Daily Press News Editor
MONTROSE — Judge Dennis Friedrich didn’t buy constitutionally based arguments for dismissal of drug charges against Michael Collin, but did allow his defense additional time to perfect a suppression motion.
|
Advertisement |
Collin was arrested March 24, after a raid on his residence uncovered suspected pot. He was charged with cultivation and possession with intent to distribute and also subsequently accused of intimidating a witness. He has pleaded not guilty to all charges. Corry said previously Collin was distributing medical marijuana in accordance with state law.
Thursday, Corry moved for dismissal because a critical April interview hadn’t reached him before Wednesday. Its information could have prompted more motions on Collin’s behalf.
“It’s obviously quite weighty in this case,” Corry said. “This raises a discovery violation on the part of law enforcement. I think the violation raises constitutional issues, too. ...We are seeking sanctions, up to the dismissal of some or all of the charges.”
Serra said he’d turned over the interview upon its receipt and that there was enough time before trial for Corry to assess its information. Additionally, he said Corry could have interviewed the witness at any time.
Friedrich said that was true, but it didn’t explain why law enforcement took four months to provide the interview. He ordered Serra to investigate that and inform the court within 14 days.
Corry moved to dismiss the possession with intent to distribute charge, calling it “vague” because it does not specify the quantity of drugs necessary to demonstrate “intent.” He said citizens were constitutionally entitled to know what would be sufficient to support the charge, but Friedrich said a jury could reliably make that determination.
“This is an intent crime. I think citizens are on notice on what that means,” he said in denying the motion.
Friedrich additionally granted the prosecution’s motion to amend charges to include the allegation that Collin possessed more than 8 ounces of marijuana — three to four pounds as determined by CBI testing.
The bulk of the hearing addressed issues arising from Collin’s affidavit, which had been sealed. Corry wanted to preserve his right to argue a suppression of evidence motion at a later date, while Serra said the deadline for motions was past.
“The motion to suppress is baseless on its face,” he said. “He (Corry) doesn’t get another crack at it.”
Corry said he hadn’t known the affidavit was sealed, but had received it as part of discovery Wednesday. He later clarified he hadn’t seen the affidavit before filing his suppression motion, but had used a police report. The problem, Serra countered, was the police report did not support the motion.
When Corry again said that affidavit had been sealed, Friedrich asked why he hadn’t undertaken to have it unsealed or asked for an extension for filing the suppression motion. Specifically, he wanted to know how Corry could argue to suppress statements on basis of omissions and misstatements of fact if he did not have the affidavit allegedly containing them.
“I’m very disturbed by what’s going on here,” Friedrich said, also saying the constitutional requirements of adequate legal representation had not been met. “But it would be an injustice if Mr. Collin isn’t given time to perfect the motion to suppress.”
He granted Collin and Corry 14 days to file the motion. Another hearing was set for Oct. 3 and the trial set for that day will be reset.
• Be respectful of others, the writer and the subjects in the story.
• Be relevant. Keep your comments on point.
• See the guidelines for TalkAbout. Perhaps your comment is best for that community forum, available from the home page, instead of commenting on a particular story.
Comment posters are responsible for the opinions they express and the accuracy of the information they provide. We urge comment writers to treat this as a public forum where manners matter. We encourage a collegial, non-insulting tone. All readers comments must be approved by our staff before posting to the Web site. Be aware, in accordance with the Communications Decency Act and provisions upheld in judicial appeal, that you are responsible for comments posted on this Web site. Montrose Press is not liable for messages from third parties.
DO NOT POST:
* Potentially libelous statements or damaging innuendo.
* Obscene, explicit, or racist language.
* Personal attacks, insults or threats.
* The use of another person's real name to disguise your identity.
* Comments unrelated to the story.
Opinions, advice and all other information expressed in montrosepress.com's reader comments represent the individual's own views and not necessarily those of the Montrose Press. Montrose Press does not endorse and is not responsible for statements, advice or opinions offered by anyone other than authorized Montrose Press spokespersons.
Thank you for your comments!