PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Before the two-day trial to hear arguments began, Larson had already ruled that the evidence was not withheld, and that the crash reconstruction could not be used as new evidence of innocence by Garding. On the latter issue, the judge sided with the prosecution’s view that it was simply new analysis rather than previously unavailable information. The second part of the judge’s ruling in particular significantly limited testimony from the witnesses the Montana Innocence Project brought this week. On Tuesday, crash investigator David Rochford — who was hired to do an analysis of the crash — was only able to testify that if Garding’s defense attorney at the criminal trial called him, he could have prepared such an analysis for her, and that its results would have been favorable to Garding. Keith Friedman, a researcher from Texas who also examined the case for the Montana Innocence Project, similarly was able to share little other than that to his knowledge, no scientifically based reconstruction of the crash was done before Garding’s criminal trial. The pair’s testimony was given in part to show the Montana Innocence Project’s claim that the public defense attorney who represented Garding was negligent in not obtaining a crash reconstruction to refute the prosecution’s view on what happened the night of Parsons’ death."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
STORY: "Judge to consider overturning Stevensville woman's homicide conviction," by reporter Dillon Kato, published by The Misoulian on June 26, 2018.
GIST: "A
Missoula County District Court Judge will rule later this year whether a
Stevensville woman convicted in a fatal hit-and-run should get a new
trial. Katie
Garding was convicted in 2011 of hitting Bronson Parsons with her
vehicle in 2008 near East Missoula, killing the 25-year-old man. Garding
was sentenced to 40 years in prison. But in 2015, with the help of the
Montana Innocence Project, she filed to have her conviction overturned,
which would pave the way for a new trial. At
the end of Tuesday’s hearing, District Court Judge John Larson said
both the Innocence Project as well as county prosecutors will be able to
submit further court filings before he will rule on Garding’s request. No
specific dates were set for the sides to file their follow-ups,
although Larry Mansch — legal director for the Montana Innocence Project
— said it will likely take weeks at least for a court transcript to be
prepared by Larson’s court reporter. Garding’s argument for a new trial revolved around three primary issues: • that evidence was withheld from her defense team at the criminal trial, • that her attorney did a very poor job of defending her at trial, and •
that a reconstruction of the crash commissioned by the Montana
Innocence Project concluded that the style of vehicle she was driving
would not have caused the specific injuries Parsons suffered. Before
the two-day trial to hear arguments began, Larson had already ruled
that the evidence was not withheld, and that the crash reconstruction
could not be used as new evidence of innocence by Garding. On the latter
issue, the judge sided with the prosecution’s view that it was simply
new analysis rather than previously unavailable information. The second part of the
judge’s ruling in particular significantly limited testimony from the
witnesses the Montana Innocence Project brought this week. On
Tuesday, crash investigator David Rochford — who was hired to do an
analysis of the crash — was only able to testify that if Garding’s
defense attorney at the criminal trial called him, he could have
prepared such an analysis for her, and that its results would have been
favorable to Garding. Keith
Friedman, a researcher from Texas who also examined the case for the
Montana Innocence Project, similarly was able to share little other than
that to his knowledge, no scientifically based reconstruction of the
crash was done before Garding’s criminal trial. The
pair’s testimony was given in part to show the Montana Innocence
Project’s claim that the public defense attorney who represented Garding
was negligent in not obtaining a crash reconstruction to refute the
prosecution’s view on what happened the night of Parsons’ death. But
the standard for attorney negligence leading to a case being overturned
requires that it be shown that the outcome of the case would likely be
different if the attorney had done a better job. Innocence
Project attorney Toby Cook said without the ability to say what the
analysis would have shown if it had been commissioned for the criminal
trial, there was no way to show the outcome would have been different. Montana
Highway Patrol Trooper Philip Smart, who is also now the traffic
homicide investigator for the Missoula district, was brought in after
Garding filed to have her conviction overturned to review the crash
reports for the prosecution. He
said Tuesday that while he could make approximations to certain
factors — such as where Parsons was hit and a range of speeds the
vehicle that hit him was likely traveling — in his opinion there was not
enough evidence to do a complete crash reconstruction."
The entire story can be read at:
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/c
