Ever wondered how the concept of alibi defense can shape the outcome of a sexual abuse case? Prepare to go on an intellectual journey as the attorneys and court dissect a case where the defense claims a broad timeframe of charges doesn’t sync with the evidence. The argument reaches to the meaning of alibi, its spatial aspect, and how to categorize the evidence—is it alibi or impeachment?
This podcast is brought to you by Virginia Injury and Disability law firm, Ben Glass Law.
Real legal help for real people
Your life has been disrupted. You have good doctors and they support you. Your personal injury or long-term disability claim seems like a slam dunk. But there’s a problem: The insurance company doesn’t believe you. “You can’t be hurt that bad! Our medical experts say you’re fine.”
You need a trusted advocate who can uncover all the facts, tell your story to the skeptical insurance company, and get you the money you deserve. You don’t have to do this alone. Contact our Virginia personal injury and long-term disability lawyers today for a free consultation or denial letter review.
Ever wondered how the concept of alibi defense can shape the outcome of a sexual abuse case? Prepare to go on an intellectual journey as the attorneys and court dissect a case where the defense claims a broad timeframe of charges doesn’t sync with the evidence. The argument reaches to the meaning of alibi, its spatial aspect, and how to categorize the evidence—is it alibi or impeachment?
This podcast is brought to you by Virginia Injury and Disability law firm, Ben Glass Law.
Real legal help for real people
Your life has been disrupted. You have good doctors and they support you. Your personal injury or long-term disability claim seems like a slam dunk. But there’s a problem: The insurance company doesn’t believe you. “You can’t be hurt that bad! Our medical experts say you’re fine.”
You need a trusted advocate who can uncover all the facts, tell your story to the skeptical insurance company, and get you the money you deserve. You don’t have to do this alone. Contact our Virginia personal injury and long-term disability lawyers today for a free consultation or denial letter review.
The problem is what we're talking here is the defense is not arguing alibi. The prosecution is saying this is alibi and they were trying to tell me about it, and what I'm saying is the Commonwealth has charged essentially a set of goalposts that is wide as all outdoors in a time frame that covers nine years.
Speaker 2:But the trial jury doesn't get the indictment and the trial jury gets and the trial judge gets the facts of the case, the Commonwealth case in chief. So you can't be convicted on a 10-year period when the only evidence is one minute of one day of one year.
Speaker 3:So why are?
Speaker 2:we talking about the indictment.
Speaker 3:Welcome to the Supreme Court of Virginia podcast. This podcast is brought to you by Ben Glass Law, a personal injury and long-term disability law firm with headquarters in Fairfax, Virginia. Listening to oral arguments is one of the best ways to both learn and stay abreast of the substantive and procedural aspects of practicing law in Virginia. By putting these public domain recordings into the form of a podcast, Ben Glass Law has made it easy for the public to access these recordings. All commentary that is not part of the actual court proceedings is that of the show's sponsor.
Speaker 4:Moison v Commonwealth. J Barry McCracken, assistant Public Defender. Appellants Council. Graham K Bryant, deputy Solicitor General. Annie Chang, assistant Solicitor General. Appellants Council.
Speaker 1:Good morning, john. I'd try to say four minutes. I usually not very successful at that, but I'll take a stab at it this morning If it please the court. I'm Barry McCracken. I'm here on behalf of Heath Nicholas Moison. This comes on appeal, obviously, from the Court of Appeals. Mr Moison was convicted in the Norfolk Circuit Court of four counts of indecent liberties and three counts of aggravated sexual battery, on indictments that are alleged a repetitive number of acts over a period of approximately nine years, terminating, I believe, on the 31st of October 2018. The two alleged victims were his minor daughters. At the time of trial, I think the oldest daughter was 17,. The younger daughter was 15. The last incident of abuse happened, I think the girls were 13 and 15, respectively. It's a very narrow issue.
Speaker 5:Can we dive right in? How should we write the rule with respect to notice of alibi? Because the easy cases are I was out of the country, I was out of town.
