Free Web Hosting Provider - Web Hosting - E-commerce - High Speed Internet - Free Web Page

A Marsden motion gets its name from the case of People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118.

Petition #5023: Okay, here is the deal with this document. I scanned it and it needs some work to correct many scanning errors. In 1993 I realized that my appointed lawyer was only handling 2 issues. I asked the court of appeal to permit me to brief the remaining issues. Then I submitted a tentative brief . . . and a replacement brief . .. and on 23 December 1993 they ruled in my favor and overturned my conviction. After I sued The California Supreme Court, they stepped in and reinstated the decision. They should have recused themselves.

Appellant's Motion to relive appointed counsel Craig Dodge and to permit appellant to file a brief or in the alternative to appoint R IN THE

To all parties and counsel: Please take notice that Defendant Douglas Palaschak hereby asks the court to relieve appointed counsel Craig Dodge and to appoint new counsel - and to permit the filing of an additional brie. This motion is based on grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel through a pattern of deceit and neglect. This motion is based primarily on the attached 68 pages of correspondence from defendant to appointed counsel Dolge, the attached declaration o defendant Douglas Palaschak, and the record in the case.

DECLARATION OF DEFENDANT APPELLANT DOUGLAS PALASCHAK IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO RELIEVE APPOINTED COUNSEL AND PERMIT FILING OF ADDITION BRIEF.

I, Douglas Palaschak, declare the following under penalty of Perjury: I am the defendant in this case. On Wednesday 25 August 1993 I was informed by appointed counsel Craig Dodge that oral argument would be the next day at 2 pm in Ventura. Until that moment I had believed Dodge’s increasingly more unbelievable excuses and promises regarding his failure to communicate with me and his failure to address all but 1 of the approximately 29 issues in my case. Being an attorney myself, I appreciate priorities and I continued to believe that Dodge would give my case increased priority as the time for oral argument approached. Craig had told me that oral argument would be in September and that sometime before September he would ask to have oral argument rescheduled so that he could file a supplemental brief. Dodge had been talking about a supplemental brief since his first major deceit - that being his filing an opening brief without my having seen it in advance.

My allegations of deceit and neglect are documented by 68 pages of Correspondence from me to Dodge. These 68 pages are attached as Exhibit A. At first, Dolge's failure to perform I on time could not be construed as deceit; failure to deliver what is promised does not constitute deceit - until a pattern emerges - which pattern emerged when Craig notified me of the oral argument. Until that day, I believed that the oral argument was scheduled for September and that Dolge would reschedule it and file the supplemental brief that he had been promising. rmuters and argument was scheduled for September and that Dol would reschedule it and file the supplemental brief that he had been promising. I am capable of producing a brief - if my computers and laser printer are returned to me. On the day following oral argument (Friday 27 August 1993) I was arrested during a raid on my law office. I was never charged with any crime investigators from the district attorney office confiscated my computers, my laser printer, nearly all my files (including my files in this case), and generally all information devices including all paper and magnetic media. They intended to charge me with practicing law without a license- because my state bar license is on interim suspension based on the conviction in this case. However, my federal license was valid at the time. I had in January 193 persuaded the federal district court that a suspension would be illegal based on In Re Ming (1972 - 7th circuit) 469 F 2d 1352 which holds that: 1) a federal court has the authority to determine who can practice bef3re it; and 2) no bar association my suspend a member on the basis of a criminal conviction that has yet to reach finality of appeal. I argued by telephone with

Regarding 95 ALR3rd 20 " What constitutes such discriminatory prosecution or enforcement of laws as to provide valid defense in state criminal proceedings

From day one I have been concerned about invidious discrimination in the prosecution of my case and in fact would have presented the issue in demurrer but our demurrer was aborted because Judge McNally made us enter a plea before demurring by promising us that we would get a change to demur - a promise that he broke.

I wrote a motion to dismiss by hand in June and it ended-up in the hands of my attorneys Pll r Schwartz, and Cassy (and Farley, too) none of whom had the gumption to deal with it. Cassy held it for 3 months keeping me from doing anything with it. Now have it back and I am refining and typing it. Therefore I need the ALR article listed at the top of the page but I think that Cassy will get it for me. I have asked him in a letter. If not, then maybe Pell- or you.

