The Carpetbagger Prosecutors have been dishonorable from the very beginning of the ryan Frederick prosecution, but today, in court, it has become clear they have gone too far.
On March 20, 2008, using a search warrant specifying measurements, drawings and pictures of the property owned by Ryan Frederick, the prosecutors and police returned to 932 Redstart and performed a recreation of the events of the night of January 17th leading to the death of Detective Jarod Shivers. The re-enactment was recorded on video.
The defense argued that they were entitled to the video as it was the proceeds of the search warrant, but the prosecution argued that the video was their ‘work product’ for their own understanding of the event. Initially, Judge Arrington agreed with the prosecution that only those items listed on the warrant, measurements, drawings and pictures, were subject to discovery. There were none to turn over as the only record, we were told, was the video.
Early in the trial, the prosecution entered into evidence a picture from the re-enactment showing the positions of the officers. Also in the picture was a line, identified as a string, showing a possible trajectory of the fatal shot. The defense reiterated its demand to see the video and any pictures, measurements or drawings obtained with the warrant. Again the prosecution denied there were any pictures taken other than the video and that the picture was as still from the video. This time, Judge Arrington ruled the defense could at least view the video to determine if any measurements were made as it was taken. But in arguing against admitting the video, Prosecutors Ebert and Conway denied any still pictures had been taken. Willet said nothing to the contrary.
Surprisingly, today, the prosecution entered the video into evidence, with the consent of the defense. I was there to watch. As the video played, I noted flashes from a camera. As the video progressed, there were at least fifty of these flashes. A photographer in a yellow windbreaker was visible several times taking still pictures, once even moving Prosecutor Ebert aside so he could line up his shot.
So, twice, in open court, the Prosecutors looked Judge Arrington in the eye and denied still pictures, which were clearly subject to discovery, existed, finally delivering them to the defense only after it became obvious when they saw the video that they did in fact exist.
Lying to the court, in an attempt to deny the defense relevant evidence to which it is entitled is a serious offense which should be sufficient offense to call for disbarment.