June 12, 2015 at 4:34 p.m.
Trial date set in 2003 slaying
Defense seeks access to confidential court records
Trial date set in 2003 slaying
Wolf, 40, is set to face a jury Oct. 15. The trial is expected to last seven days. Wolf is accused of luring Kenneth "Punky" Wells to the Davenport Street bridge in June 2003, striking him with a rock and placing his body in the river. His former wife, Latoya Wolf, has also been charged in connection with Wells' death. Both defendants are charged with first-degree intentional homicide (as party to the crime).
Oneida County Circuit Judge Michael Bloom scheduled the trial during a motion hearing late Wednesday afternoon. Also at the hearing, Bloom agreed to review confidential court records pertaining to the personal histories of two potential witnesses in the case. Wolf's public defender attorney, Maggie Hogan, filed two motions asking Bloom to perform an in-camera review of records of cases involving two witnesses who will be called by District Attorney Michael Schiek if the matter goes to trial. Hogan indicated she is looking for information she may use to challenge the credibility of the two witnesses.
An in-camera review is where the judge examines the material and determines if it should or should not be released to both sides.
Wolf was not in the courtroom Wednesday, having been returned to Stanley Correctional Institution where he is serving a 12-year sentence for stabbing a woman in 2012.
In one of her motions, Hogan asked Bloom to inspect records relative to involuntary termination of parental rights proceedings involving Latoya and Shannon Wolf in 2009. In the second motion, she asked Bloom to review records connected to a Chapter 51 proceeding involving state's witness Michael J. Steinmetz, Jr.
A Chapter 51 proceeding is used to involuntarily commit an individual who has been deemed a danger to himself or others.
Bloom said he discussed the matter with Steinmetz and his attorney, Andrew Jarmuz, on the record and they both indicated they are not opposed to the review.
"Unless there is any objection from either counsel, due to the circumstances, I would be inclined to grant the in-camera inspection of those records in response to Miss Hogan's motion," Bloom said. "Following that inspection I will either order the records, or portions of the records, disclosed, or not, following my analysis."
Neither side objected to the ruling, but Schiek asked that anything in the files not released remained sealed. Bloom said a protective order would be issued on any parts of the file not released, due to their sensitive nature.
Schiek also did not contest the second motion.
"I reviewed Miss Hogan's motion, and the affidavit contained in it, stating why she thinks it is relevant, and how it is going to help potentially the defense," Schiek said. "There isn't anything I'm concerned with, it's very specific more than ambiguous."
Schiek did cite a Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling that is pending in a similar matter. He said he didn't want Bloom to stay his order until the ruling is handed down, but did ask why Shannon Wolf couldn't give consent to Hogan to examine the records in the most unobtrusive manner possible.
Hogan said she is not only seeking any pertinent records from the court file, but also any possible information from the records of the Department of Social Services workers who handled the case up until it went to court.
"I can get the case files from Mr. Wolf's attorney at the time, which would have some of the information.," she said. "However, we're seeking the totality of the Social Services file. There could be social worker notes, interaction between Miss Latoya Wolf and the social worker at the time. It would contain matters that wouldn't be in the records that Mr. Wolf's (former) attorney would have in her notes."
Hogan said Social Services would not release the file without a court order compelling it to do so.
Bloom said it appears that Hogan had already attempted to do what Schiek had proposed, but was unsuccessful.
Again, Schiek had no objection to Hogan's motion.
"I'm just interested in a fair trial. I just want to make sure the defendant gets a fair trial," Schiek said. "I guess the bottom line is I don't object to their request, I think it is the safe way to do it; certainly trusting that your honor will be able to view the records and determine what would be relevant, if anything, then letting the parties, once you let us know what that ruling would be, and we would be satisfied with that."
Bloom said Hogan set forth the proper requirements in her motion, a reasonable likelihood that the records could contain information necessary for a determination of guilt or innocence.
"And information is necessary to such a determination if it is to create a reasonable doubt that might not otherwise exist," Bloom said. "Here Latoya Wolf is a pretty important witness for the state in this case. If anything, I say that tongue- in-cheek, I mean Latoya Wolf is an absolutely essential and the essential witness for the state. If Latoya Wolf is taken out of the equation, the state's case - at least based on what has been presented to me thus far - is basically not viable."
Bloom said the situation leading up to the termination of the Wolfs' parental rights certainly raises questions about their parenting skills and what might have led the state to request the termination.
"The potential for conflict between Shannon Wolf and Latoya Wolf, and the potential that either or both parties may have taken positions or provided information during the course of the investigation relevant to the involuntary termination of parental rights proceeding fueled that fire, certainly makes it sufficiently likely that there might be relevant evidence to justify an in-camera review," Bloom said.
He noted that case law states that the threshold for ordering an in-camera review is not unduly high.
"The law also provides that in cases where there is a close call, the circuit court should provide an in-camera review," he said. "In the event that no relevant information is contained in the record, the court can control its disclosure or nondisclosure accordingly."
Bloom said this is a case where there was a court proceeding instituted by the state and some records are not available to Hogan through the normal course of discovery. If the information contained in those files would provide the defense "legitimate material to be used in cross- examining and properly challenging the credibility of Latoya Wolf, it falls under the broad Brady (case law) umbrella, as I see it," Bloom said. "The district attorney's office is not necessarily calling the shots, it is not the state's authority that is keeping the information from the defense lawyer."
Since Hogan has indicated that she tried to gain access to the record through normal channels, her motion is in order, he added.
"For all those reasons, I'm going to grant an in-camera inspection of the records," he said.
Bloom ordered all of the records produced to his office by July 6 so he can begin his review.
Hogan than advised Bloom the parties have been discussing the potential trial and have agreed that five days for witnesses would probably be enough time, while a day before and after will be necessary for opening and closing statements.
Hogan said she anticipates calling eight witnesses while Schiek said his list could run between eight and 15.
"We thought it would be at least a five-day trial," Hogan said.
Schiek said he consulted with the detectives working the case that morning. Not wanting to limit his options, he said there would probably be approximately 15 witnesses for the prosecution.
"Not all-day witnesses, but certainly we need to hear from all of them," Schiek said.
"Five days then," Bloom asked?
"Maybe one or two extra, just in case, your honor," Schiek replied.
After consulting his calendar, Bloom suggested Thursday, Oct. 15 through Friday, Oct. 23, which would be seven court days, for the trial. Both sides agreed on those dates.
"If, as time goes by, it becomes apparent that we can par that down, I would trust that counsel would tip me off, and we can adjust accordingly," Bloom said.
Schiek then suggested setting a date for a final pretrial conference. Bloom proposed 11:30 a.m. Sept. 1. Hogan said she may filed additional motions; Schiek said he may also file motions. Motion hearing dates will be set as needed, Bloom said.
"I'll trust counsel to determine what is necessary and file and notice appropriately," Bloom said.
A trial date has not been set in Latoya Wolf's case.
She is due back in court July 2.
Jamie Taylor may be reached at [email protected].
Comments:
You must login to comment.