Dibor Roberts sat quietly in court again Wednesday while defense and prosecution attorneys argued their points over a series of motions before the court in advance of a mid-May trial. She is charged with resisting arrest and unlawful flight when a sheriff's sergeant attempted to pull her over for alleged speeding.
Judge Michael Bluff began the session by releasing his decision on two requests "to dismiss" that were part of earlier motions filed by Roberts' attorney Stephen Renard. Bluff refused the requests alluding they were premature. Accompanying motions also had been denied during an April 5 hearing.
Wednesday, the judge was faced with three more motions.
Prosecutor Glen Hammond had asked the judge to exclude all reference to a search warrant that was sought for the Roberts' home phones and records.
A witness of the late July 29, 2007, traffic stop on Cornville Road had claimed that he heard a male voice on the other end of the cell phone that Dibor Roberts had reportedly been using during the traffic stop. Sgt. Jeff Neunum who made the traffic stop broke out the rear window of Roberts car and reportedly took that cell phone away at the time of the stop. The officer believed that Roberts was talking with her husband, Merrill, at the time. The following day, a warrant was issued for Merrill Roberts, apparently as an accomplice to the unlawful flight charge that had been leveled against Dibor.
A search of the phone records showed that Dibor Roberts never completed the call to her husband or 911. The warrant for Merrill Roberts was subsequently quashed.
Renard said he wanted the search warrant disclosed because it went to the "credibility" of the officer's case.
Judge Bluff told the attorneys that they may discuss the outcome of the investigation into the phone records at trial, but should not discuss underlying reasons for the search warrant itself.
In a second motion, Roberts' attorney, Renard, asked that an expert witness be prevented from testifying on behalf of the state about the "high risk" traffic stop in which Neunum approached Roberts' car with his gun drawn and then broke out the window of the vehicle to take custody of the woman.
Hammond told the judge that it was important to explain to a jury why high-risk procedures and force are used.
Renard argued that if a "reasonable person" would not have understood a high risk stop, then it would have been implicit that Dibor did not understand either.
Judge Bluff supported the defense motion to exclude the expert. Bluff told Hammond, "my concern is a state witness telling the jury what they should conclude."
One matter remains. Judge Bluff has set a May 1 hearing to hear arguments on whether the defense may be allowed to "impeach" prosecution witness Collin Bass. Hammond want the judge to prevent the defense from revealing that prosecution witness Collin Bass has a misdemeanor conviction for theft. Hammond claims in his request that the "prejudicial effect would greatly outweigh any probative value of admitting this evidence."
The trial of Dibor Roberts continues to be set for May 14,15, and 16. Judge Bluff told the attorneys that the trial would have use of the much larger Division 3 courtroom. The hearings in the case have typically drawn a small crowd of supporters for the defendant.
Posted: Friday, April 25, 2008
Article comment by:
Ron
Mrs. Roberts should have never broken the law. People are extremely too quick to accuse law enforcement of wrong doing. WERE YOU THERE? From the reports I have read, the Officer did the right thing. Roberts should have stopped and cracked the window to talk with the Deputy. Hopefully she receives the charges she deserves.
If it was anyone else it would have not gone this way...