Speaker 1:This is the real question is what's alibi? The hard part of this thing is we're talking about a fairly what one would. I've been doing this business a long time and I always thought I knew what an alibi was. I did too, but now we and the hard part of this case is in reviewing what I did in my brief. I didn't spend enough time talking about the spatial nature of alibi. There's two components of an alibi location and time At the location at the time At this, what location? At a time that rendered impossible for him to commit the crime. That's really what alibi is, I think.
Speaker 6:Is it physical impossibility? Is that the line?
Speaker 1:That's what the Commonwealth said in response to my brief. They said alibi is the defense of impossibility, that is, if you're in Atlanta and the crime is at a discrete time in a discrete location, city in Norfolk that's pretty much impossible. Or if it's that he's in Atlanta and there's no physical way for him to get to Norfolk at a time when the crime could have been, but it's equally impossible if he's across the street.
Speaker 2:It's equally impossible if he's on the other side of the building.
Speaker 1:But basically, is it real? The question is what is the location, the spatial aspect of this? What is the location? The testimony is the young lady said she was groped at a pool party and the defendant's evidence is he was at all times when she was on that side of the swimming pool. He was at the grill cooking hot dogs and so he was on the out. That's really a matter of credibility. Which witness do you believe?
Speaker 7:That's interesting that you bring it up. If we had a situation where the Commonwealth stood up and said, oh no, that's alibi evidence. There was no notice of alibi, I want you to keep it out. And then trial counsel said maybe it looks like alibi evidence, but really what it is, it's impeachment Would we even be having this conversation today?
Speaker 1:My trial defense attorney and fair just heard, basically said judge, this is not alibi, he's at the location where this incident supposedly happened.
Speaker 8:Does she ever say judge, this is impeachment.
Speaker 1:No, she did not, and I put that in my assignment of air. Probably. That was to show what the relevant. The first way if it's not alibi, what is it? And if it's not alibi, is it impeachment or is it proof of this did not happen? It's really proof of both, and the Commonwealth said that in their brief.
Speaker 7:I can agree that impeachment evidence and alibi evidence can occupy the same ground? One requires notice, obviously, the other doesn't. But in this particular case, even if I agree and let's back up as a defense lawyer I never would have thought to file a notice of alibi under these circumstances or as a trial judge. But I could have been mistaken. And do you agree that we really can't consider in this case whether or not it's impeachment, because it's just not before us?
Speaker 1:The question becomes if you're letting it in. If the question is I'm not letting in because it's alibi, then that second part of the assignment of air is not particularly relevant. The whole point of that statement, of what it was, remember this you got to look at what the indictments were. The indictment sledge repetitive conduct over a nine year period. We're talking about one incident that wasn't even within the period of time charged in the indictment.
Speaker 7:What about harmless error then? We're talking about, sir. We're talking about one, one instance over a course of years, and all of the other evidence is fairly overwhelming. Why are we having the conversation anyway?
Speaker 1:That's where we disagree. You made an assumption that I don't agree with that. Other evidence was overwhelming and I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt. Oh it's okay, the whole point. The reason impeachment is important in this case is because we've got multiple acts, If you assume that the evidence did not. If the evidence had come in, it would have defeated the issue of whether or not on this one occasion these girls had been inappropriately touched. We still got all those 50 other allegations in a timeframe with it, Mr Kraken.
Speaker 6:If we look at it as a line of impossibility. Let's look at the stricken testimony. As I understand it, the witness's testimony was he would have been in the house in the living room around 6 am is the testimony at 207. One of the victims testified that the offense occurred around 5 am and I admit that five and six are different numbers. But you've been doing this a long time. Would anybody have trouble believing that around 5 am and around 6 am both mean 5 30?
Speaker 1:If you look at it, the two girls testimony weren't consistent with what time they came in the house and what time the abuse actually happened. They were all five period of hours too. I agree with you. The testimony he gave she gave initially that came in before the judge told the jury. Nor it said he was out there. He was outside at the pool or outside at the party until 6 am.
