by Bessie Samson and Antoinnette Borbon
Today began the first day of paneling a jury for the state’s case against defendant Ming. Ming has been indicted on a charge of first degree murder of a Davis resident, that happened at the College Square apartments on J St back in October 1, 2011. Ming claims he knew the victim briefly, but the victim was suffering with several illnesses and had asked him to end his suffering.
The victim, Kevin Seery, 42, was reportedly suffering from a number of ailments which included diabetes, chronic pancreatitis, chronic hepatitis and pneumonia at the time of his death. He stood at 6-1 but weighed just 133 pounds.
The DA’s office chose to take this case before the grand jury for an indictment, rather than have a preliminary hearing. Defense attorney Dan Hutchinson stated today during the motions in limine, to determine evidence that will be admitted, “It was their right to go before the Grand Jury.”
According to news accounts at the time, Mr. Mings confessed to the killing, turning himself in and claiming that Mr. Seery had asked him to kill him.
Mr. Mings put Mr. Seery in a choke hold and then stuffed a variety of items into his throat, preventing Mr. Seery from breathing.
Prosecuting attorney is Deputy DA Martha Holzapfel.
Last week a list of questions pertaining to suicide was compiled for prospective jurors to answer before being selected on this jury.
Today Judge Richardson began focusing on those prospective jurors with hardships. The rest of the panel was sent out to fill out the questionnaire.
Afterwards, we heard the motions in limine. Deputy Public Defender Dan Hutchinson went over the precedent case of People vs. Matlock. This was a case from 1958. It was a case, as Dan pointed out, that had to do with a life insurance policy and financial problems the victim had been facing, with, to our knowledge, no terminal illness involved.
Mr. Hutchinson pointed out how Ms. Holzapfel did not read the case in its entirety. He read over several parts of the case to the judge, explaining the differences in these cases.
Another motion made by Deputy DA Holzapfel was to allow the victim’s mother to be in the courtroom for the trial once she had given testimony. Judge Richardson allowed it and defense stipulated.
More important was the motion made by defense not to allow the mental health diagnosis of the victim. Mr. Hutchinson stated, ” I am not going to disclose what I have for trial but I do not feel it is necessary to bring up the victim’s mental health diagnosis. “
Another motion pertained to the recorded interviews of defendant, the 911 call, and other witnesses. Both parties stipulated on this motion, to allow them for trial.
Wrapping things up, Mr. Hutchinson went on to talk about the intent to kill, willful killing and this case not being one of malicious intent.
Court adjourned for the day and will continue at 9:30 am Tuesday morning.
Trial is expected to have opening statements by late Wednesday. The incident marked the first murder in the city of Davis in seven years.
I realize that this is a somewhat peripherally relevant post, but for those who are interested in the topics of devastating illness, autonomy, human dignity, respect, empathy and love, I highly recommend the
movie Amour which provides insights into this difficult situation without undue advocacy.
Thanks Medwoman. I’ll have to watch that sometime. I loved the movies, The Sea Inside, and Bread and Tulips.