, i.e. the attorneys  will state what the expected testimony is.

Judge Fletcher-Hill said that he would get a jury panel of 60 jurors for Tuesday for voir dire.  Those qualified will return Wednesday, and depending on how many qualified, he would determine how many more jurors to request for voir dire Wednesday.  The presentation of the case itself will begin Thursday. 

Court ended at 2:49 and will resume Tuesday at 9:30.

For Tuesday, jurors with a number span of 800 (with numbers from 2000 to 2800) have been summoned for jury duty, and this is a bit more than the usual 500.  Note that in Maryland in a first degree murder case with a single defendant, the defense is given 20 peremptory challenges (challenges for which no reason need be given), and the state is given 10.  In addition, 12 jurors and at least 3 alternates need to be chosen.  Thus, at least 45 jurors have to be qualified before the final step of choosing the jury in which the two sides exercise their peremptory challenges.  The Cureton case may be a reason for summoning jurors with a larger number span than usual, or a larger number than usual may have asked to be excused temporarily right after a holiday weekend.