Patterico's Pontifications

8/18/2008

First FLDS Child Custody Trial Begins

Filed under: Civil Liberties,General — DRJ @ 10:48 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

The San Angelo Standard-Times reports that trial has begun in San Angelo in a child custody case involving two children of FLDS members’ Merrill and Barbara Jessop. The Texas CPS asked the court to remove an 11-year-old boy as well as a 14-year-old girl that FLDS documents show was married to sect leader Warren Jeffs when she was 12.

The State’s witnesses included a Texas CPS worker, Merrill Jessop’s former wife Carolyn Jessop, an anti-FLDS advocate and author; and Barbara Jessop. Barbara Jessop reportedly took the 5th over 50 times. In addition, her attorney strenuously objected to the admission of documents gathered in what he claims were illegal searches arising from the initial FLDS proceedings:

“The documents – bishop’s records, marriage certificates and pictures recovered from the sect’s temple annex at the Schleicher County compound – were obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s protections against illegal search and seizure, [San Angelo attorney Gonzalo] Rios said.

“This evidence was gained illegally,” he said. “At best, there’s a question about whether a legal search warrant was issued.”

The warrant authorizing law enforcement and CPS to raid the ranch starting on April 3 was based on phone calls now believed to be a hoax.

Walther overruled the objection, questioning how Jessop could have standing to dispute the seizing of documents not contained in her home.

Rios again objected to the documents, saying he has the right to review all the documents from which the individual pieces were excerpted, under a rule designed to protect defendants from cherry-picked evidence.

Walther responded by noting the rule allows for the admission of other documents, not just the review, and asked Rios whether he wanted all the documents seized during the weeklong raid of the ranch introduced into the public record.

She then dismissed the court for lunch, telling Rios he could have the recess to think about what he wishes to do.”

Rios may face a difficult decision.

— DRJ

6 Responses to “First FLDS Child Custody Trial Begins”

  1. God help that the right come through.

    And thank God that I’m not a Paladin, to go smiting the evil scum that seem to abound.

    Foxfier (15ac79)

  2. Does that mean that there is limited discovery in these cases and the parents are entitled only to what the State will enter into evidence?

    nk (3c7a86)

  3. FWIW, at least in Illinois, the rules of evidence in Juvenile proceedings are a little more open than a straight criminal proceeding. The idea being that what everyone’s major concern is should be the “best interests of the child.” I’ve seen Juvenile Judges bend over backwards to allow in questionable evidence. It sounds like in this case the Judge just slapped this attorney with a “so you want to object to this peiece of evidence, O.K. sonny, so I’ll make you review thousands of pieces of evidence.” In any event, the Mom’s attorney has the right to review all the evidence the State intends to introduce so this particuler piece or pieces should not have come as a “surprise” to the attorney. Also, this Judge is going to do everything she can to “save face” after being smacked-down by the State Supreme Court on her origional finding that was totally unwarranted. My $.02

    J. Raymond Wright (d83ab3)

  4. Texas’s 192.3 looks like Illinois’s 201 to me. Everything is discoverable except work-product and attorney-client communications. I wonder if there are different rules for neglect and abuse proceedings that I am missing. And if there is a bar to a subpoena to CPS even if the State’s attorney’s discovery obligation is limited.

    nk (3c7a86)

  5. This Judge has conspired, with CPS, to rig the proceedings against this mother. Only on appeal can she prevail.

    Thomas (147e8a)

  6. Thomas, I don’t think there is a legal problem with the illegally obtained evidence being used in this kind of proceeding.

    And I also don’t know if being an anti-FLDS advocate should be a problem (I don’t really mean legally). I mean, being and anti-FLDS advocate is basically just a sign of normal mental health. No normal person isn’t disgusted by that place. I know that isn’t the law, but I hate how having a normal position can be construed as unfair.

    And of course the Judge works with CPS. They are allies, in a sense. It’s not like CPS wants anything but the best interests of the kids, just as the court does.

    I guess I’m probably just too moralistic to have be fair to the parents.

    Juan (4cdfb7)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0796 secs.