Saturday, August 30, 2008

Presiding judge has unfair trial

A local newspaper reports:
Because of these alleged errors by Superior Court Judge Robert Atack, McClish’s conviction should be reversed, attorney Mark Greenberg of Oakland told the 6th District Court of Appeal in the brief filed Tuesday, Aug. 26. ...

In the appeal, Greenberg argued that “a significant portion” of the prosecution’s case depended on the testimony of three women who alleged earlier encounters with McClish that had sexual overtones but were not “sexual battery” as defined in the state Evidence Code.

McClish was not charged in any of those encounters, and the testimony was admitted to show the suspect’s “propensity” to violent sexual acts. But Greenberg contended that none of the victims testified about touching of the “intimate part of another person,” as required by the Evidence Code. ...

In addition, a fourth woman’s testimony that McClish told her he had “rape fantasies” should not have been presented to the jury because, days after the testimony, the judge ruled that the mention of fantasies had not been included in his ruling that the woman’s testimony was admissible. ...

In pretrial hearings, the judge refused to admit testimony requested by the defense that the victim had made an earlier false charge of rape, then retracted it. Evidence was also suppressed that the victim had assaulted a boyfriend, then accused him of aggravated assault instead.
Judge Atack is the presiding judge in my county, and I was thinking of filing a formal complaint with him about Commissioner Irwin H. Joseph. But it appears that Judge Atack does not believe in fair trials himself.

Michael McClish was a suspect in a scandalous murder, but the authorities could not prove it so they framed him on a rape charge and sentenced him to 18 years in prison. The supposed rape victim never reported a rape. She had a consensual affair with McClish, and even went to Disneyland with him a couple of weeks after the alleged rape.

I have no idea whether McClish is a murderer or not, but he certainly did not get a fair rape trial, and he is not a rapist. Santa Cruz courts are shockingly bad.

McClish's appeal is being heard by the same court that is hearing my appeal. The article says that his case will be decided "probably in late 2009 or early 2010." Wow, that is slow. I hope my case goes faster than that.

1 comment:

dennis said...

I have a questionable order signed by atak. I live too far to go to court to compare it. I was hoping you might have anything signed by him you could post and I could compare? or email me a copy?