by Garret Ean
Dec 15 2011
As of Monday, December 12, it was confirmed that the court had received homework assignments from both parties in the case of State v. Garret Ean. At the end of the trial, the judge had asked for legal memos to support arguments made by both sides. Though I would have much preferred a ruling on the spot, in retrospect I am glad that the judge gave me a chance to formulate written arguments to demonstrate the State’s lack of a case. Just through questioning John Patti, I was only able to reveal so much about the case. The memo assignment enabled relevant details to be organized into a single presentation.
The prosecutor’s memo struck me with its unnecessary thickness. The memo was organized to the extent that it begins with legal arguments, but more than half of the final documents in the 79 page submission are completely irrelevant details obtained from house and senate hearings on the disorderly conduct statute in 2005. Much like the discovery packet, and a great portion of the Chalking 8 case itself, the State is throwing papers at the problem until one of them addresses the issue. With more Chalking 8 trials on the horizon, the State’s evidence will grow flimsier as the first not-guilty findings begin being issued. Rulings are expected to roll in around the new year.
See my two page memo striking to the root of the matter, and Attorney Greg Muller’s legalese composition below.
Pete Eyre, arrested at the same time as myself and who also has already had his trial, has uploaded both his own memo as well as Greg Muller’s 44 page memo from that case, which addresses different issues than were raised in mine.