19 September 2011 Pre –Trial Hearing for Dan Brewington- Notes

19 September 2011 Pre –Trial Hearing for Dan Brewington- Notes

The pretrial hearing started at 1:35 PM instead of at 1 PM. Prosecutor Aaron Negangard and Bryan Barrett, Public Defender for Brewington, arrived along with Judge Brian Hill at the same time.

Brewington had been waiting since just before 1 PM in the courtroom attired as usual in his orange jail clothes and pink handcuffs. He had two large stacks of papers with him.

Judge Brian Hill said the jury trial is set for Monday Oct 3rd at 9 AM. The grand jury exhibits were released by the state (prosecutor) and are to be available to the defendant. There is a transcript of the grand jury in Hill’s office, should the Public Defender need that for copies.

The motion for confidentiality of juror’s names filed by Negangard was NOT opposed by Barrett for Brewington. Brewington himself, however, did object as he said there is a lack of evidence that he poses a threat to anyone. Judge Hill said there has been a history of exposing private information by Brewington and so he granted confidentiality for the names and identities of the jurors.

Summons for jurors go out today and the list provided to counsel will have redacted names and signatures per Judge Hill. Logistically, the jurors will be identified by numbered placards worn around their necks during the entire process.

If there is evidence or cause to reveal a juror’s name, they will address that in the judge’s chambers. The defense and the prosecution filed in limine and all were approved. [NOTE: The details of these motions filed were not discussed, but can be found in the court files later. Per Wikipedia: “A "motion in limine" asks the court to decide that certain evidence may or may not be presented to the jury at the trial. A motion in limine generally addresses issues which would be prejudicial for the jury to hear in open court, even if the other side makes a timely objection which is sustained, and the judge instructs the jury to disregard the evidence.”]

Brewington – as an aside - asked Barrett what those motions in limine were for the prosecution and Barrett said he just got a copy today and will get it to Brewington.

Judge Hill said there were no state issues or defense issues with his final instructions. Again this was not discussed.

Judge Hill said 80 jurors were summoned. He will have 40 in the morning and another 40 in the afternoon should that be necessary.

Negangard had no issues.

Barrett said that his client wished to address the court.

Judge Hill approved.

Brewington said in a prepared handwritten statement:

1. That he had no explanation of his alleged crimes
2. That there were no meetings for preparation- and has had less than 2 hours total with his public defenders ( Watson, then Barrett)
3. That there were no efforts to approach getting witnesses for his defense
4. That Barrett was not even meeting or getting information from Mrs. Brewington (his mother)
5. That he has not been given any exhibits during court
6. That there has been no attempt to defend him against the Keith Jones allegations
7. That a first amendment expert, a mental health expert have not been obtained
8. That Conner’s case file has not been subpoenaed
9. That there has been no depositions of state witnesses
10. That a motion to dismiss has not been filed and
11. That he has had no indication as to the strategy for his defense.

Judge Hill asked what relief was he seeking.

Brewington said he guessed a continuance because the public defender has not met with him, yet. He said that Mr. Watson failed to get his information to the 2nd public defender, Mr. Barrett.

Brewington said, “I have been prohibited from playing ANY role in my defense.” There is no way there is time to properly prepare for the defense. There has been little to no communication between me and Mr. Barrett. I do NOT KNOW what the defense even is? I don’t even know the basis of the charges in the grand jury transcript.

Judge Hill said, “I thought you were upset last time about the trial delay”.

Brewington said that was assuming my defense would be discussed (now that Barrett was back.) [NOTE: Background history: The public defender, Barrett, had a family emergency as his mother was dying. When he returned at the last hearing for the bond reduction, he called no witnesses on Brewington’s behalf, though the prosecutor had several. Barrett had not met with Brewington to prepare for the trial yet. It was apparent that he and Brewington were not on the same page at a couple points during this hearing.]

Judge Hill asked Prosecutor Negangard if he had anything to say about the continuance.

Prosecutor Negangard said the issue had been a continuance because Mr. Barrett had a family emergency and couldn’t get prepared before. The continuance was based on the emergency. Negangard said he didn’t know if Brewington was being honest with the court. Negangard said he would not take a position on this. The state is ready for trial on Oct 3rd as scheduled. He said Brewington’s integrity was an issue before and his complaining now is about keeping the case from going to resolution. [NOTE: Seems like Negangard did take a position on this.]

Brewington stated that you can check the DCLEC phone and visit records- they will document that I have had little to no contact with a public defender. At the last hearing the speedy trial rule was the issue. Now the issue is that I have had no time to prepare with my public defender, I have no idea of any witnesses to testify, and no specifics on the alleged crimes. [NOTE: Brewington apparently reasonably assumed that his public defender would meet with him between the last hearing and today.]

Judge Brian Hill denied the motion to continue the case and said there was two weeks to prepare for trial. All the information will be available to you at the end of the afternoon.

Brewington asked through his lawyer to have his handwritten statement to be made part of the public record. Judge Hill approved.

Court ended at 2 PM.

Barrett then said to Brewington that he’d see him at the end of the week. He also asked the jail officer that if he gave him the documents would he get those to Brewington. He said yes.

[NOTE: Something to think about: Per the Innocence Project: “The resources of the justice system are often stacked against poor defendants. Matters only become worse when a person is represented by an ineffective, incompetent or overburdened defense lawyer. The failure of overworked lawyers to investigate, call witnesses or prepare for trial has led to the conviction of innocent people. When a defense lawyer doesn't do his or her job, the defendant suffers. Shrinking funding and access to resources for public defenders and court-appointed attorneys is only making the problem worse.”]

Christine Brauer Mueller
Lawrenceburg Township