TS - Former grand jury forewoman to testify in August case

\
Former grand jury forewoman to testify in August case
By Kimberly Wear The Times-Standard
Article Last Updated: Thursday, June 09, 2005 - 10:34:14 AM PST

EUREKA -- Defense attorneys for Debi August cited a newly surfaced e-mail Wednesday that seems to indicate the current grand jury forewoman considered hiding August-related documents.

The revelation came as defense attorneys attempted to show why they need to further investigate claims she asked for other documents to be destroyed.

Judith Schmidt, the former grand jury forewoman, is expected to testify today about her allegation that Darlene Marlow -- who currently holds the volunteer position -- suggested earlier this year that she get rid of e-mails and other papers Schmidt kept in her home office.

Marlow and Schmidt served on the 2003-2004 grand jury that brought the accusation case against August. The Fortuna councilwoman faces removal from office if a jury finds she had a conflict of interest when she advocated on behalf of a friend's subdivision.

Jury selection in the case is on hold while attorneys and the judge address the issue of what appears to be previously unknown grand jury documents that Schmidt recently turned over to the court through her attorney.

Grand jury documents related to the case were supposed to have already been released to the defense.

After Judge John Feeney asked for the offer of proof in response to a request from public defender Jim Steinberg, who was appointed by the court to represent Marlow, August's attorney read from the January e-mail that discussed what might happen if the grand jury was asked to turn over documents.

"I may hide them," attorney William Bragg quoted from the e-mail, which had the names redacted, but referenced the position Marlow held on the grand jury.

"I certainly think it's my duty on behalf of my client to investigate this communication," he said.

August's other attorney, Greg Rael, made a similar argument.

"The same person who indicated she may hide documents told (Schmidt) to destroy documents," he told the judge. "All these things considered together have met any possible threshold."

Feeney agreed.

"I'm satisfied with the defense offer of proof that we need to proceed to investigate a bit further as far as discovery," the judge said. "We need to at least hear from Ms. Schmidt before we proceed with jury selection."

The cited e-mail also states that the writer had a meeting with Deputy District Attorney Tim Stoen, who is prosecuting the case and advised the grand jury, to discuss holding an in-chamber hearing about the documents.

Stoen said the District Attorney's Office believed the grand jury documents were to be turned over to the defense and filed a declaration to that effect.