Friday, August 2, 2019

William Baskerville Case: Evidentiary Hearing Update

I have discussed the William Baskerville case in numerous past posts. William ended-up with a bifurcated hearing – in other words the hearing was broken into two parts, with the second part perhaps unnecessary depending on the first part. We await the ruling of the Honorable US District Judge Peter Sheridan on the first part of the hearing. Judge Sheridan is expected to rule on August 8, 2019.

William Baskerville's attorney for the evidentiary hearing process is Bruce Throckmorton of Trenton, New Jersey. There was also an investigator on the case, but I will not name him yet. When Mr. Throckmorton was first appointed to this case, both William and I had our doubts, mainly due to the lack of communication. However, there are many attorneys who fail to communicate with clients early in a case and yet they are skilled at their job – which is being an attorney! Bruce Throckmorton fits this description!

When I read the brief linked below, at times I held my breath and at other times tears rolled down my face. Mr. Throckmorton has shown that he really does have a grasp on this convoluted case, which is not a simple task. This case is complicated by the voluminous Paul Bergrin case and the testimony of Anthony Young, who claimed to be the shooter in the Kemo Deshawn McCray murder.

No matter what happens on August 8th when the Honorable US District Judge Peter Sheridan rules, Mr. Throckmorton has effectively represented William. As this brief shows clearly, exemplary research and writing skills are far more important than initial client communications.

I will not say what I think the outcome will be and in a sense, I am still holding my breath. The brief itself is 29 pages and the the remaining pages are the relevant attachments.

William Baskerville 2255 Defense Brief July 30 2019

The government filed a brief responding to the defense brief linked above. They also filed two letters, one of which basically calls the judge's Opinion a farce. The government is in full threatening mode at this point and there's no telling what they're doing behind the scenes. As the government's case  against William Baskerville could easily be unraveled at this time, which also threatens their case against Paul Bergrin, this was to be expected. It is the reason my statement above was so short and really said nothing much.

The bottom line is that this case is one big farce - good word choice on the government's part, but applied differently from me. The additional documents:

William Baskerville 2255 Defense Letter August 5 2019

William Baskerville 2255 Govt Brief August 5 2019

William Baskerville 2255 Govt Letter August 5 2019

William Baskerville 2255 Govt Letter no 2 August 5 2019

In government letter no 2, they state:

Dear Judge Sheridan: William Baskerville seeks an adjournment of Thursday’s oral argument because the Government submitted a 1200-page Appendix with its post-hearing brief. Baskerville neglected to mention, however, that the Appendix mostly contains trial transcripts from the Bergrin case i.e., the very transcripts Baskerville cited in his § 2255 motion and Traverse and mentioned in his post-hearing brief. This farce has dragged out long enough. The requested adjournment should be denied.

So the government views the judge's Opinion and due process as a farce. But we already knew that, didn't we?

UPDATE ON 18 AUGUST 2019 @ 11:25AM -

Bruce Throckmorton filed a brief responding to the government's brief linked above and the government filed two letters. While the government's brief included everything but the kitchen sink, they chose to attack William Baskerville's attorney for including one (1) short telephone call transcript, referring to it as not within the scope of the hearing. The documents:

William Baskerville 2255 Govt Letter August 14 2019

William Baskerville 2255 Govt Letter August 15 2019

William Baskerville 2255 Defense Brief August 15 2019

As far as I am aware, the judge will rule soon. There could be a second part to the hearing as it was bifurcated and all of this is about the first part. It is also possible that the judge will rule on the case and there is no need for the second part of the hearing. I will update as soon as I get more information.