top of page
Search

May 21, 2021. Opinion and Order on base of betray's and lies from Oakland County Prosecutor's Karen McDonald and APA Keast withholding evidence from the court.

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

Updated: Jan 28

OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE At a session of said Court held on May 21, 2021 in the County of Oakland, State of Michigan.

(The session was held on May 18 2021 not May 21 2021)

PRESENT: HON. VICTORIA A. VALENTINE

This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice for the Prosecutor's failure to produce exculpatory evidence.

In 2019, Defendant Nicholas Remington was charged with delivery of a controlled substance, causing death, under MCL 750.317a, which provides as follows:

750.317a Delivery of schedule 1 or 2 controlled substance; death as felony; penalty.

  • A person who delivers a schedule 1 or 2 controlled substance, other than marihuana, to another person in violation of section 7401 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.7401, that is consumed by that person or any other person and that causes the death of that person or other person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for life or any term of years.

It is undisputed that on June 13, 2019, Defendant's counsel served a Discovery Request on the Oakland County Prosecuting Attorney Jessica Cooper, demanding the production of any discovery pursuant to MCR 6.201.

Discovery states in part:(B Discovery of Information Known to the Prosecuting Attorney. Upon request, the prosecuting attorney must provide each defendant:

  1. any exculpatory information or evidence known to the prosecuting attorney;

  2. any police report and interrogation records concerning the case, except so much of a report as concerns a continuing investigation;

On September 27, 2019, the preliminary examination commenced before the Honorable Travis Reeds. On October 16, 2019, at the conclusion of the preliminary examination and based upon the evidence presented, Judge Reeds bound Defendant Remington over on the charge of delivery of controlled substance causing death. Mr. Remington's bond was set at $1,000,000.00. In 2021, after recognizing the discovery violations by the former prosecutor, the current Oakland County Prosecutor stipulated to the reduction of Defendant's bond to $10,000. At the center of the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is the former Assistant Prosecutor's violation of legal and ethical duties to produce evidence, including exculpatory information.

The Michigan Court of Appeals held ni People v. Dickinson, 321 Mich. App. 1, 4, 909 N.W.2d 24, 28 (2017) that: There is no general constitutional right to discovery in a criminal case. The Michigan court Rules govern the scope of discovery in criminal case MCR 6.201 MCR 6.201(B)(1) provides that the prosecution, upon request, must provide the defendant: any exculpatory information or evidence. MCR 6.201(B)(2) provides that the prosecution, upon request, must provide the defendant with any police report concerning the case except for portions that concern an ongoing investigation. The prosecution bears responsibility for evidence within its control, even evidence unknown to it, and even where the nondisclosure was inadvertent and not intentionally withheld. In the case before the Court, Defense counsel did in fact request discovery information. Therefore, pursuant to MCR 6.201(H), the Prosecutor had an ongoing continuing legal and ethical duty to turn over discovery promptly. MCR 6.201(H) Continuing Duty to Disclose provides: If at any time a party discovers additional information or material subject to disclosure under this rule, the party, without further request, must promptly notify the other party. MCR 6.201(H)

Due to discovery concerns, on January 6, 2021, Defendants' counsel served a letter pursuant to Brady v Maryland", which addressed potential due process and discovery violations committed by former Assistant Prosecutor Hand. Current Assistant Prosecutor, Mr. Keast, immediately addressed the issues set forth in the letter.? His response confirmed that Ms. Hand intentionally failed to produce a significant amount of discoverable evidence. As conceded by the current prosecutor's office, much of the evidence withheld by Ms. Hand is exculpatory.

"ExcuIpatory evidence, falls within the Brady rule. See Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154 (1972). Such evidence si "evidence favorable to an accused," Brady, 373 U.S., at 87; so that, fi disclosed and used effectively, it may make the difference between conviction and acquittal. C.f Napue .v Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 269(1959)." United States .v Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 676, 105 S. Ct. 3375, 3380 (1985).

The concealed evidence includes, but is not limited to, a September 26, 2019 "Snapchat" from a"Hulkolas" account, which was allegedly the name of Defendant's snapchat account. The Snapchat account and its messages are at the center of the issues in this case. Ms. Hand's failure to produce the discovery and blatant misrepresentation to the Court at the preliminary exam, is nothing short of intolerable due process violations.

