O P I N I O N
To the Editor:
In the case of The State of NH versus Mark Heath: Superior Court Case No. 216-2017-CR-02135 there was a conflict of interest and the defendant was denied his right to a fair trial.
Mark Heath had a public defender due to financial difficulty which precipitated the conflict of interest and interfered with his right to a fair trial.
At the conclusion of trial, The State’s Prosecutor Susan Morrell, Esq set up the Jury’s room.
Actual itemized exhibits from the trial were omitted from the jury’s view.
An exhibit is physical or documentary evidence brought before the jury. The artifact or document itself is to be presented for the jury’s inspection.
The jury recognized that one of the exhibits was absent, so they requested it and the Honorable Diane M. Nicolosi, Judge of the Superior Court replied “the State gave you everything that they want you to see in order to determine the verdict. You will have to go off of your memory from what you heard and saw during the trial to cover that aspect of Mark Heath’s case.”
The State left out an important exhibit that could have altered the outcome of Mark Heath’s trial.
The Judge enabled and supported the State in manipulating the presentation of evidence as evidenced by the judge’s rejection of the jury’s request to see that exhibit.
The defense attorney told his client that his hands were tied and he couldn’t do anything about getting the Juror’s to see the exhibit since the judge ruled in favor of The State’s presentation of evidence.
This suppression of an exhibit of legal evidence created an unfair trial for the defendant.
Submitted by Tracy L. Poirier