Anthony Holly
Bryan Wayne Hulsey
Most motions by Anthony Holly murder suspect denied at pre-trial conference
Oral arguments and a final trial management conference began April 7 in the capital murder case of Bryan Wayne Hulsey, the suspect in the February 19, 2007 murder of Glendale Police Officer Anthony Holly, who was 24 years old at the time. Judge Sally Schneider Duncan is presiding over the case in Maricopa County Superior Court.
Once all motions by the defendant were presented, Schneider Duncan ruled on them. One motion asked the court to strike the allegation of "cruel, heinous or depraved" as vague and overbroad. That motion was denied.
Hulsey's attorney also moved to preclude the state "from eliciting any testimony or arguing that Hulsey knew right from wrong, could control his actions, or acted out of choice."
In denying the motion, Schneider Duncan ruled the Arizona Supreme Court held that "such testimony and argument was permissible because the state was not directing the jurors to disregard the defendant's mitigation, but rather suggesting that they give the mitigation less weight (finding that the defendant's knowledge of right and wrong decreased the weight given to the mental health mitigation).
Hulsey's attorney also requested to videotape witnesses and the jury during victim impact statements. That motion was denied. In addition, Hulsey's attorney requested victim impact statements be precluded and limited. Both motions were denied.
Schneider Duncan granted a motion to preclude the state from offering any evidence at penalty phase not specific to the defendant's mitigation evidence, stating, "As long as the rebuttal is relevant and not unfairly prejudicial, it will be admitted. If the evidence proffered is hearsay, the Court will determine whether Defendant had notice and the opportunity to explain or deny the hearsay, as well as whether there are sufficient indicia of reliability to allow its admission."
The motion by Hulsey to permit execution impact evidence was denied. But Schneider Duncan said the ruling "does not preclude the defendant's family, friends, associates or representatives from expressing support and/or mitigation. This ruling simply restricts anyone on behalf of the family from expressing views regarding the impact upon the family should the defendant be executed."
The defendant's motion to preclude death as a possible punishment was denied.
The court declined to rule "at this time" on six "motions in limine" (motions raised before or during trial, to exclude the presentation of certain evidence to the jury) by the defendant for the following:
1. Prosecutorial misconduct;
2. Pretrial objections to improper prosecutorial arguments that misstate death penalty law;
3. Argument urging improper grounds for death penalty;
4. Pretrial objections to improper prosecutorial arguments that can unduly inflame a juror;
5. Pretrial objections to improper prosecutorial argument that misuses evidence relevant to the death penalty;
6. Pretrial objections to improper prosecutorial arguments that misstate the role of a juror in a death penalty case.
Referring to a minute entry from May 9, 2008, the court further ordered "that there shall be no mention of Hitler (or implication to that regime), no engagement of specific trial jurors, and no reference or implication to the religious affiliation of any counsel."
The defendant motioned to strike the state's notice of intent to seek the death penalty; lethal injection issue. The defendant argued that Arizona's method of execution violates the federal and state constitutions.
That motion was denied "because there is no guarantee that defendant will be sentenced to death, or that Arizona's lethal injection protocol will be the same at the time of his execution if he is, this issue is not yet in controversy, and thus is not ripe for determination."
The defendant's final motion for the day asked for the court to prohibit spectators at trial from wearing police uniforms or other "indicia" of law enforcement employment.
That motion was denied citing that Arizona rules of criminal procedure "requires all proceedings to ‘be open to the public, ..., unless the court finds, upon application of the defendant, than an open proceeding presents a clear and present danger to the defendant's right to a fair trial by an impartial jury.' Here, defendant speculates that large numbers of uniformed police officers will attend trial, and that their presence will get the message across to the jury that they should convict him. At this point, it remains to be seen whether uniformed police officers will attend trial en masse. If the court believes that the actions or presence of any spectators are affecting the jury, the court will take action at that time."
An evidentiary hearing and oral arguments on remaining motions will be held 10:30 a.m. April 19.
The trial has been delayed twice since 2007.
http://www.glendalestar.com/news/hea...cc4c03286.html
Bookmarks