Texas raid may impact Jeffs' trial Evidence from Yearning for Zion Ranch could prompt additional charges

By Suzanne Adams Kingman Daily Miner

Warren Jeffs KINGMAN - The recent events involving the Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints in Texas may impact the trial of Warren Jeffs in Kingman. Jeffs sat quietly in his bullet-proof vest during a court hearing Friday afternoon as Timothy Linnins of the Attorney General's Office said that there was a possibility that evidence from the raid by Texas authorities on the Yearning for Zion Ranch might be used to bring additional charges against Jeffs. Linnins told Judge Steven Conn that both his and the Mohave County Attorney's office had spoken with Texas authorities about the situation in Texas. He did not go into detail of what evidence might have been found or what additional charges might be brought against the FLDS leader. After the hearing, Jeffs' attorney Michael Piccarreta said that if evidence from the Texas raid was brought into the case, that the defense would most likely argue that the search and seizure of evidence from the ranch was illegal. Another bombshell Another bombshell dropped on the court Friday came from a motion filed by the defense, Wednesday, to remand the case back to the grand jury. The motion was not argued during the hearing on Friday. Conn ordered another hearing to be set at a later date to discuss the motion. In the motion, Jeffs' attorneys argue that Mohave County attorneys did not ask enough detailed questions about the type and amount of media coverage the jurors had been exposed to and if it would affect their ability to remain impartial in investigating the case. Jeffs' attorneys also argued that Jeffs was denied his right to due process because the county attorney failed to legally define the term accomplice. According to state statute, an accomplice is someone who, acting in his official authority and in the scope of his duties and authority, commands someone to commit an offense; helps someone commit an offense and/or provides the means to commit the offense. Jeffs' attorneys also argued that the county attorney gave the grand jury misleading evidence and failed to provide evidence that might clear Jeffs of the charges. The county attorney is the one who presents the evidence of a possible case to a grand jury. The defense attorney is not present during the grand jury hearing. According to the law, the county attorney is supposed to present all evidence, even evidence that might clear the accused, during the grand jury hearing. According to Jeffs' attorneys, the county attorney presented evidence that the alleged victims were first cousins of the men Jeffs married them to. The county attorney did not state that they were first cousins of the half-blood. The county attorney also provided evidence that Jeffs could not legally perform marriages. According to Jeffs' attorneys, this is untrue, because Jeffs is authorized by the customs of the FLDS to perform marriages. His attorneys also allege that the county attorney repeatedly injected prejudicial statements about Jeffs' religion as evidence of his guilt and used hearsay testimony from former FLDS members. Jeffs' attorneys also state in the motion that the county attorney improperly controlled the grand jury's investigation of the case. Jeffs' attorneys point to a section of the grand jury transcripts where a juror asked why the state was prosecuting Jeffs and not the man who was married to the alleged victim. According to the motion, the county attorney stated that the grand jury could charge the man who was married to the alleged victim, but he could not tell the jury why the state had not pressed charges against the man. His attorneys stated that this was an attempt by the county attorney to control the grand jury's decision on whether to indict Jeffs. Motion to dismiss Also discussed during the hearing was the defense's motion to dismiss the four counts of incest against Jeffs. Piccarreta argued that the case does not meet the definition of incest in the current Arizona Revised Statutes. He argued that according to the statutes, both parties must be at least 18 years of age and would have to be first cousins of the whole blood. According to Piccarreta, the two alleged victims were under the age of 18 when the alleged crimes occurred, and the men Jeffs married them to were first cousins of the half-blood. "It simply does not meet the statute's requirements," he said. The Legislature set the age limit in the statute at 18 years of age, because it felt there were adequate sexual abuse laws to protect minors, he said. The state could not change the meaning of a statute just because of a high profile case, such as Jeffs. He also pointed out that the statute does not specifically prohibit the marriage of first cousins of the half-blood. It only prohibits marriages of first cousins of the whole blood. "The law is the law," Piccarreta said. Linnins argued that the court must take into consideration the intent of the Legislature when the statute was made. The intent was to make sure that the adult in an incest case was prosecuted and not the child. Using Piccarreta's interpretation of the statute would lead to the absurd argument that a 40 year-old uncle could have sex with his 8-year-old niece and not be charged with incest, but if he had sex with his 20-year-old niece he would be charged. Linnins said he felt it was unlikely that the Legislature set the statute up to encourage sex with minors. He also refuted the claim that the state was changing the statute to fit the case. "This has nothing to do with the defendant," he said. This was a new type of situation, he said. A case such as this had never come up before. "I'm asking the court not to apply the statute on its face value but in light of the legislative intent," he said. As to the question of alleged victims being only half-blood relatives, the statute was designed to produce marriages with strong, healthy children. Marrying two people closely related could result in children with disabilities, he said. The statute was designed to prevent this. Linnins stated that 75 to 80 percent of the families in Colorado City are descended from one of two people and that there is a high incident rate of a rare genetic disease among the families that live there. Conn said that he would issue his ruling on the matter in writing in a few days. The subpoena Also discussed during the hearing was a request from the defense to subpoena certain medical records of one of the alleged victims. Piccarreta argued that the records could prove or disprove allegations by one of the alleged victims that she had several miscarriages and was pregnant while under the age of 18. He suspected that the records, or a lack of records, would show that the alleged victim was not pregnant while she was under the age of 18. "If they exist, they should be produced, if they do not exist, then so be it," he said. "I'm not saying they can't get the records," Linnins said. However, because of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act there are a number of hoops attorneys must jump through in order to get the records. In order to get the records, a waiver must be signed by the alleged victim. The only person that can get that waiver is the state, Linnins said. All the defense had to do was notify the state that it wanted the records and the state would request the waiver from the alleged victim, he said. In fact, the state would take the defense's motion for a subpoena as notification. Conn stated he would also issue his ruling on this matter in writing in a few days.

KingmanDailyMiner.com Originally published Sunday, May 18, 2008

Back

For more information email: