top of page
Search

April 15, 2021 "Mr. Keast, that you weren't able to honestly answer questions, which I sincerely appreciate from your office, that you've been completely, you know, transparent". Judge Valentine

Writer's picture: Justice for Denis PrekaJustice for Denis Preka

Updated: Jan 28


MOTION TO DISMISS BEFORE THE HONORABLE VICTORIA A. VALENTINE April 15, 2021 11:25 a.m proceedings convened

THE CLERK:  Your Honor, now calling the case People v Remington, 2019-272593-FC.

MR. KEAST:  Thank you.  Good morning.  Marc Keast on behalf of the People.  The People consent to this hearing via Zoom. MR. ROCKIND:  Neil Rockind on behalf of Nicholas Remington.  We consent to the hearing via Zoom.

MR. LEWIS:  Good morning, Your Honor.  Randall Lewis on behalf of Mr. Remington.  We consent via Zoom also.


THE COURT: Okay, with regard to this matter, this is a pretrial. We did have a motion yesterday which was pretty lengthy in time. The Court is going to issue an opinion with regard to the motion; however, I am going to remand it down to the district court for a new preliminary examination, which will be detailed in the opinion. So with regard to this matter, I don't think that the current dates are going to be acceptable, but I don't want to lose sight of anything, so I am going to put you on the docket for a status conference in 60 days Does that sound appropriate?

MR. KEAST: Yes, Judge. Once I receive the order, I'll send it to the 52-1 District Court as well. It's been my experience that when a case is remanded the circuit court sends that order, but I'll follow up with the 52-1 District Court and then I'll coordinate with counsel on that as well.

THE COURT: So Mr. Keast, one of the issues that I'd like to address, is that I would like to have it go to a new judge.

MR. KEAST: That would just need to be spelled out in the Court's order, I believe.

THE COURT: Okay. Not to suggest in any manner whatsoever that the judge did anything inappropriately, but based upon the arguments and the admissions made in the hearing, I'd like somebody with fresh eyes and doesn't have the history with regard to the status of the matter to be able to review the case.


MR. KEAST: Certainly, Judge. As long as that is spelled out in the Court's order, then I can indicate that to the 52-1 court administrator as well.


THE COURT: Thank you. With regard to discovery, with regard to the preliminary examination, I'm going to need affidavits that discovery is going to be fully complied with and that there has been not only a -- anything in possession or control and that there has been a search done with regard to any and all discovery whatsoever.

MR. KEAST: Certainly, Judge. 

THE COURT: Any questions?

MR. KEAST: Not from the People, thank you, Judge.

THE COURT: What additional time, Mr. Lewis, and Mr. Rockind, would you need with regard to discovery?

MR. LEWIS: I'm sorry, Your Honor?

THE COURT: What additional time would you need with regard to discovery?


MR. ROCKIND: That's difficult to answer. In terms of what they're going to provide to us, you mean?


THE COURT: Well, they're required to provide everything to you.


MR. ROCKIND: Right.


THE COURT: Including making a search for anything in their possession or control. So my question is, I don't know what other information, I guess time to absorb or other avenues that you would need with regard to your additional discovery.


MR. ROCKIND: Forty-five days. Is that enough, you think, Randy?


MR. LEWIS: Yeah. Yes.


MR. ROCKIND: I mean, it depends on what there is, obviously.


MR. LEWIS: Right. But I'm sure if there's -- if we need additional time, Marc will stipulate.


MR. KEAST: Sure.


THE COURT: I mean, one of the issues that I raised yesterday is with regard to any witnesses, whether or not they had any notes as well.Anything else?


MR. ROCKIND: I guess the -- and this, I guess, is something that Mr. Keast will have to figure out based on the Court's ruling, but one of the issues that we raised during our motion hearing was that there was information in the possession of the former assistant prosecutor. And I don't know that her interests are, in particular, aligned with the State and the State's attorneys at this point. I'm not saying that they're not, but based upon the presentation of both of the parties, I think there are -- it would seem like Mr. Keast would almost have to consult with Ms. Hand, which I think is a challenge. Not, I guess, she's unavailable, but there are particular issues, and I don't know if Ms. Hand would be needed for a hearing of some sort. I'm not sure.


THE COURT: Okay, so I'm not sure what you're asking me, Mr. Rockind.


MR. ROCKIND: Well, because the Court is asking the prosecutor to do a diligent search, and the concern that we had -- and then to prepare an affidavit. And the question is, can Mr. Keast do that without relying on Ms. Hand's representations.


THE COURT: Well, I guess I'm not going to tell him how to proceed, but I would imagine --


MR. ROCKIND: I know. I'm more just conceptually trying to figure out how we -- so we had obviously sought alternate remedies other than dismissal, we had sought suppression of the Snapchat evidence. I don't know if the Court -- is the Court addressing that in its --


THE COURT: I am. I am, yes.


MR. ROCKIND: So I don't know if, when we go back, if that impacts the presentation at the exam, I don't know if that is evidence that will be permitted. Obviously, I'll wait for the Court's order on that. But the reason why I bring up this issue about their ability to do this diligent search is that this diligent search would potentially involve communicating with and relying on the representations of the previous prosecutor, who has already -- you know, there were always issues presented. And I guess if Mr. Keast is comfortable doing that, or if we need a hearing with Ms. Hand, I don't know, I'm just sort of throwing that out there because I haven't seen the Court's order. I just know that the State's going to be obligated to submit affidavits. If that means Mr. Keast, if that means Detective Balog, then so bit it. I mean, you know, if Detective Balog is going to prepare an affidavit making some representations, you know, God bless him.


