OFF THE WIRE
A hearing in a Battle Creek murder case stopped abruptly Monday when prosecutors attempted to call the defendant’s attorney as a witness.
In what some judges privately said later was unprecedented, Calhoun County Assistant Prosecutor Jeff Kabot said he wanted to question defense attorney Matthew Glaser about statements Glaser allegedly made to police implicating his client, John Lindahl, in the Jan. 1 death of Lee Taylor.
Taylor, 45, was found dead inside the Iron Coffin Motorcycle Club at 15 Gilbert St. Lindahl, 54, of Kalamazoo, and another man, Matthew Starkweather, 32, of Battle Creek are charged with open murder in the beating death.
But the hearing for Lindahl was brief after Kabot said he wanted to question Glaser about statements that Glaser allegedly made suggesting Lindahl should have immunity to testify in the case “because all my guy did was hit him twice with a shotgun to break up a fight.”
Police and prosecutors have given Mario Baroso limited immunity to testify about what he saw inside the clubhouse. Baroso, also known as Paco, was expected to testify Monday and next week during a continuation of the preliminary examination of Starkweather.
When Kabot called Glaser as his first witness, Glaser immediately objected and within a couple of minutes he and Kabot were shouting at each other before District Judge Frank Line adjourned the hearing and said he wanted both lawyers to submit written briefs on the question.
Kabot said during the hearing and later that Glaser was talking to a Battle Creek detective and crime laboratory specialist in the courthouse several weeks ago and suggested immunity for his client because “he only struck Mr. Taylor twice in the head with the shotgun.”
Calling it an “intentional disclosure to a third party which doesn’t have to be by the client,” Kabot said, “It seems to suggest that he had Mr. Lindahl’s permission to divulge.” He argued that the protection of attorney-client privilege would be waived in that case, so prosecutors should be able to question Glaser about the statements.
But Glaser objected, saying statements are waived “only if my client divulges it to a third party. A defense attorney can open discussions and (Kabot) is off base with the privilege. He is trying to make this an embarassment. Why not try the case.”
Later, Glaser said, “if that is all he has to rely on is cheap theatrics then he doesn’t have a case. He has proof problems.”
Glaser said he is allowed to discuss some aspects of a client’s case as part of negotiations, like plea agreements and in this case for possible immunity to testify.
“Otherwise you would not be able to communicate,” he said. “I am allowed to make those communications.”
Glaser said his statements to officers was part of a general discussion “about my opinion that they should grant immunity to my client. There was no meat or substance to the case.”
“(Mr. Kabot) says he has all the answers and he doesn’t have any.”
But Kabot said he has a previous case that suggests to him that he could call Glaser and question him about the statements.
Line, not aware beforehand about Kabot’s plan to call Glaser, said the hearing would not continue until both lawyers file written briefs. He set a deadline of one month for the briefs to be filed.
http://www.battlecreekenquirer.com/article/20120312/NEWS01/303120030/Murder-hearing-delayed
