By Andrea Bernal
ALAMEDA, CA – The defense here in Alameda County Superior Court’s Rene C. Davidson Courthouse this week argued the failure of a prosecution witness to show was “not enough” to postpone the trial, and threatened to ask the court to dismiss the case.
The prosecution objected, and the judge agreed.
In a preliminary hearing for a man accused of robbery, the defense argued to the court that after a subpoenaed witness failed to show, there was not enough cause for a continuation of the case because the witness had been contacted multiple times to appear to court but was ultimately unresponsive.
At the start of the hearing, Judge Kimberly Colwell addressed the prosecution, asking, “My understanding is that you’ve subpoenaed the witness and they are not here. And have you contacted them?”
The prosecution replied that he did, in fact, attempt to contact the witness but the witness was ultimately unresponsive to his attempts.
Because of this, Alameda public defender Natalie Robinson argued, “I am objecting that it’s the best decision that a witness not being present without explanation is not an enough cause to continue this matter.” She added she would ask that the case be dismissed.
Still, Robinson expressed that if the court was “not in agreement with her objection” then she was open and willing to set a further date for Sept. 11.
Judge Colwell turned to the prosecution for further clarification and confirmation of the matter, asking, “So, my understanding is that the witness was subpoenaed and failed to show. And you have contact information?”
Again, the prosecutor confirmed he had the witness’s contact information.
Judge Colwell ultimately did not sustain the defense’s objection regarding the subpoenaed witness’s failure to show, and set Sept. 11 for the next hearing.