Speaker 1:But then they went in the house and then they went in the house and were there until 7 30 watching movies. She didn't let that in either.
Speaker 6:If that makes it physically possible. If around 5 am and around 6 am are close enough for conviction purposes, would they be close enough to say it wasn't physically impossible? Exactly.
Speaker 1:Look, we didn't know that basically owner about, apparently, from the Commonwealth's perspective, is good enough to cover periods where children involved, periods of months and perhaps even a year.
Speaker 6:Well, looking at the indictment of over a nine and a half year period in the city of Norfolk, how does one begin framing your alibi? Notice if, unless you can cover nine and a half years, when you weren't in the city.
Speaker 1:That's the point Exactly. It seems to me, particularly in this case, the Commonwealth is trying to have its cake and eat it too. Yet basically you know its location is city of Norfolk, because it has these incidents all happen at one specific location, except for this last month in November.
Speaker 8:The question of whether I can frame my alibi evidence because you've charged me over a 10 year period, seems to be slightly different to me from physical impossibility of space and time. If you've limited the time to five o'clock or six o'clock, those seem to be slightly, not even slightly different, but just different.
Speaker 1:The problem is that what we're talking here is the defense is not arguing alibi. The prosecution is saying this is alibi and they were required to tell me about it, and what I'm saying is the Commonwealth has charged essentially a set of goalposts that is wide as all outdoors in a timeframe that covers nine years.
Speaker 2:But the trial jury doesn't get the indictment and the trial jury gets and the trial judge gets the facts of the case, the Commonwealth case in chief. So you can't be convicted on a 10 year period when the only evidence is one minute of one day of one year.
Speaker 1:So why are we?
Speaker 2:talking about the indictment.
Speaker 1:The reason we're talking about the indictment, because we're talking about something that's supposed to happen pre-trial. We're talking about notice of alibi based on an app. Remember, this is not something that came up in trial. What we're arguing about here is the defendant misread his obligation under the rule and under his discovery order pre-trial. It's not what's going on with the jury. It's what the Commonwealth has made allegations. Basically, is he on notice that he has to tell them Beyond the indictment.
Speaker 6:What specificity did you have that it happened in the living room sometime between two and around 5 am in the morning.
Speaker 1:As far as I know, the only evidence in the record establishes what the girl said at trial. So we got their testimony coming up and it's outside the time period alleged in the charging document. The Commonwealth had this evidence. These are not two or three year old children.
Speaker 7:I want to make sure I understand how you answered that question. Are you saying that trial counsel could not have submitted a notice of alibi because it didn't know what the evidence at trial was going to be in terms of when and where?
Speaker 1:What I'm saying is that could he have done it? Certainly you could have done it, but basically the obligation on the rule is to give notice of alibi. You've got a charge and that's what we're dealing with. At that point in time that's alleged these things happened, stopping in October 31st of 2018 over a nine year period. The Commonwealth didn't prove their case. Given the evidence, they didn't have to put any evidence on them. November, the 4th at all.
Speaker 2:But did you have an alibi to one of the 50 events that you could hypothesize during the 10 year period? You don't have to give that notice of alibi to that one clear alibi. I was in Atlanta that day and there's a photograph of me, because there's 49 other claims that could have been theoretically brought out of the indictment.
Speaker 1:I don't understand that the problem with that judge is that you're not on as a defendant. You're not on notice of when any of these 50 things have alleged occurred. They just alleged occurred. Sometime to say, look for a whole month of October of 12, I was in Atlanta, I can prove it, that's fine. No, but there's nothing in that indictment or any evidence presented to the defense attorney that we that's of record that establishes that he had any reason to think that any of the offenses were alleged to occur during that particular.