But the main reason that I am writing this letter is that I think that several issues need to be handled in the nature of a motion to dismiss for discriminatory prosecution (on the theory that nobody else is prosecuted for antecedent possession of a legally consumable hallucinogen) and for failure to produce the desk officer Cindy Turner who made the decision to dispatch police, who was subpenaed and who was promised by prosecutor Gibbons at the 1538.5 motion.

I It seems that Habeas Corpus is the vehicle. We can introduce evidence wih Habeas Corpus. The immediate questions are: l) which

I therefore ask you to consider this question and the more general question of what to do and thenimmediay give me your an:3wer.

ps I strongly urge you to call Chuck Cassy at 642 0392 and coordinate with him. Either you or he is responsible.

ps I am drafting the ion - motion 312 aka motion 81. But I don't think that you and Cassy can escape responsibility. My posiion in

I received a penal code in the maiL and I have been reading i. Helpful. I reoeived your package of copis of some of the stuff I sent you. hanks.

I am writing you tday because this stuff on corroboration is just what I had been looking for - sorta.

Related Calrpus de]ecti rule: Body of crime must be proven without admissionS/ confesDns of defedanlt.

| PC llll:A conviDn canrKt e had upon the timony aE an acaompilice unl it be crobo by $uch other evidence a; shall tend to connect the defendant with the commissio of the offense; and the corroboration is not s-lffint if it merely shows the coln missionof the offense or the c:ircumstances thereof. An accompliP is hereby clefined as one who is liable to prosecution for the identical offense charged aginst, the defendant on tril in the cause in which the testimony ,of the accomplice i gien.'

Appon; Although I don't have the transcripts with me, I believe that only Jessica's testimony sa,y that I had LSD in my hand - r possibly even in the card. Evidence that I was under the influence is not corroborative because it is ambiguoun--robativet arguably) as t whether I ever possessed i Ingestion is not possession. ' / h bJ'c

Tie in the is,ue a the e giving ue a bigger fi:h. The underlying theory of PC 1111 ( whih is codofi-tion of a common law principa) is that an aCcompli may ten to li to escape the conviction. Her testimony is therefore acccmplice may tend to lie to escape the conviction. Her testimony is therefore suspect - unless is is consistent - corroorated.

P'IJJI There are 60 pages of annotations,in 176 categories. I have selected the fillowing to pursue: Notes 115 Narc and Intox Liq.

5 Proof of Corpus delecti Commission of crime charged. ll Evidence of other crimes 13 Proof of corpus delecti 34 arcotics and Intix Liq 65 Requisite Independent sign;fince 67 When Requicite independent sig niricance is insuffiient.

Corroboration is not adequate if it requires aid from testimony of person to besporated in order to connect defendant with com mission of crim . P v ,rown 958 49 Cal 2nd 577 Eviden--fered in corroboration of accomp P's testimony must f iself tend to connect defendant with offene charged and is insllffil-ipnt if it requires accomp]ice's testimony to give it direction to such offense. P

f (Continued on back) Letter 380. Pa e #2. Memo t380. Nov 92. Palaschak to Dcge. PC 1111. Corroboration by accompllce.

Some questions that I need answered at this time are: Was the jury instructed regarding accompice testimony? I think so.

If the jury was instructed and nonetheless returned a guilty verdict. can we ch nge ;t upon appeal. ur /V5

I also want to ask that you please keep workin5 on my case and pease answer my any lptters and send the transcript.

I have fild a motion and 2 brie before the state bar on this issue and could have used the transcript for those bi;efs. Please send me the could have used the transcnpt for those briefs. Please send me the transcript.

Status: As I Wd you by phone, I can bail aut on the LSD case on December 19. Also, I am in caurt on Nov 3 ask for bail on the traffic case in which case I could bail ot immediately. But I want to obtain Sheriff parce hstlead and save $1000 insurance premium maybe. Parole board meets NoY 3 but I think that they may not have received my application by then in which case they meet on the 3rd Wednesday. Also, I have a motion to modify probatwn which would make me eligible for bail on - well, immediately.

