wpe3.jpg (11345 bytes)

For the 1995 evidentiary (re-sentencing) hearing, attorney James Adams filed a detailed discovery motion requesting the evidence in the Bitterman (acquittal) case to conduct DNA testing.  The prosecution was granted leave to put Bitterman on the stand 13 years after the incident.  The defense wanted the opportunity to  prove - this time through DNA testing - that Ewing didn't rape her.  Assistant Prosecutor, Christine Clancy, filed her objection to the defense's request for the physical evidence and Judge Schmucker ruled in favor of the prosecution.  Following are some quotes from Schmucker's denial of defense's discovery motion:

"This Court is puzzled by the breadth of the Defendant's discovery request.  It is difficult for this Court to imagine that the Defendant needs a substantial amount of discovery concerning the Bitterman incident since that case went to trial and he was acquitted of those charges..."

"The Court would note that an order allowing discovery was entered in the Livingston County case relating to the Bitterman incident, 5/28/85..."

"The Court, in its discretion, is denying Defendant's discovery request for identification cards or tags, records, reports, or log books that relate to physical evidence, a complete list and/or the present location of all physical evidence and information relating to the destruction of old records or evidence including operating procedures."

Bitterman Case     Home