Speaker 8:It seems that we've shifted from the issue before the court. The issue before the court and the assignment of error is because the testimony did not constitute evidence of alibi. It's not that an argument made to the trial court Judge. I can't give you evidence of alibi because they've cited a window that's 10 years long. That's a different argument. That's part of the argument, judge.
Speaker 1:I don't think it's a different argument. This is multifaceted, but the first thing is it alibi. The second aspect of it and I realize I've lost my four minutes but the second aspect of this is the business about whether it was abuse of discretion to preclude that evidence from going for the jury, and part of that is was it, in my view, is whether this was an intentional violation of the rule or was it just an honest mistake?
Speaker 2:An impeachment by contradiction is not evidence on the merits. It's impeachment Exactly, but alibi is evidence on the merits. I was in Atlanta. That's a gotta believe it. I was in Atlanta that day. But the fact that, following up on Justice Man's question to you, the fact that there was never mentioned to the judge, this comes in as impeachment by contradiction. That would have probably to an experienced trial judge, okay, I'm not going to allow it in as alibi, because you didn't give me an alibi thing, but allow it in as impeachment by contradiction.
Speaker 1:Judge again. I think we're confusing this. All the business about whether what it's significant to really goes to whether or not it's harmless error. To be perfectly candid, the real issue here is was it alibi? Did it require an affirmative action on the part of the defendant under the rules and the discovery order in it? And what I'm saying and if I have misled court, by the way I drafted my assignment of error I have to apologize. Of course it started down in the court of appeals and I'm stuck with what I did early on in this process. But the clear thing here is this is not evidence of alibi.
Speaker 3:This podcast is brought to you by Ben Glass Law, a national leader in long-term disability insurance claims. We help doctors, lawyers, entrepreneurs, ceos and other C-suite executives get paid for their long-term disability benefits. Visit us at BenGlassLawcom or give us a call at 703-591-9829.
Speaker 1:It's neither temporally or spatially. Alaba, was it offered? He's at the location. Was it offered he's in the house? Excuse me, was it heard for?
Speaker 2:impeachment by contradiction purposes. Was that the reason it was offered?
Speaker 1:That would be, given the unique fact that's not always the case. This could very well have been offered simply to let's say that the only offense on the indictment was out one allegation and they put on evidence that it happened in November. Then that would be evidence. It would be substantive evidence, but primary purpose, given the fact that there are 50, some allegations or more, of misconduct over a nine-year period. The significance in this case is it undercut the significant for, specifically, the variety of the two child witnesses that were the two big only evidence in the case against the defendant. Again, I think the key thing here is and I am going to try to save that last minute is that this simply under the law, was not Alaba as it's understood traditionally, as Cooper defines it by the, as this court has defined it. I will take that minute and run if I could Well council, I guess I have a question for you?
Speaker 5:Yes, sir, because it seems like to me, the big issue here is whether or not, in this particular instance, the evidence presented was Alaba, and I have a hard time seeing how evidence presented concerning an incident would which happened outside of the dates of the indictment could possibly be conceived as.
Speaker 1:Alaba testimony. I think that was my first point, judge, and I just I'm sorry and I agree wholeheartedly. I just on the face of it it does not appear to be Alaba and even if the indictment it's a twofold argument, even if indictment alleged specifically this conduct, it's still not Alaba because basically this is no different than I was and I wasn't groping her over there, I was over at the other side of the pool the whole time. There's no difference between this and that scenario and I think all of us would agree traditionally that's not Alaba. Thank you, and I see I kept four seconds.
Speaker 9:I'll Good morning your honors. May it please the court. Annie Chang, assistant solicitor general to the Commonwealth of Virginia, with me at council table as deputy solicitor general, Graham Bryant, Heath Moyzen was convicted for sexually abusing his two young daughters almost every weekend over the course of over five years. This court should affirm those convictions for two reasons. First, the late offered evidence before the circuit court was Alaba evidence and second, the circuit court's decision to exclude that evidence was not an abusive discretion. Let's start with the first point.
Speaker 6:Alaba require physical impossibility.
