Complaint to the NC Bar, 2012, Unanswered, 2 years later

Complaint to the North Carolina Bar, 2012, continued explanation of prosecutorial misconduct of Maury Hubbard, III
…………………..

Concealment of Material Facts. – Intentionally encouraging the concealment of material facts relevant to the identity of the driver in a driving under the influence prosecution is prejudicial to the administration of justice. Such conduct raises serious doubts as to the attorney’s desire to bring about a just result in such a prosecution and adversely reflects on the attorney’s fitness to practice law. North Carolina State Bar v. Graves , 50 N.C. App. 450, 274 S.E.2d 396 (1981).

1. One example of how Mr. Hubbard violated the Rules of Conduct through leading the witnesses. The extent to which he does this not only involves dishonesty, but also serious interference with the administration of justice. As the Prosecution only had one witness upon which they based their entire presentation, it was crucial that the jury believe the credibility of the investigators to determine my guilt or innocence, as well as to corroborate with Veronica’s allegations. However, when it came time to testify, the official investigators of the case, Detective Short and CPS investigator Marcel Edwards, could not even remember key elements of the case.

Ms. Edward’s testimony begins on p.378 of the third set of transcripts, (see enclosed). By the time the transcriptionist gets to the second page (379)of the testimony, (document 15)Mr. Hubbard is leading the witness. See lines 4,5, she doesn’t even remember the year in which the case was opened. The farther Ms. Edwards gets into her testimony, the more difficulty she has. (See p.387). Document 16 Lines 5 – 13. In an attempt to save face if the assistant DA is going to salvage Ms. Edward’s credibility, he asks the Court, “may she retrieve her bag?” She then goes down, comes back up with some notes. Then, on line 16 he asks to approach the witness. At this point, he sits down on Ms. Edward’s arm rest, and begins pointing at the places he wants her to read. We never hear real testimony by the witness. Hubbard is leading the investigator the entire time. He obviously does not trust the witness to speak for herself, which keeps the juror from hearing from the real witness.
The jurors then are not able to be allowed an unbiased chance to evaluate her testimony. He even comments on and admits to her having complete access to her notes, lines 19-23:
Referring to your-your notes of your interview with Veronica, does that refresh your recollection as to any details that Veronica provided about what happened to her during the course of – of the interview? Yes, very much.

On the next page, he clearly has created “a pattern of Asking improperly Leading Questions,”(State vs. Collins, Forrest Scott, S. 058537) See p. 387, Line 25, p. 388 lines 1-25
And did she provide more information than what you just told the jury? Yes. Would you relate to the jury having refreshed your recollection what – what she actually told you? Veronica stated that approximately three years ago when she lived in Pennsylvania….She stated that it took place six or seven months after I think she had arrived in North Carolina. (Lines 11-13) Ms. Bailey: I’m going to object to her reading her notes to refresh – The Court: Sustained.
Clearly one can see the impropriety of Mr. Hubbard’s line of questioning. It is a point of fact that Ms. Edwards goes to her bag to retrieve her notes. There is no way this information was part of the submitted evidence. Stating precedent in (People vs. Parks (1971) 4 Cal.3d 955, 960-961), “Statements which have no independent basis of admissibility may not be introduced under the guise of refreshing a witness’ memory.” If it is necessary to refresh the memory of a witness through the use of a prior recorded statement, that statement should not be read aloud before the jury,(State vs. Collins, p.13)
We can see that the witness’ credibility is going downhill, and she continues to read from her notes, and the Court on line 18 of the same page directs her to “Summarize”. This continues on p. 389, as Mr. Hubbard asks a second time to approach the witness, line 9. At this point, he leans over Ms. Edwards and points to where he wants her to read, Line 11, Referring you to your- to this portion of your report…

It is quite unlikely that Mr. Hubbard could have gotten the same information from Ms. Edwards had he not been leading and directing. It was if he were testifying for Ms. Edwards, as she mainly recited what he pointed to her to read, instead of allowing her to exhaust her own personal memory. This goes beyond harmless error because Mr. Hubbard’s intention was to simply repeat earlier testimony that would inflame or incite the jury, rather than furthering the cause of justice. Mr. Hubbard’s persistence in having Ms. Edward’s simple recitation of what was already stated previously deprives me of my 5th Amendment Right to due process, which equates to “fundamental fairness”. That includes the right of having a person or panel making the final decision over the proceedings be impartial in regards to the matter before them.

…to be continued…..

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s