By Mansour Taleb-Ahmed
OAKLAND, CA— In Alameda County Superior Court this week, a jury trial did not proceed as planned simply because the notice was not filed to the court, and it could hurt the chances some charges against an accused will be dismissed.
The defense motion asked the court to dismiss one or more felony counts because they were allegedly improperly sustained at the preliminary hearing. The motion can be brought after the preliminary hearing but before trial.
In this case, the court argued that no records showed that a 995 motion to dismiss was filed accordingly. Indeed, Judge Delia Trevino noted the motion was filed on July 11 with a hearing date of July 21 in a department that doesn’t even hear these motions.
After reviewing both parties’ statements, Judge Trevino addressed the defense attorney by saying: “It does not appear to the court that in any way was a notice filed or generated to the People nor a hearing date set in the motions department in Alameda County. And I’m sure that is not news to you.”
Judge Trevino stated she did some research earlier today and found that according to the California rules, “pretrial motions must be filed no later than 10 court days before hearing.”
The judge later found the brief was submitted unofficially, she took note that, “The brief has not been officially submitted to court since it was emailed to People on the July 28 near midnight, clearly not ten court days of any hearing.”
After deliberation with the defense attorney for the case, Judge Trevino moved the 995 motion to the designated department and had the accused stipulate to waive time and postpone the trial.
The accused, Zakir Glasper, stipulated that the trial has begun and the court resources dedicated to his trial so that the court doesn’t need to call the jurors panel before Aug. 12.
Glasper understood and agreed to the stipulation and will now have to wait for his 995 motion to be processed and for his new trial date.