Speaker 9:This court in Cooper versus Commonwealth said that Alaba is physical impossibility.
Speaker 6:There's testimony from one of the victims that it happened around 5 am. If video established not this case, but a video established that he went in at 5.50 am and that's the first time he entered the location where you contended it occurred, would the defendant be entitled to a motion to strike because his crime was in, because that establishes conclusively the crime was impossible, or would around 5 am get you to 5.50?
Speaker 9:The testimony here is that for Alaba you have to look at both the crime, the time and the location of the crime and the time and location of the testimony or the evidence offered here. The crime was defined from 3 to 5 am in the living room and that Well, two and one.
Speaker 6:she said it happened around 5 am. Would around 5 am from a witness? When it is later established conclusively the person that the accused did not arrive until 5.50, would he be entitled toa motion to strike because it's physically impossible for him to commit to the crime or, given the way people normally testify about time, that it happened sometime around 5 o'clock? Would that be broad enough to cover 5.50 and you'd be able to continue to put on your case?
Speaker 9:Your Honor. I think that's a lot closer to the line than in this case, but I think around 5 am colloquially is not 5.50 am, so I think that would be an.
Speaker 6:So you think he would be entitled to a motion to strike?
Speaker 9:I think that would be a closer case than this one. I think that, however, this case is a lot more clear because in this case he the proper testimony that he provided from Lee was that he was outside in the fire by the fire pit with her until 6 am Actually at page 107.
Speaker 6:He entered the house or living room around 6 am, so we have around 5 am and around 6 am. I think lots of people when they hear that would think 5.30 is described by both of them.
Speaker 9:Even if 5.30 is described by both. And the other one I would make. First is that in uphelements argument my friend on the other side has said that the proper testimony is that he was in tilt, he was outside with her until 6 am and also then they went inside to watch a movie until 7 30 am. The other point I would make is, even if colloquially, for it might be that some people might think it's 5 30 am, as we're talking about whether this is alibi as a matter of law, and here the crime is defined as from 3 to 5 am in the living room and the alibi is defining the time until 6 am outside by the fire pit.
Speaker 6:My question is that what it actually is? That what the testimony is? Isn't the testimony that was stricken around 6 am and isn't the testimony the victim at page 91 of the appendix around 5 am?
Speaker 9:On page 208, the court stated she just said he was outside until 6 am and the girls put him in the living room on the floor in the early hours.
Speaker 6:I'm not asking what the court stated. I'm asking what the witness whose testimony was stricken stated.
Speaker 9:And I'm saying that he wasn't counseled and stated right and agreed with that position and that is the proffer testimony that he was outside until 6 am. And so that's the alibi they're offering.
Speaker 2:Let me let me try to this problem.
Speaker 2:Suppose that there's a case and the rape victim says I was raped on March 4 or 5. I can't remember which one it was, but it was definitely March 4 or 5. And the accused is in Atlanta, not in wherever Timbuktu, where the rape allegedly occurred. Doesn't he have to give the alibi for at least that one day, if he's in Atlanta on the one day, even though he may not be, even though he was with the victim the second day? In other words, I'm not following the parallelism between the motion to strike because the evidence is not enough, but we're going to allow it anyway because of the elasticity of the victim's testimony and the duty to say look, if you're going to say you weren't here, you didn't do it because you weren't here, and you weren't here at the time, I thought it was done. I thought it was done in Monday and Tuesday. You needed to tell me you were in Atlanta on Monday because I could have figured out whether that's true or not. So I'm trying to understand the parameters of this last question.
Speaker 9:Well, your honor, I think in that case, if the crime was, let's say, monday or Tuesday, and a defendant's offering I was in Atlanta Monday, for example that that would be his duty to put in a notice of alibi, even though in theory you could be convicted for the next day because he didn't have an alibi for the next day.
Speaker 2:She just didn't know which one it was.
