From Deseret News archives:
Sequestering Smart jury opposed
The objection came in response to a flurry of motions Mitchell's attorneys filed last month. While most of the defense motions were routine, one called for the jury to be sequestered during the scheduled three-week trial in February, something virtually unheard of in Utah.
Monday prosecutors responded to all the motions, opposing almost every one.
The motion to sequester the jury should be denied because it is "unnecessary, would waste judicial resources and would unfairly limit the make-up of the jury," according to court documents.
"The state believes that proper instructions to the jury admonishing them from watching television, reading newspapers and avoiding other types of media is sufficient," prosecutors further argued.
The defense motion is a "blatant attempt to use sequestration as a means of proscribing certain persons or classes of persons from jury service," according to court documents.
Also Monday, prosecutors objected to the defense team's challenge of the grand jury proceedings that indicted Mitchell. Grand juries are constitutionally sanctioned and empowered, and such proceedings do not deprive Mitchell of his due process of law, according to documents filed Monday in 3rd District Court.
"Mitchell's objections are untimely and are legally irrelevant," prosecutors argued.
Prosecutors also contended in court documents that Mitchell's prior criminal history should be allowed during trial. In particular, the district attorney's office said Mitchell's criminal mischief conviction in Lakeside, Calif., in 2003 after he broke into a church shows at the time he "had the culpable mental state required for his conviction and that he knew exactly what he was doing" at the time he allegedly kidnapped Smart.
Prosecutors also objected:
• To a motion preventing uniformed officers from being in the courtroom during trial and limiting the show of force in the courtroom.
• To a motion allowing Mitchell to appear in court without shackles. Prosecutors argued he can still wear leg shackles without prejudicing the jury. And he should still wear his Salt Lake County jail-issued jumpsuit during hearings where the jury isn't present.
• To a motion to view the alleged crime scene and Elizabeth Smart's house. Mitchell has not shown "good cause," and Smart's "privacy rights outweigh (Mitchell's) right to inspect" the Smart's home, according to court documents.
• To the characterization that Mitchell's statements were obtained illegally.
Prosecutors also said they would not encourage inappropriate emotional responses during trial.
