Lovell seeks closed courtroom [Standard-Examiner, Ogden, Utah]
| By Tim Gurrister, Standard-Examiner, Ogden, Utah | |
| McClatchy-Tribune Information Services |
The case is an unusual one. Lovell took the stand at his 1993 sentencing hearing and openly described how and why he killed
Lovell's public defenders now seek to close the courtroom when asking for funds to hire experts for Lovell's coming trial. It's the first motion filed by the defense since the
The motion asks that the coming funding requests be heard by
The motion makes no mention about what particular experts, plural, will be sought, but details the extensive case law that allows for "safeguarding defense strategy from the government."
Public defenders here are often in the position of asking prosecutors, the opposition, for fees to cover their cases, as
The office maintains a "Chinese wall" policy in that civil attorneys -- nonprosecutors -- are banned from divulging to their prosecutor co-workers any public defender funding requests.
A privately funded defense never faces that problem, argue Lovell's public defenders,
The court-appointed counsel say extra measures are necessary because of the seriousness of the case against Lovell, which could end in his execution.
"Time and again the
While civil attorneys in the
Both the civil attorneys and the prosecuting attorneys are in the same physical space, sharing the same en- trances, support staff, computer network, printer, and all files and equipment in the office. The extra steps should be taken to "insure ... this case does not have to be litigated a third time," the motion concludes.
The case is set for a status conference
Lovell is currently serving a sentence of 15 years to life for the 1985 rape of Yost, who disappeared that year. Lovell said in his 1993 sworn testimony he killed her to prevent her from testifying about the rape.
Lovell, 53, got off death row in
The high court ruled that Lovell was not specifically informed of his right to trial before an impartial jury bound by the presumption of innocence. The justices also ruled that new rules of evidence introduced in 2005 that now call such omissions harmless error could not be applied retroactively to Lovell.
___
(c)2011 the Standard-Examiner (Ogden, Utah)
Visit the Standard-Examiner (Ogden, Utah) at www.standard.net
Distributed by MCT Information Services
| Wordcount: | 559 |


Advisor News
- The first 5 years of your career could determine the next 50
- Your client’s $3 million portfolio doesn’t tell you their insurance needs
- How life insurance can provide liquidity for wealthy families
- Retirement providers turn to digital engagement to retain assets
- Looking out for clients with diminished mental capacity
More Advisor NewsAnnuity News
- What lower interest rates mean to annuity payouts
- AM Best downgrades A-Cap insurers amid financial and regulatory troubles
- Lawsuit claims Delaware Life hid billions in insurer-linked investments
- AM Best to Deliver Presentation at 2026 ACLI Annual Conference
- Global Atlantic Announces Launch of ForeLifetime Income, a New Fixed Index Annuity
More Annuity NewsHealth/Employee Benefits News
Life Insurance News