Speaker 9:Yes, your Honor, I think that is a more. That is the more primal run-of-the-mill alibi, and he would be on notice that he needed to put in the alibi evidence here. The crime was from 3 to 5 am in the living room and the alibi was until 6 am in the fire pit, and so it's the same dimensions, they match up.
Speaker 6:Council. You keep saying that, but I keep referring you to the testimony. The testimony that was stricken was Mr Moison and I went into the house around 6 am, isn't? The testimony was stricken a little more flexible than until 6 am.
Speaker 9:Even he still had a duty to provide that notice of alibi.
Speaker 6:The dimension? Does it make the crime physically impossible?
Speaker 9:Yes, he was outside in the fire pit until around 6 am and they were molesters, sexually abused in the living room from 3 to, let's say, around 5.
Speaker 6:Their testimony was different. One said it happened between, I believe, 3 and 4 in the morning. The other said it happened around 5 am Correct?
Speaker 9:Correct, but the two girls, they were separately molested.
Speaker 6:And the other point I would make is I thought their testimony was after the one who said around 5 am said, and after he finished with me he went over here yes. So that's well past 5 am and the Kalo Hulu around 5 am, because he did one at around 5 am and then definitely did the next one next.
Speaker 6:One of them testified 3 to 4 am, as you point out, your honor, and then one of them did around 5 am and so at any point before the trial testimony, is there anything in the record that shows the defendant knew you were going to say it was in the living room between 3 am and around 5 am?
Speaker 9:There's nothing in the record, your honor, but I would point to the fact that this event with Lee and the party at her house is what precipitated this prosecution, because the girls wrote the letter. Well, bm wrote the letter to her mom right after the party and then in the record it does show that Moison's counsel was on notice, or at least it's not entirely her, but she says that that she, in the 7 days that she had access to Lee, found out this was her testimony and that it was just too late at that point to do a notice of alibi and is there.
Speaker 6:if the duty is on him to say I was outside on the other side of the wall until 6 am, if that's alibi and I have to give you notice of, is there a concomitant duty of the Commonwealth to say it happened at the living room before 6 am? If he doesn't know that, how can he know whether it's alibi or not?
Speaker 3:this podcast is brought to you by Ben Glass law, a statewide leader in the personal injury field. We help the injured and disabled make great decisions about their legal situations. Visit our website at Ben glass law dot com or call us at 703-591-9829 for more information and a free evaluation of your case.
Speaker 6:What I'm said, the testimony trial it was out by the fire pit.
Speaker 9:I would answer your honor that it's his duty in that instance. If he's surprised, then he needs to request the trial court for a continuance or some kind of relief, to either discuss this with Lee if he didn't understand or she didn't understand how to proceed with that and this court provided in Friday Commonwealth that it is the defendant's duty if the first time he finds out the specific locations at trial in the testimony of Ben it happened next to the fire pit.
Speaker 6:This is an alibi, correct?
Speaker 9:correct. And then, moving on to my next point, the exclusion was not an abusive discretion for a couple reasons. In this court, an abusive discretion is only where reasonable jurors could not disagree. Here, as I pointed out, lee's party was a precipitating event for this entire prosecution. The citizens council then found out about that.
Speaker 5:Stop you right there, because there's no question that he was at Lee's party, right? That's not the issue. It's like a this timing issue which seems to me odd to be the basis for an alibi. But go ahead.
Speaker 9:I'm sorry. What time, what timing, issue your honor, whether or not you?
Speaker 5:came in the house at 5 30 or 5 o'clock, or 6 30 or 6 15. That's the timing issue I'm talking about.
Speaker 9:I think the testimony of the record provides that he molested these girls. The latest around 5 an and least testimony is that, or would have been, that, he was with her in around six around six, and so that covers all that around 5 am, all the way to around at 6 or around 6 am, and so that does cover that time.
