make WWAY your homepage  Become a fan on facebook  Follow us on twitter  Receive RSS Newsfeeds  MEMBERS: Register | Login

Erin Holden

I am a criminal defense attorney and I have found myself defending clients many times over the past couple of years in cases that were prosecuted by Ms. Holden. I have never found her to be anything less than professional and competent in her handling of those cases. I have also watched her prosecute many other cases that I was not involved with, and she has always performed quite competently in those, too.

I do not know anything about the three cases that are referenced in the letter above. I do know that I have had jury trials begin without all of the State's witnesses being present. This is actually quite common. A trial will begin with jury selection on one day, and then testimony might begin the following day. As I was not there that day, I am not sure why that didn't happen in the House case.

The second case involving Mr. Patrick sounds like it was a DWI with a .04 blow and some evidence of Percocet use. Proving a DWI based on a substance other than alcohol can be difficult. There would almost certainly need to have been a blood test to determine how much Percocet was in his system. There would need to be a Drug Recognition Expert to testify as to what the effects of that amount of Percocet would have on the body. I don't know what evidence was available to the State in that case, but it would not surprise me at all if they did not have a blood test. Without a blood test, it would be very difficult to prove how much Percocet was in his system. It is rather common for DWI cases that involve substances other than alcohol to be dismissed because of a lack of evidence.

The last case you reference involved a probable cause hearing. You state that Ms. Holden tried to have the case continued. It is not always easy for the State to line up witnesses for a probable cause hearing. It may very well have been the case that the victim or some other essential witness was not available that day for the hearing. If that was what happened, Ms. Holden did the right thing by trying to continue the case. When her motion to continue was denied, she would have been left with no other option than to dismiss the case if an essential witness was not present.

Again, I don't know what happened with these cases because I was not involved with the cases or present at the time of the hearings. However, I can say that it is not very likely that the results in those cases occurred as a result of incompetence on Ms. Holden's part. She has always struck me as thoughtful and careful in her handling of criminal matters and respectful of the responsibilities that go along with her job.

Reply

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
CAPTCHA
Please re-enter the code shown in the image below.