by Antoinnette Borbon
The day began with a lot of confusion over a mistake made by the court clerk in not notifying both parties about what courtroom defendant James Mings’ arraignment was to take place.
Defense attorney Dan Hutchinson mentioned this case has been before Judge Richardson in Department 1 but somehow ended up in Department 6 today. Neither Dan Hutchinson nor Deputy District Attorney Martha Holzapfel understood why they had not been notified about the change.
The victim, Kevin Seery, was 42 and suffered from diabetes, pancreatitis and a few other illnesses which made him want to die. Mr. Mings had only known the victim a few weeks.
Evidence from the autopsy report indicated the victim, Kevin Gerard Seery, had pieces of cloth and gauze stuffed in his throat along with fractured neck bones, and died of asphyxiation. Mr. Mings has been in custody since his arrest in 2011. It was he and his friend who first reported the death to the police on the eve of October 6, 2011.
The state’s case had been set to start back in February, and even had jury selection in process, when Deputy DA Holzapfel fell ill. Defense Hutchinson wanted to move forward with setting a new trial date, but a dismissal was ruled and this case was re-filed by Ms. Holzapfel on March 4.
Finally, in Tuesday’s court appearance, we heard both defense and prosecution have a tough time coming up with a mutual date to begin the trial. But the court has to allow this case to go to Judge Fall’s department first, even if they both agree to a new start date, so Judge Fall can make it official. I am not sure why, as I understood it would still go back before Judge Richardson in the event of said trial.
We waited in the courtroom to see if Judge Fall could let the court clerk know he agreed to the court date for trial, but he could not be reached. Mr. Hutchinson suggested both parties come back to court at 1:30 today, but Ms. Holzapfel stated she had a presentation in the afternoon and could not be there. Dan asked the court to have someone sit in for her for a second and follow up so the case could move forward. Ms. Holzapfel disagreed, stating she wanted to be present.
It appeared neither party wanted any other attorneys sitting in for them on this case. So, after debating was over, Judge Reed asked them to be present at 9 am in his courtroom to make sure the clerk had cleared the next hearing with Judge Fall so he could make the official trial date to begin on April 29, 2013.
Mr. Hutchinson stated this will be a two-week trial, but he appeared anxious to get started; rightly so, as this has already consumed time.
Defendant James Mings appeared calm and patient thru all the back and forth moments between Mr. Hutchinson and Ms.Holzapfel.
Mr. Mings wrote in one of his blogs that he has learned a lot about life and love, the connection between the two and just how precious they both are.
Wednesday at 9 am in Judge Reed’s courtroom, we should get more confirmation.
[quote]Mr. Mings writes in one of his blogs that he has learned a lot about life and love, the connection between the two and just how precious they both are.[/quote]
If you are reaching for nice things to say about the guy I bet he doesn’t kick stray puppies either.
Given that this is not a typical murder trial, your comment seems misplaced.
What a shameful waste of everyone’s time and money. The more people read and see what goes on in a real courtroom, the more dysfunctional they can see it is.
What makes you assume that this is not a typical murder trial?
The defendant has admitted to killing the victim in this case, but he claims that the victim wanted him to do so. That makes it an atypical murder case.
Someone who is capable of taking another persons life in the manner described is responsible for cold blooded premeditated murder. Should his “claims” be believed? I think not.
The question I have is how do you know it was an act of coldblood and not an act of compassion? How do you know he did not feel anguish and regret over the decision? He did after all turn himself in. I’m not going to presume to know the answers here, but I think a trial is the appropriate vehicle to determine them.
this is what makes it a unusual case:
Mings had no criminal history prior to this. There were no drugs or alcohol involved, and he was the one that called 911. He also walked in to the Police Dept and confessed to killing Seery.
Seery was 6″1″ and only 133lbs with chronic hepatis, chronic pancreatitis, diabetes, used a wheelchair and had pneumonia.
typo…..hepatitis not hepatis.
Ming also claimed Seery asked Mings to put him out of his misery. With a liver that is probably on it’s last leg, odd that Seery didn’t know that he could end his own life himself with probably not more than a hand full of tylenol.
Good post Wesley506. I would say this is a very unusual case, I can’t recall a case of basically claimed assisted suicide or mercy killing in Yolo County.
Wesley506 – how do you know that there were “no drugs or alcohol involved”? Is it compassionate to stuff cloth down his throat and break his neck?
[quote]Wesley506 – how do you know that there were “no drugs or alcohol involved”? Is it compassionate to stuff cloth down his throat and break his neck?[/quote]
The March 22nd article in the Enterprise where Detective Doroshov was interviewed. Doroshov said they that it did not appear that drugs or alcohol were involved. Doroshov also said that neither robbery or theft appeared to have been a motive.
Re-read my post. No where did I state or imply that it was compassionate to stuff cloth down someones throat and break their neck.
Correction: I believe the Enterprise article is from October 4, 2011. When I Goggled it March 22 shows up at the top of the Enterprise article, but it appears that the date of actual article was the date of October 4, 2011. Search “Kevin Seery murder” and you will see it.