The defense sought to suppress the nearly hour-long tape recording of the 911 telephone call made by Wilma Flintstone on May 27, 2009, on the basis that:
1. the recording was inadmissible because the tape constituted inadmissible hearsay evidence;
2. contained unsupported defamatory, inflammatory, and irrelevant statements of Wilma Flinstone; and
3. that playing the tape recording before the jury, given the availability of Wilma Flintston to testify at trial, violates the Defendant’s rights under the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause.
During the suppression hearing, the defense admitted an exhibit which is described as a six-page transcript of segments from the tape recorded 911 call in which Wilma Flintstone informed the dispatcher that:
1. she had never seen Defendant during the purported incident;
2. that she was seated on the floor of a bedroom inside the Flintstone residence during the entirety of her phone discussions with the dispatcher; and
3. that she could neither see nor hear events outside of the bedroom where she remained at all relevant times.
Interestingly, Salisbury objected to admission of the transcript on the basis that it contained hearsay, precisely the defense position on the matter of the tape recording, in its entirety.
In spite of material evidence presented at the suppression hearing that Wilma Flintstone was unable to see and hear the events that she was reporting to the dispatcher, COLLIER did not suppress the tape recording, contrary to the prevailing case law and the rules of evidence, all calculated to prejudice the Defendant and to benefit the prosecutor.
During the suppression hearing, SALISBURY dictated to COLLIER, “I am going to play the whole tape to the jury.” Most certainly as expected, over defense objections, COLLIER permitted SALISBURY to play the entire unredacted tape recording to the jury.
THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT SALISBURY WAS, AND IS, THE TAIL THE WAGS THE DOG NAMED COLLIER!
MUCH MORE TO COME ....
No comments:
Post a Comment