JONESBORO, Ark. — New motions filed in the pending criminal case against Judge-elect Doug Brimhall seek to bar certain terms from being used in the trial process, including “future judge,” “judge-elect,” and “lawyer.”
The “Motion in Limine” was filed on August 15 in Craighead County Circuit Court by Brimhall’s defense lawyer, Bill Stanley of Stanley-Woodard Law Firm in Jonesboro. The legal brief requests a number of prohibitions ranging from terms used to describe the defendant to news articles.
The request begins by asking the court not to refer to the alleged victim as simply the “victim.” The argument is that, without a conviction in the case, she is still merely an alleged victim and by not using the term alleged, the state would be suggesting that a violent crime has been committed.
The use of the term ‘victim’ in reference to the alleged victim prior to a jury finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant committed the offense charged constitutes impermissible bolstering of the evidence by the State and its witnesses which disregards and violates the Defendant’s constitutional rights. Such use of the term ‘victim’ pre-supposes that Defendant committed the underlying offense which imperils the presumption of innocence, right to a fair trial, and right to a fair and impartial jury.
– Motion in Limine
Brimhall also asked the judge to block the state from referencing him as a “future judge,” “judge-elect,” “lawyer,” or any other term that might implicate the defendant’s professional status in the community.
The State should be prohibited from introducing such references as they do not have any tendency to make any fact of consequence to the determination of the action more or less probable than it would be without the evidence and, as such, are irrelevant and inadmissible.
The defendant asked the court to prohibit the state from referencing statements, articles, or assertions posted by news media or on social media, with “KAIT8,” mentioned specifically in the request. According to the motion, they would constitute hearsay.
Defendant specifically moves in limine to prohibit the State from introducing unduly prejudicial assertions like those found in articles such as: (1) ‘Affidavit: Drunk Judge-Elect in Underwear Assaulted Victim;’¹ (2) ‘Circuit Judge-Elect Arrested in Assault on Teenage Family Member;’² and (3) ‘Brimhall’s Upcoming Term as Judge Could End Before It Begins.’³ Of course, Defendant’s motion in limine is not limited to those aforementioned assertions, but includes any such assertions which, like those mentioned above, are made without personal knowledge, are hearsay, are irrelevant, and which are inherently and unduly prejudicial.
¹ Affidavit: Drunk Judge-Elect in Underwear Assaulted Victim, K8 NEWS, https://www.kait8.com/video/2024/05/21/affidavit-drunk-judge-elect-underwear-assaultedvictim/ (May 21, 2024, 12:59 PM).
² Grant Lancaster, Circuit Judge-Elect Arrested in Assault on Teenage Family Member, ARK. DEMOCRAT GAZETTE (May 23, 2024, 6:21 PM), https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2024/may/23/circuit-judge-elect-arrested-in-assault-on/.
³ Stan Morris, Brimhall’s Upcoming Term as Judge Could End Before It Begins, NEA REPORT (May 31, 2024), https://neareport.com/2024/05/31/brimhalls-upcoming-term-asjudge-could-end-before-it-begins/.
The defendant is also asking the court to prohibit the state from introducing testimony or evidence that seeks to portray the “broken windshield” from the night in question “in a false light.” The motion claims that that all witnesses agree the damage to the windshield was not a result of any violent act or propensity by the defendant. Instead, the motion asserts that the broken windshield was the result of an accident.
CONTEXT: Brimhall Redacted Probable Cause Affidavit
Brimhall’s motion continues by asking the court to prohibit the state from introducing any testimony or evidence regarding the defendant removing a television off the wall and throwing it to the ground. The same request is made for Brimhall damaging the alleged victim’s cellular device.
Finally, the motion asks that the state not be allowed to introduce testimony related to Brimhall’s bar tab from the night in question.
WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully prays that his motion be granted, that the government be prohibited from offering the testimony of any witness without personal knowledge of the same, from using any and all guilt-processing procedural terms that pre-suppose or otherwise suggest a preference for a guilty verdict in this case, from any and all references to the Defendant’s professional status, from introducing any and all statements, articles, or assertions posted or otherwise published on social media, in the newspaper, by KAIT8, or any other source, from introducing any testimony or evidence that seeks to establish that Defendant ventured on foot to a gas station on the night in question, from introducing any testimony or evidence that seeks to portray the ‘broken windshield’ from the night in question in a false light, from introducing any testimony or evidence regarding prior wrongs or bad acts of Defendant to prove conformity therewith, from introducing any testimony or evidence regarding the Defendant’s bar tab from the night in question, and any and all other proper relief.
In separate news from the criminal case, Jonesboro attorney Randel Miller has joined the defense counsel. Court records show Miller, Stanley and Paul Ford all representing the defendant in the case.
Brimhall is charged with aggravated assault on a family or household member, a felony, and third-degree domestic battery. The charges stem from allegations on May 3 detailed in the article, below. He has pleaded not guilty to the charges.
All suspects are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
Details Behind Brimhall’s Arrest Revealed in Newly Released Records
SHARE THIS STORY WITH OTHERS:
Discover more from NEA Report
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Be the first to comment