County Superior Court Judge Arthur Mann on Thursday, June 1 denied a motion to postpone a murder trial, ruling that the defense attorney”s concerns over new evidence didn”t warrant the delay. The motion came in the trial of Paul James Smiraglia, 46, the Nevada man charged with first-degree murder and a special allegation of using torture in the death of 43-year-old Upper Lake resident Diedre Coleman. The body of Coleman who was reportedly last seen alive in Clearlake in June 2002, was found a year later, in July 2003, near Cache Creek, along Highway 20. Authorities believe her body was dumped there; an autopsy indicated that she died from blunt force trauma to the head. Smiraglia”s defense attorney, Doug Rhoades of Lakeport, submitted the motion on Wednesday, May 31, at what was supposed to have been the first day of Smiraglia”s trial. As a result, Mann postponed the trial proceedings until Tuesday, June 6 in order to have time to consider the motion. Mann ordered the jury, which had not yet been sworn in, to return to his Department 3 courtroom on June 6 for the trial to begin. At the Thursday afternoon hearing, Rhoades outlined his concerns in detail and argued for postponing the trial indefinitely. One of the options offered in his motion included asking the court “to vacate the proceedings to this point” ? in other words, dismiss the jury and start again at some future time. Rhoades said evidence continues to come forward, and that he wanted to “pinpoint” a future time when they would have all the information needed to proceed. In particular, Rhoades cited a witness interview that occurred last week, which was part of the District Attorney”s Office discovery that he received that same morning. Prosecutor Richard Hinchcliff, who submitted his own motion against Rhoades” request on Thursday morning, replied, “I don”t see there”s a due cause for continuance.” The deputy district attorney explained that the case”s investigation is “fluid.” “Things keep coming up through no fault of our own,” Hinchcliff said. The only new evidence, said Hinchcliff, came through the witness interview Rhoades cited. That individual, Hinchcliff said, was interviewed last week after coming forward with new information. However, while the interview contained new information, Hinchcliff said it shouldn”t be surprising information. “The people are asking the court to deny the motion to continue the jury trial,” said Hinchcliff, for lack of a good cause. Rhoades, in his rebuttal to Hinchcliff”s motion, cited concerns about how investigators handled some of the case”s information. Specifically, he referred to what he called a “significant incident” in which some of the case material was waylaid for several months as it sat on a detective”s desk ? not even making it to Hinchcliff. “That, alone, and that pattern tells me there is something I need to look at” regarding the case”s handling thus far, said Rhoades. Hinchcliff countered that information Rhoades referred to “was not particularly relevant.” The only pattern in the case, Hinchcliff reiterated, was that criminal investigations such as this one are fluid and feature “recalcitrant witnesses” who are late to step forward and share information. Hinchcliff”s argument proved to be more convincing to Mann, who denied the defense motion to postpone the trial. Mann explained his decision by noting that the witness interviewed last week had given statements to authorities in the past. “She was a major prosecution witness from the start,” Mann said. He said that some of her statements have been conflicting, and that the jury will have to make a determination about which of her statements they”ll believe. Another concern the defense brought to the court”s attention Thursday related to a possible connection between a potential juror and Coleman”s family. Rhoades requested that, when the trial reconvenes next week, the court re-question one of the prospective female jurors, in a process called voir dire, to find out if her knowledge of the Coleman family should discount her from serving. The concern about the juror arose when Coleman”s ex-husband called Hinchcliff Wednesday regarding the woman, information which Hinchcliff passed on to Rhoades. “He wants to make sure we don”t have any problems at trial,” said Hinchcliff about the ex-husband”s concerns. Hinchcliff said he didn”t see any problem as a result of the information; Rhoades said he wasn”t sure it was a problem, but he wanted question the juror anyway. Mann said that, with respect to reopening voir dire based on an outsider”s opinion, “I”ll not make any commitment either way.” He added, “We”ll deal with it on Tuesday morning.” Contact Elizabeth Larson at elarson@record-bee.com.
