More developments from Hemet. This stuff is expensive to turn out,
but good enough ars should get the pleasure of reading it.
LAW OFFICE OF JAMES 0. CRIPPS AND JAMES J. HARR JAMES 0. CRIPPS State Bar No. 31518 JAMES J. HARR State Bar No. 95032 133 N. Buena Vista, Suite I Hemet,,CA 92543 Telephone: (909) 925-5024 Attorney for Keith Henson
RIVERSIDE SUPERIOR COURT IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,) Case No.: HEMO 143 71 Plaintiff, OPPOSITION TO MOTION IN L TO vs. EXCLUDE AND/OR LIMIT TESTIMONY OF KATHLEEN PETTYCREW, BRUCE KEITH HENSON, PETTYCREW, BARBARA GRAHAM (AKA WARR), BRENT STONE AND Defendant. AREL LUCAS
Keith Henson, defendant in the above-entitled action and hereinafter "Defendant", by andthrough his attorney, hereby opposes the People's Motion in Limine to exclude and/or limit testimony of Kathleen Pettycrew, Bruce Pettycrew, Barbara Graham Warr, Brent Stone and Arel Lucas, who are collectively referred to herein as "Observers". The basis for this opposition is that the Observers will testify to matters within their personal knowledge and observation, and their testimony is highly probative on the issue of whether the Defendant threatened, put in fear of physical harm, or interfered with, the alleged victims. The true facts appear to be that it doesn't matter who goes to Golden Era to lawfully picket, the people enclosed in Golden Era hide from picketers. Therefore, it is for the jury to decide whether the so-called Scientologist reaction to the Defendant is fear of truthful information or fear physical threat. Defendant has the right to show that instead of fearing Defendant's actions, Scientologists fear Constitutionally protected free speech and that due to a cult-like atmosphere, Scientologist intend to keep inhabitants of Golden Era from hearing about the circumstances surrounding certain deaths, about manipulation through the fair game doctrine, about certain religious practices,- and about other maters that the Defendant, the Observers and some of the public are concerned about. FACTUAL BASIS Defendant believes that the Observers picketed Golden Era at times before, during and after the period alleged in the complaint. While engaged in such lawful picketing, the Observers are believed to have witnessed behavior of those enclosed at Golden Era that is very similar, if not identical, to that which allegedly forms part of the prosecution evidence of threat, fear of threat, interference, etc. Such behavior of those enclosed is believed to include, but is not necessarily limited to, going inside Golden Era buildings when picket signs are held by Observers, leaving cement to dry in a wheel barrow, not using an underpass for travel to and from various Golden Era facilities, and other activities and cessation of activities when non- threatening signs and information are presented. Additionally, since all alleged victims are possibly engaged in employing the fair game doctrine, as more fully discussed in other pleadings filed concurrently herewith, this could clearly indicate that such behavior is either staged pursuant to the fair game doctrine or it has nothing to do with alleged criminal activity by the Defendant. Defendant picketed at Golden Era with no intent to commit, nor did he commit, any act alleged in the misdemeanor complaint. He merely took lawful actions to bring the public's attention to certain deaths at or near Golden Era, as well as to other matters that deeply concern Defendant about Scientology activities. The Observers are believed to have engaged in similar lawful activities and were met with the same result, even though the Observers do not have a patent for a 747 to deliver a nuclear payload into outer space and are not the subject of a book based on patent hearsay about lawful activities 40 years ago that are inaccurately reported in a book. POINTS AND AUTHORITEES The People rightly point out that Evidence Code section 350 states that "No evidence is admissible except relevant evidence." Evidence Code section 2lO defines "relevant evidence" as "evidence, including evidence relevant to the credibility of a witness or hearsay declarant, having any tendency in reason to prove or disprove any disputed fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action." In the present case, it is clearly relevant that those enclosed at Golden Era react to clearly lawful activity by hiding or changing their schedules due to fear of information. It is for the jury to decide if their behavior is caused by Defendant's alleged criminal activity or whether Scientology is basically a cult that is setting the Defendant up for a fall because he is a vocal detractor. Under Scientology's fair game doctrine, Defendant's opposition to Scientology makes him a target for destruction by Scientology. Such destruction in this case is taking the form of a contrived set of facts that are staged to look like a reaction to fear, when the true facts are that those enclosed at Golden Era cannot be exposed to the Defendant's ideas in what could be described as a cult-like atmosphere. Given the existence of the fair game doctrine, if the Observers personally viewed a response to lawful activity by those enclosed at Golden Era, and that same response is alleged to be the reaction to Defendant's alleged unlawful activity, the proffered evidence is highly relevant on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. All alleged victims are Scientologists with a motive to lie. In this case, the Scientologists' motive to lie is the desire to take whatever means necessary to stop the Defendant from engaging in lawful activity that is not flattering to the Scientology cause. In short, they have a motive to get the Defendant convicted of a crime, by whatever means necessary, because he is a detractor or so-called suppressive person as practiced by Scientology. As for Evidence Code section 352, the court can, in appropriate cases, exclude evidence "if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will (a) necessitate undue consumption of time or (b) create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of confusing the issues,or of misleading the jury." In this case, however, the Observers can demonstrate that their activity, while lawful, evokes the same response as that which is alleged t have been caused by the Defendant. The jury must be able to hear that Scientologist behavior is consistent with their opposition to constitutionally protected free speech, and not activity which they have merely alleged to be criminal to further their own ends of silencing a detractor. The balance is clearly in the favor of the Defendant on this issue under Evidence Code section 352.
CONCLUSION The Defendant is on trial for his constitutionally protected free speech due to a ruse by the alleged victims. Defendant has the right under the Constitution to prove it by presenting competent evidence on the issue of witness credibility. The Observers will testify from personal knowledge as to what they saw as they picketed at Golden Era; namely, that those enclosed in Golden Era respond to clearly lawful activity in the same manner that the prosecution will try to allege at Defendant's trial. The People are wrong in trying to deny the Defendant his right to show the motive of the alleged victims to lie, to stage events, and to feign fear. The Observers' testimony will show that Scientologists can't stand to look at unflattering ideas. When they see them, they hide. Defendant is not guilty of any criminal wrongdoing. In the event that Evidence Code section 352 should even be considered, the probative value of the proffered testimony far outweighs any credible.objection the prosecution has raised in its motion. Respectfully submitted this 21' day of March, 2001 in Hemet, California.
James J. Harr Attorney for Defendant