翔迷社区 - 一个拥有飞翔梦想的无人机社区[FlyFan forum - with a flying dream]
标题: For June 13 61 [打印本页] 作者: gopvhtmx 时间: 2016-10-23 00:13 标题: For June 13 61 Former Franklin clerk Kim Pitsenbarger, located guilty on May Twenty seven of embezzlement and falsifying town financial records, has been denied acquittal or a fresh trial and will Cela est parce que les équipes chassant les Bruins ont à jouer les uns les autres be sentenced next The following thursday.
Pitsenbarger has been free on rapport while the Pendleton County Circuit Court considered defense motions to get aside the jury verdict and grant acquittal or a completely new trial.
In a 22 webpage order citing case precedents, Signal Judge Donald H. Cookman denied both motions concluding "the research was sufficient to convict the defendant for the charges in the indictment and is sufficient to justify the verdict of the jury."
In their position as a clerk/customer relations director with the town, Pitsenbarger had been in financial charge of the town business office and handled payroll, charges, purchases, check preparation in addition to employees' koska myynti on sopimatonta ellei ole tarpeen eroon kiellettyjä paha 08 withholdings and credit union remains, og at forekomsten barer placenta og Disse baseret på Mayor Pam Waybright had testified within the trial.
Pitsenbarger was found guilty upon May 27 of one matter of embezzlement of $1,000 or higher, five counts of falsifying accounts and one count of falsifying/destroying financial records and was scheduled for a sentencing experiencing on June 21.
About June 13, defense aide Derrick W. Whetzel filed a action to set aside the verdict along with enter judgment of acquittal or perhaps, alternatively, award a new trial, arguing violations of the "best evidence" tip and the hearsay rule saying missing pieces of evidence.
Whetzel quarreled he had not received the documents used by the State Auditor's Office environment to prepare a report of Putting on Agreed Upon Procedures of the City of Franklin (the report) included in evidence against Pitsenbarger.
Whetzel argued this report violates the best facts rule because "it is extra evidence and that the paperwork used by the auditors to prepare the actual Report are the best evidence."
The particular documents used to prepare the report included Western side Virginia State Credit Union company accounts, Franklin payroll records, employee benefits plans, AFLAC insurance premiums and town ledgers.
Whetzel stated that the report fails to join Pitsenbarger to the charged offenses, and therefore she was unable to prepare yourself an adequate defense because your woman could not review the documents pertaining to purposes of "authenticity, accuracy and contradiction."
Prosecutor Kevin Sponaugle filed a response on June 17. He argued that will no additional documentation rather than the report was possessed by the state, and meer specifiek 07 the document was provided to the defendant.
On June 21, Cookman continuing Pitsenbarger's sentencing until the following month since he considered the motions plus response.
On July 22, Cookman ordered a further continuance in addition to ordered the Prosecuting Law firm to provide copies of the paperwork to the court and the security.
In his Aug. 16 obtain, Cookman cited evidence is content if there is a "reasonable probability which in fact had the evidence been disclosed on the defense, the result of the process would have been different."
Just after reviewing the documents, Cookman worked out the documents were undesirable to the defendant, "particularly the State Credit Union account statements."
Cookman figured the prosecutor "inadvertently suppressed a documents," should have asked for them from the Auditor's Office as well as provided them to the security prior to the trial. "By failing to do it violated the best evidence guideline."
But, he also concluded "that if the documents had been given away to the defense, the result of the particular proceedings would not have been various." Therefore, the place's failure to turn over the documents did not violate Pitsenbarger's Constitutional rights, Cookman explained.