By Eleanor Boudreau
Memphis, TN – The trial of the lawsuit brought by losing candidates of the August 5th election against the Shelby County Election Commission officially began today, and very quickly recessed.
Lawyer for the plaintiffs J. Gerard Stranch IV complained they still had not received "simple documents" they'd requested from the defense in discovery, including a list of participating voters.
"Perhaps they don't know who voted and how many votes were cast in this election," Stranch said.
Sam Muldavin, a lawyer for the defense, said the list of voters was being emailed "as we speak." As for the other documents, Muldavin said no one on the plaintiff's side had "pounded fists" to get them and it was hard for the defense to tell exactly what the plaintiffs were asking for. Defense lawyers have also argued that the deadline for turning over documents was October 5th, the second scheduled day of trial--an argument the judge, Chancellor Arnold Goldin, balked at.
"I am somewhat taken aback," Goldin told the un-cooperating lawyers before him. "I can't explain this. This is--quite frankly--unheard of," he said. "It just defies logic."
The judge ordered the defense to turn over all documents by 4:30 p.m. Then he gave the plaintiffs the following day to look the papers over. The trial will resume Wednesday at 9 a.m.
The judge and lawyers did dispose of some pretrial motions. The plaintiffs and the defense squabbled over three witnesses the plaintiffs had listed as experts and the defense said were not qualified. The judge ruled that two of the three were not qualified, but the third, Julie Kempf, who used to work as elections superintendent in King County, Washington, the judge said could testify as an expert.
In her deposition September 30th, Kempf said she has not reached a professional conclusion about the August 5th election in Shelby County. The plaintiffs said Kempf will base her opinion partially on the documents the defense had not yet turned over.
The defense also brought up how Kempf conducted herself as elections superintendent. The judge said that sounded like an issue for cross-examination.