Lawyers Tussle Over Evidence in Case of Man Accused of Wife's Murder, Arson
Martin Rodriguez, 48, of Oak Forest appeared in court Tuesday, Jan. 22, the first time since his release from the hospital and his arrest for allegedly strangling his wife and setting her body afire in December.
A preliminary hearing for an Oak Forest man accused of strangling his wife and setting her body and their home on fire unexpectedly became a three-hour affair of stops and starts as opposing counsel wrangled over DNA evidence Tuesday, Jan. 22.
The case against Martin Rodriguez, 48, is still in bond court, as prosecutors are still within a 30-day window to issue formal charges. Prosecutors say on the morning of Dec. 18, Rodriguez waited until their three children were at school before strangling his wife Erica, then slitting his own throat and setting the fire, according to prosecutors.
Rodriguez survived the fire and was treated for burns and a cut to his throat. He is charged with first-degree murder and aggravated arson.
He was denied bail appeared in bond court before Cook County Judge Carmen K. Aguilar, his first appearance since his arrest and discharge from the hospital. Wearing khaki-colored Department of Corrections garb, Rodriguez's throat was heavily bandanged with what appeared to be white gauze and he leaned on a walker during much of the hearing.
Prosecutors filed a notice Tuesday morning that some of the DNA evidence they intend to test—including vaginal swabs from a rape kit, blood swabs from the scene and blood from the handles of three knives at the scene—may be destroyed or "consumed" by the testing.
The notice is a routine courtesy, prosecutor Cheryl Galvin indicated to Aguilar. But Assistant Public Defender Dan Nolan objected to the state testing the evidence without either determining if the samples could be split to preserve for later testing by defense experts or allowing an expert hired by the defense to observe the testing.
Nolan wanted to argue the motion at the next court date, but prosecutors said testing had to begin Tuesday to move toward an indictment.
"I wouldn't be doing my job if I didn't object to this, Judge," Nolan told Aguilar, noting repeatedly that the defense should have their opportunity to "have their shot" at the evidence as well.
He said it was his first time hearing about any rape kit evidence at all and that Rodriguez has been charged with murder and arson and "now I'm hearing about rape kits."
However, Galvin responded that by law, the defense doesn't have the right to object to how the state tests its evidence during this phase of the case.
"He has no right to object to us working up our evidence," Galvin said. The notice given, she added, was purely a courtesy and in the interest of full disclosure.
"The defense is not entitled to discovery at this point," she said.
Ultimately, after passing and resuming the case three times on Tuesday, Aguilar said she wasn't sure why the prosecution would file a notice regarding the evidence if defense counsel doesn't have grounds to respond. However, the judge said the issue is not one for the court to rule on as there is no case law that says defense counsel has a right to any of the state's evidence pre-indictment. She also said the state appeared to be following the rules of its crime lab, not those of the court.
"There is nothing for this court to rule on," Aguilar said. "This is bond court. The case hasn't been assigned and hasn't been indicted."
Aguilar said Nolan's objection was noted for the record.
The case is scheduled to return to court on Jan. 28.
Mike F.
7:05 pm on Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Is this PD fresh out of law school?
Baba Wawa
8:43 am on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
No.
Dave
8:43 am on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
I can see why the Public Defender is concerned about the evidence being preserved to allow testing for the defense also or having the observation if there is not enough evidence to split. I'm unsure as to the amount of evidence is available, but there is a valid concern as to the availability of evidence for a "2nd opinion" type of test through the defense. I'm not versed on this level of the procedure for the bond hearing testing, but overall both sides should have a fair share at the evidence. Any lawyers reading this able to describe it or cite a reference to procedures?
Despite the gruesomeness of the case, I think this is a good case for high school students to keep tabs on how the legal procedures work for their government class. It's not an overly high profile case, but there is enough coverage to know what is going on in a way.
Hamish
8:43 am on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Why even a PD? there are assets.
jd
4:10 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Hamish what are the assets???
Baba Wawa
9:59 pm on Wednesday, January 23, 2013
The house -- what's left of it. Cars, any other real estate, bank accounts. If he had a job, etc.
Hamish
9:18 am on Thursday, January 24, 2013
Thank You baba
Hamish
9:18 am on Thursday, January 24, 2013
Why should the tax payers pay for his defense? Let him liquidate his assets and pay his own freight.
jd
5:06 pm on Saturday, March 16, 2013
Hamish what assest???
jd
11:28 am on Thursday, January 24, 2013
BaBa and Hamish I understand what you are saying I agree I guess but what about the kids? If he uses all the assests then what will be left for them. Truly a sad situation no matter how you look at it.
Sue1
10:34 pm on Thursday, January 24, 2013
Are you making some assumptions? Do you know that he owned anything? What is the usual procedure in an instance such as this? Anyone know? I would guess, because he hasn't been found guilty yet, that he cannot be forced to liquidate anything, if he does indeed own anything.
Hamish
9:09 am on Friday, January 25, 2013
Well..... There is a house .... He did work.... She did work... There are vehicles... and if you use the not guilty reasoning EVERYONE would get a Free lawyer.
Baba Wawa
10:38 am on Saturday, January 26, 2013
He'll fill out an affidavit of assets and liabilities under oath. If he qualifies for the public defender, then he'll get one. If there's money somewhere, then that can be used to offset the cost of the public defender.
Bob Laird
9:23 am on Friday, January 25, 2013
Tough call. Naturally, we don't want to see our tax dollars paying for this, but the kids already lost mom and dad, they have a burned up house, now do you want to see them broke? As long as he gets what he deserves, I don't mind seeing something left for the children.
Hamish
5:06 pm on Saturday, March 16, 2013
Just a point here..... As far as the affidavit is concerned.... He brutally murdered his own wife I dont think perjury will scare him.
Sue1
11:55 pm on Sunday, January 27, 2013
They lived in a house and drove cars. If the house wasn't in their names, it's not their asset. If the cars were leased, they don't own them.
Hamish
12:42 pm on Monday, January 28, 2013
Giving away houses now sue? Then who owned it?
Sue1
12:37 pm on Friday, March 22, 2013
People rent don't they? People live in houses owned by other family members don't they?
Ash
12:48 pm on Wednesday, January 30, 2013
I would hope that the two oldest children get the cars. 17&15.. they are and will be driving.. i believe the house is the only major asset and its in shambles.. who would want to buy it. I get the heebie-jeebies driving past it everyday (being a neighbor). I believe public record shows that Rodriguez owned it.
Hamish
3:12 pm on Monday, March 18, 2013
Jd..... Can you say house.... Bank accounts.... Autos