Cal JurCrim Section 3090. Accompjce testimony. Quotes 1111. Failure to give an accopice instruction is prejudicial error even if the defendant did not request it. But I don't know if we did ince I don't have the transcnpt. So now I have to cover 2 paths in stad of just one. Let'9 assume that it was given and tne jury nonetheless returned g uity on pos9ession and the only non-ambig ucus evidence was the testimony of Jegica. How do you overr the jury. I think that you say that on appeal the jury must be given the benefit of the evidence that theycould have beieved. They coudl have beieved J esLca but that i missing / the pcnt. We interpret the evidence and ee if hey cou to corroborate her. Could they? Hmm. Let's ee if we c ike mine.

Peop3e v Llo Aug 1967 253 236. Marujuana ca3e. D_ rinn. Rerer Wo. 5i. Man and nn bar. After hours. PCice uspect theft. come into bar. Eind drugs in custody o woman. Mariuana and emphetamine in her purse. Man worked at the bar. rlier in the evein9 the man ws working in the bar and agreed to work until 2 ancd c8e. Pam came in. Man

Wov. Sir i. Man and ian bar. Aer hours. Plice suspect theft. come into bar. Eind drug in custody woman. Marijuana and emphetanLine Ln her purse. Man worked at the bar- Ear3ier in the eveing the man ws working in the bar and agreed to work untD 2 ancd Lose. Pam came in. Man noticed envelope on bar. Looked at it. Marijuan. Left it alone. Pam was the woman. She saw it and 100ked at i and left it alone too - on the bar. Tl guy had nevec :oolced HJ ar een J bere. Bar closed at 2. Some smooching between Pam and the g uy. Pa3ice arrive to check up. Eind tlhe drugs. woman has a lifferent story. Says the guy offered the MJ to her although she did aknowedge ownership of tlhe in her purse but did not know how the MJ got into her purse. At crial, LLoyd testifiPd of course. Pam was conviuted. Judge convipd LLoyd. Court of appeal reversed saying:

In tlhe re at bench tlhe only 2 element3 of the offense which werein issue were (1) exercise of dominion and contr, and (2) knowledge that the material was a nartoc. defendnat conceeded he had che E:lcaqe in hi8 hand, but that done nat aiLy h guil4 lDng been the rlile t} pmaf aE p the gcene and an oppo ao it thee are nat 8 nqfy eDn . Cites P ls 171 t'A1 466.

Lloyd says that the app]ication of 1111 is expalined in P v Luker 63 Cal2nd 464. Cites P v Hford - 63? Cal2nd 74, 82(1965) "The evidence required for corroboration of an accomplie need not corroboratedl the accomplice as to every fact to wich he teshfis but is sufficient if it does not required interpretation and direction from the testimony of the accompli yt tends to connect the defendant with the comionof theoffense in such a way as reasonably may satisfy a jury that the cconlce is telling the truth; it must tend to impicate yndant and -therefore must relate to some- act or ict of which is arlementf the crime but it is not necessary ttaht thte corroboriAtive evidnce ffent in itself to establish every lement a the affense charged.n

Aha! Russell is similar. When you take out the 1111-pro3cribed evidence (dmilAr to Jessica's testimony) the only evidene left is Rus.ell;s admission that he was at the scene of the crime which i$ inadmissible due to Mananda. Our case i even stronger becuase Jes8ia's testimony is independently proscribed since it stemmed from 2 vioations: Miranda of me, and 4th amendmne several. 5

Memo 380. Pa C 1111. Accompice testimony. C Jur I, , . ' 1263, m>, 212 272-0,' 3090,; 3 p, 3094supp 32 3255, 3256, 3256supp, 3258, 3259, 359supp 32 Ahal Secon 928 " i not nery t 11 the Dat deils be -but pro aE the apu u* be made independnt: Q tedi lony aE aaamptioe. (!) "f, after eliinating the testiony of accomplices, the record is devoid of any eYidence tending to connect thedefendant wih the crime charged, the judgement must be reversed - -

