Welcome back. hope you learned your lesson!
I was not involved in any way with this specific case. However, I remember the statewide ATL when the victim first disappeared, and I was abreast on a professional level of the investigation focusing on Hron. There are some factors not made public that as a LEO I was aware of that made it all but certain Hron would be charged with this crime. I knew of who Hron was from some contacts I had with him unrelated to, and prior to this case.
My question has to do with this:
“Testimony relating to Hron will not be allowed during Brantner’s trial. Sharpe issued a pretrial ruling that prevents Brantner’s defense lawyer from introducing evidence that Hron, who was never charged with the slaying, should be standing trial for the Beck slaying rather than his client.”
“Alternative Perpetrator Defense” isn’t used as much as you’d think, but it is a valuable tool in some cases for attorneys. They can’t just point a finger and say “he did it!” There has to be a reasonable argument that it is possible another person did it beyond just speculation or suspicion. The fact that the investigators conducted major investigations and searches on Hron, had some evidence Hron was involved, and even made declarations that they felt Hron did it in my mind covers that reasonable argument. Yet the judge barred the defense from bringing this up. Do you think this ruling will fly on appeal if a conviction is made?
BTW and FYI, this is one of the many reasons why law enforcement investigators need to stay objective and refrain from making subjective, opinionated statements and reports until after charges are filed.
It’s highly dependent on the foundation laid by the defense.
Ultimately Chambers v Mississippi stands for the proposition that the accused has a due process right to present evidence that exculpates him by way of showing another party is guilty, but the evidence must have proffered indicia of reliability.
But if they’re not allowed to use it how can they lay a foundation?
I’m aware of the content of some of the reports those Deps made and it’s quite damning of Hron.
I’m not in any way defending Brantner in regard to his guilt or innocence, only his constitutional right to a fair trial and defense. It appears on the surface the evidence against him is somewhat thin. I’m wondering if the judges ruling prohibits Brantners attorney from deposing Hron or even calling him to the stand.
One of my concerns is that if the judge made a ruling that gets overturned on appeal a guilty man could go free. On the other hand, if his ruling stands an innocent man could be convicted. Are there any other precedent cases like this with similar pre-trial rulings?
Oakminster’s link explains the concept: an offer of proof, in essence, is the attorney telling the judge, outside the presence of the jury but on the record, “If we called Smith to the stand, he would testify such-and-so.” This lets the judge know exactly what the proposed testimony is that he’s disallowing and preserves the defense objection for appeal.
Here is an article with a very thorough history of the investigation of the Beck killing, discussing why an indictment could never be brought against Hron. There were flaws in what was initially believed to be physical evidence linking Hron to the victim’s van, and Hron had a strong alibi very near the likely time of the abduction.
I am speculating here, but the trial judge’s decision to disallow the introduction of evidence as to Hron may be based on a determination that that evidence was too flimsy to raise a reasonable chance that Hron was in fact the killer.
But isn’t that something a jury should decide, not unlike the guilt/not guilt of the actual defendant? If Brantner is convicted does he have a decent argument for appeal?
No. A judge decides whether or not evidence should be admitted. This is a legal determination.
A jury decides whether the evidence that is admitted is sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a factual determination.