Horace M. Kimmel, Jr.
PO Box 10769
Greensboro, NC 27404-0769
October 28, 1997
Mr. W. David Lloyd Attorney at Law
101 South Elm St.
RE: Correspondence of October 24, 1997.
I am in
receipt of your letter which alleges that I am taking advantage of a
the scheduling power which rests with the State which to perpetrate
a "fundamental unfairness."
indicated in our telephone conversation, I have very little control
over the court time which is allocated for the trial of this case. I
received the court schedule for the first six months of 1998 about
two weeks ago. That schedule gave my team two multi-week terms
during that six months, both of which are in January of 1998.
Therefore, I must schedule major cases during those terms of court.
You have obviously chosen not to believe the information that I
provided to you and chosen to endorse Mr. Hatfield's position that
every date the State proposes is part of a conspiracy to deprive him
of one of his unscheduled vacations.
Since I did
not have a schedule at the time of our earlier conversation, I find
it very unlikely that I would have committed to a May date. My
recollection is that Mr. Harrelson, who was then involved in the
case, came up with the projection of May of 1998.
I have had
conversations with Mr. Hatfield after I sent him the letter he
showed you. As I have told Mr. Hatfield, I suggest that all
attorneys involved file their proposed vacation plans with the
Superior Court and give a copy to the District Attorney's Office. I
will then set a trial date which does not conflict with the
scheduled vacations and you can file any motions to continue that
you deem appropriate. I have also met with the codefendant's counsel
and they oppose a January date due to the illness of their
important that you realize that if we are unable to utilize the
multi-week terms that are available in January, the case may not be
heard until after July 1, 1998. Your client may not consent to that
type of a delay and may desire to have the matter heard in January.
It would be the position of the State of North Carolina that if the
matter is not reached in January, the defendant(s) would not be in a
position to object if the trials are not rescheduled until after
July 1, 1998.
preparing additional discovery for each defendant and I anticipate
it will be ready be the end of this week. With the discovery packet,
I will suggest that all attorneys involved meet briefly to discuss
scheduling and to request any materials that they feel they should
have been provided and have not received.
Richard E. Panosh
Assistant District Attorney
Published August 15, 2006. Report broken links or other problems.
© PWC Consulting. Visit our website at www.preventwrongfulconvictions.org for information on our Mission and Services, and to sign up for our Newsletter.