> Cites P v Rankin 1937 10 C2d 198 P Y Murphy 1943 60 Capp3nd 762 Re abori,on? Th abortion section is interesting because it pints out that in abortion ikq in this case the plice don't want to prosecute the many people wo are invalled, jst the nes that they perceive to be problematic and that is unfir. Accoml; testiminoy 2720 can be u3ed to hld _or trial but not for convinl.

rhat i Yhy they cut their de :h her. 3255: The theory is that accompJioe tesimony is tainted. Here there the dd;ional tai ot the 4th aendmendt vilation - the Wong Sun taint. Indeed, this ca;e is about TAINr. We needto use t!lat word. Tainted evidence should no

3255: The theory is that accomplice testimony is tainted. Elere there is the addt

the l.ct element alone, that is, proof of the factq forming the bass of the offe

also be proved by rcumstantiAl eYidenc and inferences reasonably drawn therefrom.

The testimony of an accu3ed a. to the facts, vuntarily given from the stand[aha - a distinguished from pice interrogation and its tainted fr1 ] is competent and suffLient to prove the corpus d'l;i.However the cd must be proved by evidence out,side and independent of the defendant's extraju declrations and statements. [aha. They cannot use star free press statemetn to prove corpus deli! It. cannot be proved by an accused's extrajudiial declarations or admissions alone without other corrobative evidence tending to show the com micinnof the crie.

The testimony of an accopJice is ordinar;ly sufflcient, even without corroborc t4 e9tabh the corpus dPlii, cthough the accused'9 connection wih the comnuEsnof the crme must be proved by her evence. But but butl but vhere the f of the ac--innn aE the ca-le and the ct of the accused' nnbDn evith are paraily connedd

the aalpe' ony i nat Pnt prDve the <xpus .lPlii vlout the ave evidenae required fit aonvin--Hram. They hare corpus d for the 3tuff in Jes8ica's pur3e but I am not charged with possession of the stuff in Jegsicas purse although they could infer that the stuff that I ingested came from her prse adn thenc conclude that somebody had posession and Jessaca 9aid th I did to. That they cannot do. ot from the corpus dlii rule but firoll PC 1111.

3258 In a prosecutiDn for seling furn3hing or adminitering narcotics to minors, the minor. are regarded as vir rather lhan accomplice8." But thi cae should be the exception at the ru teca8e bdh of thege gr were much more sophiticabed them I am regarding LSD u3e and acquision.

Key fctual sue from transcript ni ay chat he av rle vi the LSD I think no. I think that her tegtnony was that -he was out on an ---.hould be the exception ot the rle tecawe both of the-e girl rere much more sophicated them I am regarding LSD ue and acquiion.

Key factual isue from transcript: 12id ay that he av me vith the LSD I think no. - I think that her testimony was that he was out on an errand. Similary the "vitim" of an abortion is not considered an ccomple bo the murder of the mother who sought the abortion dies from it. Not exacLy the typical situation - and exception. Forget it.

Cal Jur Crim 3259''Sllffi-enty of Corroboration. Evidence! offered to corroborate the testimony of an accomp]ice must tend, under the appliicable statute, to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense, and the corroboration is not sllfflcint if itmerely show: that commissiDn of the offense or the circumstance thereof. Corroborative evidence must in itsef be of an inculpatry character and must tend to imeliate the accused. It mwt ralate t some act or fact that is an e!lealent of the offense. It must alo, independently. wihtout anyaid of the accomplic'e testimony. irectly connect thea accused with the commision of the spefi crime charged, in such a way aA reasonably to satfy the jury that the accomplie is telling the truth. n Hmm. Let's pause and digest and apply is. - -Problem: cnnect with what? LSD in general- or that wihich was elleged to have been in my hand. Hmm. "Corroborative evidence is suffiient if it tends to connect the defendant with the crme even though it would be slight Atanding abne, and though it does not estbHsh or corroborate every fct or detail testified to by the accomple or every element of the crim." The pages here are comply fl of annotation. Many cases. "Corroborative evidence need not tend e:ablish the precise facts tesfied to by the accompice. 1: sufficient if, standing alone. it tends to connect the accused with the commission of the crime charged. If the accompice is corroborated as to some material. fact, the jury may infer that-he has te fied truthfuly reative to other facts as to which he has not- been corroborated." Aha! Appiation. Jess a wag proved to hae lied about some stuff and to have been wrong about other tuff. She i not deserving of such credence. "It is nat sllffirint, however, that the corroborative evidence merely connects the defendant with the accompice or other person partipating in the crime. " Hmm. "3260 Manner of proof. The requiie corroboration fDr accomplce testimony may be supplied by the direct evidence of other witnesses, but Melissa is an acoomplice and we need to make that issue since she had LSD in her possesion] [and lied about every other aspect of the cae][Proposed exception where acomplices are but sophistacated such as the exoeption allowing minors riPd ad adults] by the accused's own testimony at the trial [not app - except by hearsay of reporter] or inferences therefrom, by the accu:3ed'g own extrajudicial declarations,

