‘War of motions’ to be heard in Mardis murder case Wednesday

   What can be described as a “war of motions” is scheduled to be heard in 12th Judicial District Court this Wednesday (Sept. 28) as prosecutors and defenders argue critical elements in a case involving the shooting death of a 6-year-old boy.

   The attorney for Norris Greenhouse Jr. has six motions before District Judge Billy Bennett, including one asking whether any witnesses underwent hypnosis or other “truth-determining examinations.”

   The Attorney General’s Office  has filed a motion asking the court to allow jurors to be told of prior “bad acts” committed by Derrick Stafford, the other suspect in the death of Jeremy Mardis. 

   The AG’s Office is handling the prosecution of both cases because the Avoyelles District Attorney’s Office recused itself since  Greenhouse’s father is  an assistant district attorney. 

  Greenhouse and Stafford are charged with 2nd-degree murder of Mardis and attempted 2nd-degree murder of his father, Chris Few, following a traffic stop on Nov. 3, 2015. Both men were moonlighting as Marksville City Marshal’s Office deputies at the time of the incident. 

   Stafford’s trial is set for Nov. 28. Greenhouse will go to trial on March 13.

 

   In the “notice of state’s intention to introduce other crimes evidence,” Assistant Attorney General Matthew B. Derbes argues the state should be allowed to present evidence of Stafford’s previous “bad acts,” including allegations of excessive force in civil suits against him and the Marksville City Police Department where he served as a shift lieutenant.

  The motion states that these incidents show Stafford “is motivated to use excessive violent force against individuals he interacts with during the course and scope of employment with the law enforcement agency he works for.”

   Noting that an element of 2nd-degree murder is that the defendant acted “with the specific intent to inflict great bodily harm on the victim,” Derbes points out the “bad acts” evidence shows a “pattern of conduct whereby Stafford inflicts great bodily harm during the detention of citizens under his jurisdiction.”

   Chris LaCour of Alexandria, one of Stafford’s attorneys, said the defense will file an answer opposing the state’s request.

  “Mr. Stafford was never convicted of a crime and there has been no verdict or judgment against him or the City of Marksville in any of the civil suits they mention in their motion.

  “I feel the prosecutors are reaching on this one,” LaCour said. “We will definitely file a motion in opposition to their request.”

  In concluding his motion, Derbes states that the evidence he seeks to introduce at trial shows “intent, plan, knowledge and lack of mistake or accident of the defendant in the charged offense.”

greenhouse case

  In the Greenhouse case, defense attorney George Higgins III of Pineville caused a stir with his motion for “disclosure of hypnosis and the use and results of truth-determining examinations.” 

  The more routine motions to be heard Wednesday include:

-- Requesting that potential jurors to be individually questioned during the selection process.

-- Requesting that the defense be allowed to examine tape-recorded evidence and transcripts to determine their accuracy.

-- Requesting disclosure of medical history and medical examination records of prosecution witnesses, with such information to be filed with the court “under seal” to protect the individuals’ confidential information.

-- Requesting disclosure of mental health history and examination records of prosecution witnesses, with such information to be filed with the court “under seal” to protect the individuals’ confidential information. The motion also asks the judge to order that Few “undergo psychiatric and other truth-determining examinations conducted by qualified experts employed by the defense.”

-- Requesting ability to inspect, examine and test physical evidence in the case, including clothing of all parties involved in the incident, all weapons taken from Greenhouse’s “person, home, vehicle and the scene of the alleged crime,” all fingerprints, all notes taken by state as part of the evidence in the case, all blood samples taken from the scene, all photographs taken in connection with the incident, all electronic evidence of any kind and all other physical evidence.

    Higgins also filed a “reservation of right to file additional motions” at a later date.

    In another motion, filed in both defendants’ cases, Derbes asks the court for three specific instructions to jurors in the trials.

    Those instructions are:

-- “A person may be convicted of an offense even if he has not personally fired the fatal shot.” If the defendant was a  participant in the crime that resulted in the death, they are principals in the crime and can be punished for the death.

-- “A person may be convicted for the unintentional injury or killing of one person if he specifically intended to injure or kill someone else.” If a person shoots at one person with the intent to kill or injure that person but instead kills or injures an unintended victim, “the intent is transferred and that person can be convicted for the unintentional injury or killing,” the motion states.

-- “Specific intent to kill may be inferred from a defendant’s act of pointing a gun and firing at a person.”