Speaker 7:That that does cover that time and that is alibi and but it's not unusual to have a warrant on a case like this that will span days, months or years. If we find, in this particular set of circumstances, that an alibi was in fact required, with the practical effect, be. In cases like this, defense counsel would be obligated to file a motion for a bill of particulars, which really is not granted all that often and trial judges will feel that they're going to need to grant a motion for a bill of particulars in all of these cases so that a defense attorney could be on notice of the time and place for purposes of alibi.
Speaker 9:I don't think that's necessarily true, your honor, I think. First of all, I would point this court to the fact that time is not of the essence in these kinds of crimes, and so he should have known that that he could have been convicted for something outside of the time and in his indictment. The other point I would make is it's a very easy fix in a case like this, where he or a counsel has noticed or is able to interact with a witness seven days before the counsel puts her on the stand. He or she has the duty to then request the court for continuance or some kind of remedy In the middle of trial.
Speaker 7:so you're saying, if that happens and it is a surprise, council is then obligated to say oh my, I just realized that I have a witness that can put him by the fire pit. I didn't realize that's what the evidence was going to be. I'd like a eight day continuance so I can figure out what I'm going to do. And if I decide I want to file a notice of alibi, I have the seven days to do it. And could you please ask the jury to come back in a week? Is that really what we're talking about?
Speaker 9:I think it's incumbent on the defendant's counsel in that case to try to remedy the situation or notify the court at least to this issue and see what the court or the parties can do to remedy this issue here. However, it's not an abusive discretion, because seven days before counsel had information on this and had access to Lee and did nothing about it.
Speaker 7:And even at You're saying defense counsel had access to the commonwealth's primary witness.
Speaker 9:No, I'm saying that defense counsel had access to Lee seven days before and it was incumbent on defense counsel to do something to notify the court or notify the commonwealth or something about the substance of if, to notify the court that there would be an alibi, or to ask the court for some kind of relief to prepare if as in the record. Let me ask you this hypothetical Assume a far more specific indictment.
Speaker 6:So this is the information that I have when I have to craft my alibi. The assault occurred between 12 and 2 am at 700 Plymouth Circle, new Bernouce, virginia. My testimony would be, and the testimony of any witnesses, that I was at 700 Plymouth Circle between 12 and 2, but I was in my basement apartment and at trial I find out that you say it happened on the third floor and not in the basement. Did I have to give an alibi that I'd never left the basement? But how do I know that until trial? Because all I've been told is it happened somewhere in this house and my testimony is going to be I was in the house at the time it supposedly occurred. I'm just not in the right room but I don't know the room until you testify at trial. How can I do a pretrial notice if I don't find out that I need to do one until trial?
Speaker 9:Your Honor. In that case, if you didn't know, I think the next step that your counsel should take is to notify the court.
Speaker 6:Does the court have to grant it? Are you saying the court has to grant the continuance or do I just lose my alibi because I had no way of knowing that it was alibi? I was going to say I was at the house at the time. It turns out I'm in a different room but I didn't know that until you told me the room and I didn't find that out until trial.
Speaker 9:I think that's a much closer case than when we have. I don't think that this is this case, because everyone knew that they were at least party and everyone knew that after the party, the mom took out a protective order and the girls stopped interacting with their father. And this prosecution started.
Speaker 6:It doesn't tell me where the assault occurred on this side of the wall in the living room? Or this side of the wall at the fire pit, does it?
Speaker 9:No, it doesn't. But he was on notice that he was being charged or he was being prosecuted for sexually abusing these girls and he knew that at that night that Lee might be an important witness, or at least a character witness or something of the sort, to provide evidence for him, because that was a precipitating event to this prosecution. I see him running out of time. We would ask this court affirm for the foregoing reasons and for the reasons provided in our brief. Thank you.
Speaker 5:Thank you, counsel. Thank you, Mr McCracken. Please call the next case.
Speaker 3:The proceeding has been a production of Ben Glass Law, a Fairfax, virginia-based personal injury and long-term disability law firm. For a free evaluation of your claim, visit us at benglaslawcom or call us at 703-591-9829.