Memo 380. Page 6. Caj Jur 3260. Continued confecson and adm;ccin including his cilnce in fhte fact of an accusatory statemtn, either standing alone or coupled with other evidenc, and by circustantial evidence, that it, byinferences frorn the circumstances surrounding the crininal transacgion. But the testmony of one accomplice cannot serve to oorrobrate that of another. Aha! And it has been held that the testimony of an accolplice canc b corrcborated by oive evidence showing the Eerformance of the acts charged, thog created at the time the acts were perforned, if teh authenticity of the objective evidence is testified to by the accomplice alone; under such circumstances, such eYidence is nct c,ther evidence" wihin the meaning of the statute." Huh?

"The amunt and tvpe of evidence necessary to produce such corroboration obviously difees accordin to the crcumstances of each case. testimony of an acconpce may be corroborated by independent evdence of the accu3ed's mctive and opporutniy to commit the crime. Aso, corroboration of accopice testimony may be supped by evidence showing a con3cioUsnecs of culy on the part of the accused fr commisssion of the cimre, sucy as making fAqlP statement to the poice, or make contaditory statemtn in relan ot the rrge agains him. In situation where adoptive admission may be recved in the evidenc, e corroboratin of accomplice testiony ay be suppplied by evidene that the accuse remain silnt the fe fact of accusatory statments. Corr by Fssession of the instruments of the crime. And it may be suuplied by proof that the defendant commitd other recent and similar offenes tending to shol a consistent plan or method. Corroboration of accomplic testimony may also be found in the defendant's attitude while te8tifyingn[inappicable here since I did not testify but it could be appied against the opposing witnesses - but I digress]. The defendant's filure to take the stand, however, does not of itself directly tend to connect him with the crime and may not be considered in connection with corroborative evidence that does not measure up to the statutory requirements.

. . .we're skipping the part about flight at the scene. " Section 3261 - Determination.

The weight to be given to corroborative evidence is for the jury. Consequently, an appelate court wiU set aside the implied finding of the jury that evidence is suffiient to corroborate accomplice testimony only if there is no substantil evidence to support that finding. Hmm. Appication:

If apart from the accompice testimony, the record disc3Lses evidence tending to connect the accused with the crime, an appelLate court will inquire no further in determining the sllffiipnty of he corroborative evidence, and the verdict wiU not be disturbed unless it is clear that on no hypothesis can it stand. Pe v Szeto 81 29 C3rd 20 - -

"The entire conduct of the paries, ~ their relationship, and their acts and conduct during and after the crim may be taken into consideration by the jury in determining the suffLcienty of the corroboration of an accomp]ice's testimony. " Section 3262 In General; Corpus Delecti" See page 4.

2. Reporter's testimony? No. It id not corroborate an element of the crime. Merely corroborateduse uf LSD which use could have been legal.

3. Card in my presence? No. Like the marijuana in Lloyd's hand. Hmm. But Palaschak asked for it. Nope. That is That is proven by Jessica's testimony. Note: Lloyd seems to present a ( illegible; separate?) ground for appeal.

4. Stuff in Jessica's purse? No. Look at the leading case, Lloyd. It merely corroborates that the accomplice had drugs. If anything, it points toward rejecting the accomplice testimony. Motive.

6 but that is not a crime but yes it logically could infer [or] not, could be other legal drugs like alcohol despite testing at station showing .0%? Hmm.

But first we must know what we are to corroborate. 1. Possession of that LSD that Jessica and I consumed. - not the Lsd in Jessica's purse.

