Brophy trial holds hearing, discussion about witness sharing jail space – Portland, Oregon

Portland, Oregon 2022-05-13 21:05:37 –

Portland, Oregon (KOIN) —Instead of holding another trial day for Nathan Crumpton Brophy on Friday, lawyers took people to the stands and the legitimacy of witnesses sharing prison space with Brophy. I questioned.

The witness in question was Andrea D. Jacobs. Judgment According to the court, he was put in federal prison for tax crimes and bank fraud in January 2021 and was imprisoned at the same time as Brophy from January 2021 to March 2021. Jacobs’ lawyer was summoned for documents related to Jacobs’ case and alleged to revoke his order.

Multnomah County Circuit Judge Christopher A. Ramlas issued a subpoena after the lawyer’s lawyer claimed that the 24-hour notice to provide the document did not match the 20 days to provide the document. I discarded it. There was also a question about what would be granted regarding the privileges of client lawyers.

It was also unclear if Jacobs had any new advice. The court said she was imprisoned in Texas, but she was on her way to Oregon to testify in the case.

The defense questioned whether Jacobs was offered a deal by the authorities for a previous criminal case or other criminal accusations she might face in the future.

In their allegations, lawyers said Jacobs knew in early 2021 that she would face potential prosecution. Judge Ramlas then requested more information about the specific proposal presented to Jacobs by the Oregon Department of Justice.

Another Jacobs lawyer was also summoned for information.

The lawyer on behalf of the lawyer in question claimed that the conversation between Brophy and Jacobs was after the ruling. The defense argued that the information was important to know if Jacobs’ lawyer used her information to make a better deal with her.

The defense also said it was doubtful that Jacobs had been detained with Brophy for a long time, but acknowledged that the coronavirus pandemic was also a factor.

Grant Hartley, Jacobs’ recent lawyer, was also summoned for creating information about Jacobs, but he asked to revoke the order. One of the reasons for canceling an order is that Hartley didn’t know if there was a file containing privileged information other than the client lawyer.

Brophy’s lawyer argued that there was such information based on the DOJ’s investigation.

The judge decided to retain the rules for this motion until he heard the opinion of another person nominated by the defense.

First stand: Alicia Hercher

Attorneys asked Harcher about a conversation she had with prosecutor Sean Overstreet a year or two ago about Hercher’s former client named Catherine Wells. Harcher testified that Overstreet had discussed Wells with Overstreet as the client was looking for an opportunity to resolve her proceedings.

According to Overstreet, Overstreet said Wells was imprisoned by Brophy, but said he didn’t know who Brophy was at the time.

Overstreet later refuted the story of Hercher’s conversation.

Harcher said the conversation took place in the hallway, and Overstreet said Harcher called him about Wells. After Harcher gave Wells the opportunity to talk to Overstreet about Brophy, she said the client was angry with the proposal.

Overstreet said he later spoke to Hercher in the hallway when Wells gave him the latest information that he didn’t want to talk to him.

Second stand: Donna Maddux

Maddux currently works for a private company, but she once worked for a US local law firm, working on two proceedings involving Jacobs.

The law firm has issued a green light for Maddux to discuss what is on record.

As the defense began asking Maduks, they noticed a negotiated settlement on both Jacobs’ judicial transactions. In both cases, no trial was agreed to imprisonment for four years.

Maddux agreed to defend that such transactions are rare in federal court in fraud cases.

Maduks called the Jacobs case “abnormal” on suspicion. She remembers telling the court that Jacobs risked lying.

“As I said in the hearing, the fact that (Jacobs) says something is true has nothing to do with the truth, and Jacobs shows that he is very prolific, so something I think there must be something else, a skilled liar, “Madux said.

After the prosecution asked Maddux, she admitted that a four-year scam in Oregon was common. Maddux added that Jacobs did not make an arrangement for her decision based on her information.

Third stand: Curtis Haunie

Howney is a Hood River dentist who hired Jacobs as an independent contractor at the dental office. He told the court that he noticed that the check was kept outside the company’s account.

Howney, who called Jacobs a “great actress,” added that Jacobs did not have the authority to open emails, even though he worked in the administrative district. He said her actions by Jacobs did not indicate that she was the person who cashed the check.

Howney, who knew she was the one to monetize the check, told the court that Jacobs was calm, suggested a solution to the situation, and later quit the business. Howney did not explain that he was nervous about Jacobs during the conflict.

There was no Howney cross-examination by the prosecution.

Fourth stand: Rhonda Slavic

The defense called the Slavs to the stand as her brother was dealing with Jacobs – the two later declared bankruptcy. She said her family was concerned about the integrity of the business.

The Slavs admitted at some point that her brother was in a romantic relationship with Jacobs.

Regarding the concerns the Slavs had, Jacobs told her she was being treated for cancer at Oregon Health & Science University, but she later found that it wasn’t true. She also told the court that Jacobs had told her she had received a $ 20 million settlement.

The Slavs added that Jacobs processed the claim in business with his brother before he lost his connection due to his standing in a remote location.

5th stand: John Zen

Tseng works as a Medicare fraud investigator. The judge asked Zen if negotiations with Jacobs’ lawyer at the time, Hartley, would provide information on other criminal issues centered around Jacobs, but Zen denied this.

After Tsen’s testimony, the judge decided to destroy the subpoena issued to Hartley.

Outside the stand

Brophy’s lawyer presented an excerpt between the detective and Jacobs in court. He said the detective couldn’t promise anything unless Jacobs first asked what he had to say about Brophy.

Overstreet later addressed the court, saying the prosecution knew nothing about Jacobs being investigated. He added that he wasn’t a happy witness because Jacobs revealed that he would appear in court next week but had nothing specific to her.

Towards the end of the day, Brophy’s defense lawyer said Jacobs had records of deceiving doctors and others. The defense then demanded six months to be properly prepared for Jacobs’ testimony in court.

The prosecution argued that the defense would like to push the trial for six months to give the judge a greater reason to abandon the witnesses. Regarding defense, Brophy’s lawyer said he wanted to know more about this witness earlier in order to have more time to prepare.

Overstreet then focused on a letter Wells sent to Brophy. He states that Jacobs has something to say about Brophy’s case. He also stated that the prosecution did not technically own the letter, as the letter was sent to the prisoner and then copied only when it was delivered to the sender.

He then claimed that the defense had previously technically known about Jacobs as Brophy received the letter.

The prosecution added that strong opinions about Jacobs should not be the reason for abandoning her as a witness, but acknowledged her colorful history.

At the end of the day, Judge Ramlas decided to submit Jacobs’ motion as a witness on Monday, May 16th.

Brophy trial holds hearing, discussion about witness sharing jail space Source link Brophy trial holds hearing, discussion about witness sharing jail space

Back to top button