Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Defense urges reversal in Schmaltz appeal, citing voir dire remarks and prior-consistent evidence
Summary
At an appellate oral argument, defense counsel for Ezekiel Schmaltz asked the court to vacate convictions arising from a jury trial, arguing prosecutors' voir dire remarks and repeated admission of prior-consistent statements violated the defendant's rights; the state urged affirmance but agreed the felony counts should be merged for judgment.
Mary Newton, defense attorney for Ezekiel Schmaltz, told the appellate court, "we are ultimately asking the court to vacate the jury's verdict and either dismiss the indictment or give mister Schmaltz a new trial." The argument focused on three main claims: an improper prosecutor remark during voir dire, the admission of prior-consistent statements about the child-victim's account, and whether two felony convictions should have been merged.
The case arises from trial testimony in which the minor victim said she woke up multiple times and found her pants lowered while a relative shone a flashlight on her; the defense says the evidence on the statutory element of purpose for sexual arousal or gratification was insufficient. Newton summarized trial evidence and objections, and she argued that…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