Our meeting today. Our 1st meeting. Supplementary brief. 28 oU er issues. Petition for Writ of Halbeas Corpus. Post convictian cunsel - I have none. Septemter 27 and ather sessions - transcript not in record.

It was a plrasure to finally meet yau in person today. As I promised, here is a leKer confirming what we agreed to in tle meebng.

I was very concerned that l listed approximately 28 issues in several of my August letters. Perhaps you Inave not sen the letter yet. For your convenience in ascertaining that you have indeed received tlne letters, Inere is a list of the letters that I wrote to you taken from my leKer index.

11 August 92 12 August 92 13 August 92 16 August 92 25 August 92 15 Sept 92 30 Sept 92

Not specified Not spedfied 4th Amendment violations Not specified. Not specified. Wooa5 issue Miranda issue. Seeger issue rnaybe. Request for copies of my bKers. 95 ALR3rd 280. Discrimirlatoly Proseclron and En;forcement of Laws. Request to confirm who will do Habeas Corpus petiffon. Request to coordinate with Cassy. Penal Code 1111 implles that absence of corroboraion mandates reversal. l am happy to see that you used this tidbit very well.) Not specified.

REQUES TO FILE SUPPLEllENTAL BRIEF You agreed yesterday to immediately request permission to file a supplenntary brief. I had been quite concemed that we would not have an opporlunity to present some issues that I feel are perffnent.

Pll N ON FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS When I asked, you informed rne that you will be cornpensated for your work in wribng a petibon forwrit of habeas corpus to present those issues that are pertinent for such a writ. Did you agree to immediately begin such a writ?

Can you assist me in rernedying this situation? I need to prepare a mobon to modly the terms ol rr probabon.

Prabation is a statutory crealure an as such, the temms erein must be authorized by statute. Many d the terrns of my probabon are not authonzed. I rnoved successfully to strike some of them but more nned to be stricken. This is consuming much the bme that I need to try to win back my bar license. As you know, Attomey Chuck Cassy withdrew frcm my case and no other attorney has been appointed despite rny written request and request in open court bebre Judge Henson that he appoint one.

We observed that we have no transcrpt of several calendar call-type sessons. September 27th was one. At one of these sessions Judge McNal nnade nne plead before hearing my dewrrer. I explained that the law was unconstitutional and requested brrR to bring Timothy Leary and Aexander Shulgin as witnesses. The prosecubon just snickered. I did not have tme to contact these or any pertinent witnesses. Bottom line: the denial of a continuance and taking he plea before the demurrer may be rerersibl error or something. What is the significance? You can answer that question better when you see the recold. I ask that you ask for the transcript of those and all sessions - including the ones por to the gland jury indictment.

This is not a complete record of wha we discussed but we cannot alway delay a btter for lack of cornplebness. The iterative method is more reali;tic. In other words, do it even if it is not perfect and then perfect it ú necessary.

Craigg, it was nice to meet you. I hope that we can work together to dlo an appeal hat will rrce you proud - and get my conviction overtumed.

The submission of this matter on August 26, 1993 ls vacated. Appellant's motions to relieve appointed counsel are denied. Appellant shall have 30 days to file a supplemental brief in propria persona. Respondent shall have 15 days after filing of supplemental brief to file a supplemental respondent's brief.

After completion of the supplemental briefin schedule, this matter will stand submitted.

Lawyerdude adds: On the day before Christmas in 1993 I visited the court of appeal to submit another request for 30 more days. The opinion regarding my case was lying on the table. I won! I enjoyed that luxury for over a year as I recall. The bar took 2 months to give my license back! The prosecutor appealed to the Supreme Court of California. The Supreme Court agreed to take the case - I don’t remember the date. Then I sued the state bar for a client in December 1994. On my next birthday, May 8, 1995 the California Supreme Court ruled against me. I failed to appeal to the Supreme court within the permitted 90 days and I don’t remember if I asked for a rehearing in the Cal Supreme Court. I think that I did. Nonetheless I think that the case stands alive due to the collateral consequences and the fact that the same Supreme Court later upheld a disbarment based on the single use of a recreational drug whose use is lega.