Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Evidence policy has one target

Two lawyers complain that a State Attorney's Office policy singles out their firm. It sure does, state prosecutors agree.

By JOHN FRANK
Published October 12, 2006

INVERNESS - State prosecutors shed light Wednesday on a new evidence policy aimed at an Inverness law firm.

William Grant and Milan "Bo" Samargya, two Inverness lawyers, filed documents Monday declaring their intentions to sue the 5th Judicial Circuit State Attorney's Office because they feel they are being unfairly targeted after they alleged that prosecutors engaged in misconduct.

Brad King, the circuit's elected state attorney, acknowledged Wednesday that a new policy requiring the attorneys to personally copy evidence in criminal proceedings applies just to Grant and Samargya's law firm.

"That policy was instituted only because they claim we had given them a copy of video evidence that was not complete, and that we had intentionally deleted a portion before we gave it to them," King said.

The new rules were detailed in a Sept. 11 letter written by Assistant State Attorney Rich Buxman, who supervises the Citrus County prosecutor's office.

State prosecutors normally make copies of electronic evidence for defense attorneys during a case's discovery process. But under the new rules, Grant and Samargya's firm needs to make appointments to copy evidence as well as view the original and the copy to verify authenticity.

The firm then must sign a document acknowledging that the material is a "complete and accurate recording."

It is the same policy that applies to all capital punishment cases, King said.

Buxman said it doesn't apply to other law firms because "we've never had any of these claims from any other attorney in Citrus County."

To force other law firms under the same rule "would be unfair," Buxman said.

He explained that the procedures changed after Samargya made claims in court Aug. 10 that prosecutors destroyed evidence in the case against Karrie Corr, who was charged with driving under the influence and possession of a controlled substance.

Buxman said prosecutors accidentally purged a videotape from the police stop because the defendant was referred to drug court. They were unaware that it was needed for the misdemeanor DUI case.

A judge compelled the defense to hand over its copy of the tape to prosecutors, but it came back with large portions missing, Buxman said.

The case was ultimately dismissed because prosecutors lacked proof. Buxman wouldn't go as far as to say that Samargya destroyed evidence.

Samargya said in a previous interview that it's not necessary for the defense to provide evidence. It must act in its client's best interest.

King and Buxman would not comment specifically on the charges leveled in the filing that warns of a potential lawsuit against the State Attorney's Office.

Grant and Samargya claim that King and Buxman are deliberately discriminating against their firm, engaging in unfair trade practices, abusing the judicial process, engaging in antitrust activities and civil conspiracy, and imposing extraordinary and unlawful requirements.

"I just prefer to leave it alone," King said. "Because it honestly doesn't dignify another public comment."

John Frank can be reached at jfrank@sptimes.com or 860-7312.

[Last modified October 11, 2006, 20:33:37]