Hearing is set Nov. 28 to see if jeopardy applies to Taylor’s case
After Circuit Judge Jack Weaver denied a motion filed by Brewton Attorney Earnie White to dismiss capital murder charges against Jonathan Michael Taylor and or to at least hold a hearing to determine if the district attorney’s office withheld evidence that led to mistrial, White has filed another motion arguing if the court says the prosecution did nothing wrong, why was the mistrial called in the first place.
In White’s new motion filed Nov. 11, he again asked the judge to dismiss the charges or as an alternative, grant a trial by jury on the jeopardy issue, which basically says you can’t be tried for the same crime twice after being found not guilty once.
Jury selection for Taylor’s capital murder trial is scheduled for Nov. 28 and a hearing on White’s most recent motion will be held on Nov. 22.
Taylor faces possible sentences of life without the possibility of parole or death if convicted of the March 15, 2015 murder of Cory Brian Moncrief. Taylor’s co-defendant, Nadiya Diane Walker, has pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit murder and has agreed to testify against Taylor. Judge Weaver said he would sentence Walker following Taylor’s trial.
Judge Weaver granted a mistrial motion made by White in Taylor’s trial in July after White claimed the state had not provided the defense with certain evidence.
In his original motion seeking the murder charge to be dismissed or have a double jeopardy hearing, White noted Alabama Law Enforcement Agency Agent Casey Ott had testified that blood samples had been taken at Moncrief’s residence but he did not submit them for DNA analysis. However, the swabs were taken to the lab for DNA analysis and none of that information was provided to the defense.
Judge Weaver granted the mistrial and later denied White’s motion to dismiss the murder charge or hold a trial on the jeopardy issue.
In that order signed by Judge Weaver on Nov. 4, it states “Based on the forgoing and having reviewed the transcript and case law, the court is absolutely convinced that there was no intent or conduct on behalf of the state of Alabama during the trial to have the court declare a mistrial. The court further finds there was no intent by the district attorney or any ALEA officer to withhold evidence (DNA swabs) from the defendant.”
In White’s motion filed Nov. 10 it quotes that the court said “The court heard and observed testimony of Agent Ott and is convinced that he nor anyone on behalf of the state of Alabama did anything to have the court declare a mistrial in this case.”
“If that’s the case, no mistrial should have ben granted in the matter,” White wrote in his Nov. 10 motion.
White included portions of the transcript of the trial that reads from Judge Weaver, “All right, let me just run through it. Agent Ott testified that swabs were taken, number one. Number two, he testified that no swabs were provided for DNA testing. Number three, the agent then admitted that he was mistaken about the swabs being tested, that they were provided for testing. Number four, Agent Ott testified that the results were inconclusive. Number 5, no test results were provided to the defendant. Number six, since the defendant did not have an opportunity to test the sufficiency of the evidence, this court is put in a position to where I have to grant the motion for a mistrial. And we will have to come back and try this case again.”
White also quoted portions of the transcript from District Attorney Steve Billy which reads “And, also, the defense has an investigator. It’s not like Agent Ott had it in his file and didn’t provide it. It was at the lab, who is not an agent of the state. They’re an independent agency. They don’t work for us. So they had an investigator. They saw these - they had a receipt if they needed evidence. They knew something had been submitted. Their investigator could have gone to the lab, and the lab would have discussed it with them.”
However, White noted in his motion that he contacted the attorney for the Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences and was informed that forensic scientist do not provide test results to defense attorneys, and the only way to obtain test results from the forensic scientists was through discovery pursuant to Rule 16.1 of the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure, thus the district attorney misled the court.