THE COURT: Mr. Keast, anything you want to state, sir?


MR. KEAST: Judge, it's hard to answer any of those questions at the moment. I think, if I may suggest a course of action, I think once we obtain the Court's order, then we'll have a better idea as to which direction to take with any affidavits regarding discovery. But this case would be remanded to the 52-1 District Court, at that time I'm sure counsel and I can agree upon a date for preliminary examination to continue. And then from there we'll have the opportunity for my own diligent search of the file, speaking with the witnesses, as well as counsels', regarding any discovery owed to the People. So I think if -- I don't want to get too ahead of ourselves, is basically what I'm saying, Judge.


MR. ROCKIND: And Judge, we may be -- if there's an issue regarding the witnesses who Ms. Hand did not call, but who have been the subject of, at least in one respect, regarding the motion, I don't know if these -- because there's a -- I explained yesterday there was a pending civil lawsuit that was filed in the middle of a criminal case, which of course now complicates things.If the witnesses are going to assert a privilege of any sort we're going to seek, in fundamental fairness, that the State actually permit the witnesses to testify with use immunity. And I know Mr. Keast and I, we can talk about that after we've seen the order, but the concern that we have, is that because of the events that have transpired, that Mr. Remington's right to have the case fully litigated could be compromised.


THE COURT: Okay. And with regard to, you're requesting -- you're going to be requesting the prosecutor's office to grant immunity to --


MR. ROCKIND: Well, I can talk to Mr. Keast about that. I'm just sort of trying to -- because once you remand it, the district court -- once you remand it, the district court is going to begin to want to set dates. We've got 45 days for us, that we've said we would need from when Mr. Keast gets that, when he submits to us, this is all the discovery we have. If there's nothing new, we don't need the time. If there's some more information and there are affidavits we have to review, then we'll take the 45 days. So my concern is, is that that 45 days is what we would need to review whatever new information there is from Mr. Keast and the State. And then we would have --

MR. KEAST: If I may interrupt. Are you saying you'd rather the case stay in circuit court for the next 45 days before it's remanded?


MR. ROCKIND: I'm just trying to rely on – the Judge asked how much -- how much time we would need after you make your final representations regarding the discovery.


MR. LEWIS: I think that's a good idea.


MR. ROCKIND: We just said 45 days --


MR. LEWIS: Neil, I think that's a good idea, what Marc just said. I think that we should keep it here until we're ready to do the remand order. Because we have to talk to Marc about -- well, we have to see the Court's order first on the Snapchat, but we're going to have to talk to Marc.


THE COURT: (Indiscernible) with the Snapchat. I mean, there needs to be -- there needs to be complete transparency with regard to any and all discovery, any and all information. You know, going back a year and a half to make police reports and notes, I'm not satisfied with. And I'm not satisfied with regard to the review, you know, ensuring that everything was looked for and turned over. And it's not that I have any information, it's only, Mr. Keast, that you weren't able to honestly answer questions, which I sincerely appreciate from your office, that you've been completely, you know, transparent. And, you know, I see a very bright road ahead with regard to how things are going to change and be done differently. And your honesty with regard to not having requested certain information from witnesses, etc., is refreshing, but I need to make sure that both of our functions, all of our functions in the judicial system are upheld for the entire public. So I want to make sure that there is enough sufficient time for you, sir, to satisfy yourself and to present an affidavit that everything has been searched for and that there has been -- anything that's in your custody or control has been turned over.


MR. KEAST: I appreciate that, Judge. If I may suggest that if the Court were to order remand as part of the written order, it could have a date, perhaps 30 or 45 days out, for the actual date of remand. That way we could be in front of Your Honor until we go through independently this file to make sure that discovery is complete. And that way, Judge, we can address it with you, since you know, you know, the underlying facts of this case and you're aware of the recent motions, you just ruled on the motions.


THE COURT: Okay. So sir, with regard to this, let me suggest this, how about if I keep the case for right now, that I reopen discovery with regard to a full search with regard to possession, anything in possession or control, including any additional information that Mr. Rockind or Mr. Lewis want to receive from witnesses, etc., and that you guys work together on any and all discovery issues and I have you come back in the 30 days so that we can see if you're ready to proceed back down to the district court.


MR. KEAST: I think that sounds fair.


MR. LEWIS: That sounds great. Because right now we're all just thinking out loud.


THE COURT: Okay. I understand.

Okay, so that's what we'll do then, I'm going to have a date in approximately 30 days. It can be a little longer if you need, Mr. Busch.


THE CLERK: Thank you, Judge, that would be 5/20/2021, 9 a.m., if you want it on a Thursday.


THE COURT: You know, let's give them their own separate date. They seem to require a little bit of additional time, which I think is appropriate. 


THE CLERK: In that case, can we do 5/18/2021, 9 a.m.?


THE COURT: Does that work for everyone?


MR. KEAST: It does, Judge.


MR. ROCKIND: Yeah.


MR. LEWIS: Yes, Your Honor. Thank you.


THE COURT: Thank you everyone. 

(April 15 2021 11:38 a.m proceedings concluded.)​

​​

 

22 views0 comments

Comments


© 2019 by Amerigive Foundation. Charitable TAX ID 84-3042457

 Email: info@denispreka.org  -  Tel: 248-707-9300

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • TikTok
  • Instagram
  • YouTube
bottom of page