As stated in People v Dobek, "a prosecutor's role and responsibility is to seek justice and not merely convict." And while, the prosecutor's knowledge of the information being withheld is not required under the rule, here, ti is conceded that Prosecutor Hand had knowledge, and deliberately with meld evidence and information that was required to be produced.Our court, have held that the withholding of exculpatory evidence by the prosecutor after discovery has been requested, constitutes a Brady Violation. People v. Dickinson, 321 Mich. App. 1, 4, 909 N.W.2d 24, 28 (2017). The information that has now been provided shows CR No. 190015581-010, created by Det. Balog, that on 9/27/2019 (Start date of the Preliminary Examination) former Assistant Prosecutor Hand was provided a Snapchat that was sent on 9/26/2019 from the "Hulkolas" account.The undisclosed "snap" was shown to former Assistant Prosecutor Hand by Jamie Thom, the decedent's step-father. The Snapchat stated, "To al 5,000 of you beautiful motherfuckers I need ketamine, who got? Thanks, nick"., Defendant Nick Remington, however, was in jail on 9/26/2019 and did not have access toSnapchat or this "Hulkolas" account from jail. This evidence is in direct contravention of the claim of the assistant former prosecutor. This evidence was not produced until 2021 when the current Assistant Prosecutor, Mr. Keast, tendered the discovery to Defense counsel.

CR No: 190015581-010 Written By: NOBALOGS (00214) Date: 10/03/2019 08:08 AM INFORMATION: On 09/27/2019 The preliminary exam was held on this matter at 52-1 District Court. After the hearing, the Oakland County Prosecutor, Beth Wiegand was shown a new SNAP Chat on Nick Remington’s (HULKOLAS) SNAP CHAT account by the victim Preka's step

father Jamie Thom. Thom advised Wiegand that he was sent this SNAP CHAT by one of Denis Preka's friends named Avery Eckert on 09/26/2019. Police report stamp shows: Page 26 of 28 Created On 01/28/2021 03:15 PM

Despite the discovery failures by Ms. Hand, on 9/27/2019 she argued to the Court at the Preliminary Hearing:

MS. HAND: Judge, for - for counsel to say that there's no- nothing in evidence to suggest that the defendant was the personusing this account, Snapchat is a- an application that's on your cell phone... So to say it's not him and that somebody else got ahold of his account and made these admissions, you know, flies in the face of-of logic and it flies in the face of the evidence that's presented."

Prosecutor Hand argued to Judge Reed on 09/27/2019, that it was not logical that other people could pos: on "Hulkolas" account, despite the exculpatory evidence that was not produced. Incredibly, at the continuation of the preliminary examination on October 16, 2019, and while wrongfully withholding the 9/26/2019 Snapchat, former Assistant Prosecutor Hand mislead Judge Reed by stating "The Snaps are in evidence."

MS. HAND: Well, Judge, he doesn't have to reopen the proofs to do that. The Snaps are in evidence. The Court has already admitted them. He wants to sit here and argue to the Court each of them, there's no - there is no need to reopen proofs. And I would indicate, Judge, that it does go to the weight, not the admissibility and the - the records are complete. There is a certification indicating that they are. 

There is no question that Brady violations and numerous discovery violations knowingly occurred in this case. Intentionally denying defendant a fair trial undermines the legitimacy of the criminal justice system and has a rippling effect on the community's trust in the legal process.

Pursuant to MCR 6.201(J), when a Brady violation is discovered, it is up to the court to fashion the appropriate remedy under MCR 6.201(J).

J) Violation. If a party fails to comply with this rule, the court, inits discretion, may order the party to provide the discovery or permit the inspection of materials not previously disclosed, grant a continuance, prohibit the party from introducing in evidence the material not disclosed, or enter such other order as it deems just under the circumstances.

Therefore, this Court orders that:

  1. Pursuant to MCR 6.201, al discoverable information shall be turned over to Defense Counsel within 14 days of the date of this Opinion and Order;

  2. Al Snapchat evidence relating to the "Hulkolas" account is excluded as it is unreliable;

  3. An affidavit from both the former Assistant Prosecutor Hand, and the current Assistant Prosecutor Mark Keast shall be provided to Defense Counsel and filed with the Court within the 7 days of the date of this Order, detailing al known evidence. The affidavit shall include a list of all evidence the current and former Assistant prosecutors have knowledge of that has any relation to this case. The affidavit shall also include the date of a n disclosure or production to the Defendants' counsel of the evidence and a list of any information that has not yet been produced; 

  4. And, while this Court finds no fault in the handing of the Preliminary Examination by the experienced and esteemed Judge Reed, the Court finds that in the interest of justice, this case shall be remanded to District Court and shall be heard by a new judge. This opinion does not address any Motions or issues previously filed by Plaintiff but adjourned by Plaintiff's counsel. For the reasons stated above, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice is Granted in Part and Denied in Part. Dated 5/21/2021 Victoria Valentine Signature HON. VICTORIA A. VALENTINE (P58546) CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE

    May 21 2021: Opinion & Order Judge Valentine click here.

    June 9 2021: Motion for Relief From Order transcript click here.


May 26 2021 Remington Snapchat after Judge Valentine's Opinion and Order
May 26 2021 Remington Snapchat after Judge Valentine's Opinion and Order



























33 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