The motion for new trial pursuant to Maine Rules of criminal Procedure 33 hand delivered yesterday to the Superior Court in the case of State of Maine v Roxanne Jeskey : STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT PENOBSCOT, ss. Criminal Action Docket No. CR-11-2195 STATE OF MAINE ) ) vs. ) MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL ) PURSUANT TO Me. R. Crim. P. 33 ROXANNE JESKEY, ) ) Defendant ) NOW COMES the Defendant, Roxanne Jeskey, by and through her counsel, Joseph M. Baldacci and David W. Bate, and files the following Motion for New Trial on grounds that counsel were required to represent Ms. Jeskey at a murder trial while she was actively experiencing untreated psychotic disorders, making it impossible to meaningfully prepare or advise her regarding her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. On January 2, 2014, after an extended period of time to review with Ms. Jeskey whether she would testify in her own defense or not, her counsel informed the court, in open session and on the record, that: 1. both Attorney Bate and myself had personally witnessed Ms. Jeskey have psychotic breaks with reality; and 2. Ms. Jeskey needed to be examined by a psychiatrist as supported by the testimony of Dr. Doiron – a Board Certified Neuropsychologist with 40 years experience in the field and a former head of Neuropsychology at Maine Medical in Portland – that Roxanne Jeskey was an untreated person with a psychotic disorder and diagnosis who needed to be placed on Seroquel. While waiting 5 months for the Courts verdict and having made repeated requests for antipsychotic medication during trial and hearings in this matter and later with the Sheriffs Department, Ms. Jeskey finally was put back on Seroquel, an antipsychotic medication. The change in her demeanor and presentation was noticeable to counsel, Ms. Jeskey’s family, the press and the public. This supports Justice Murray’s original order on competence requiring that Ms. Jeskey go to Riverview to “bolster her competence.” Ms. Jeskey clearly would have benefitted from antipsychotic medication during her trial. Based on all these circumstances, it was manifestly unjust for Ms. Jeskey to be tried while she was actively psychotic. It certainly was impossible for her to be adequately counseled and make a truly voluntary and informed decision about one of the most critical phases of a criminal trial: whether to testify in her own defense. WHEREFORE, Ms. Jeskey respectfully requests a new trial in this matter pursuant to Me. R. Crim. P. 33. Dated: ____________________________________ Joseph M. Baldacci, Esq. Dated: ____________________________________ David W. Bate, Esq.
Posted on: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 18:35:54 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015