Oswego County Judge John J. Elliott will decide whether or not to hold a hearing on defense motions to suppress evidence in the case of Matt Maxson, who is accused of murder in the May 24th death of Diana Cooper, 54, of West Second Street, Fulton.

Donald Dodd, Oswego County's Chief Assistant District Attorney, and Emil Rossi, defense attorney for murder suspect Matt Maxson, 18, of High Street, Lockport, NY argued motions in Judge John J. Elliott's Oswego County Courtroom Tuesday morning. Judge Elliott could decide that a hearing is not necessary and render a decision in writing on the motions.

The small spectator area of the first floor courtroom in the Oswego County Court House on East Oneida Street in Oswego was filled with family members and friends of the victim as the attorneys reviewed their points. Maxson's parents and a brother also sat directly behind him and his attorney throughout the morning's proceeding.

The first point of discussion was a letter submitted by Dodd informing the court that New York State Police Senior Investigator Cooper is married to Judy Cooper, one of Judge Elliott's court clerks. Inv. Cooper was one of the key investigators assisting the Fulton Police Department in the case. The judge and attorneys will have to determine whether or not his relationship to the clerk will impinge upon his giving future testimony as a key witness in the case.

"I don't anticipate it being a problem with today's proceedings," Rossi said. "I don't see that it would have anything to do with today's arguments."

The judge agreed and noted that a determination on the matter would be made at a later time.

Judge Elliott then asked Rossi to summarize for the court the defense motions that he had submitted in writing more than a week earlier.

Rossi's first concerns were the search warrant applications submitted by Fulton Police Chief Mark Spawn to Oswego County Court Judge Walter Hafner. Rossi said that in the first application, Spawn repeated a summary of information given by an unidentified source, and in the second application included portions of an actual affidavit given by Jeremy McPeek, who at the time was a room mate and co-worker of the accused. Both McPeek and Maxson were working for a Florida-based company as door-to-door salesmen of magazine subscriptions.

Rossi argued that the credibility of the witness "could have affected Judge Hafner's read of the first application, rather than the bum information given the day before."

The defense attorney's second point of contention with the search warrants issued by Judge Hafner at Spawn's request was the "over broad terms" used in the application. Rossi noted that the application said police were looking for clothing when in fact they were looking for a particular shirt or jacket. The application also named "footwear" when they were looking for a particular pair of sneakers, Rossi said.

"The police also came back with items that aren't mentioned, even in the over broad description of items mentioned in the warrant," Rossi said. He named a folder of money as an example.

"My interpretation is that if you turn up with evidence that is not mentioned, you need to go back and ask for another warrant," Rossi said. "My position is that certain items should be excluded."

Rossi also noted that police came back with a shirt that was found in a dumpster at the motel where the suspect and the witness were staying that was a considerable distance from room 234, the room that was the subject of the search warrant. Noting that distance, Rossi questioned, "What did they do between Room 234 and the dumpster that might be in violation of the warrant?"

Judge Elliott pointed out that there was also the possibility of "inevitable discovery."

Rossi countered that by stating, "My understanding of 'plain view' is items that might be laying around out in the open. Inevitable discovery does not excuse police from getting another search warrant."

The defense attorney's final point was a reminder of "Brady issues." The Brady decision made it mandatory for the prosecutors to inform defense counselors of all available evidence in any case.

"We've followed that up," Dodd said. "He's going to get everything he needs."

Dodd then took his turn at arguing against the defense motions to suppress some of the evidence. Dodd said that Police Chief Spawn went to Judge Hafner with a request for a warrant with witness statements from McPeek and noted the absence of any assertion of disputed fact.

"Our position is that the court should deny that prong of the defense motion," Dodd said. "There is nothing about Spawn's application that imparts to falsity." He noted that Judge Hafner did have sufficient knowledge to determine that McPeek did have knowledge of the items of evidence sought.

"The descriptions of the items sought were sufficient for the warrant application," Dodd further argued. He also noted that the dumpster where a shirt or jacket was found was sufficiently apart from the Holiday Inn room which was the subject of the search warrant.

"Presuming that the warrant failed, doesn't mean that evidence found in the dumpster would not be admissible as evidence," said Judge Elliott as he cited another similar case. The judge also advised the attorneys of other related cases they might want to review before submitting their final arguments in writing.

Dodd asked if the defense would be submitting notice of intent to offer any psychiatric examinations as part of the defense's case.

"There has been a competency examination but nothing else," Rossi said.

Judge Elliott noted that certain pieces of evidence were currently undergoing testing and examination at the New York State Crime Lab, and asked Dodd what the expected return date was for the items.

Dodd said that the items undergoing DNA testing would take 45 to 60 days, according to a letter he received from the crime lab, and that he expected the items to be back by late November.

Judge Elliott set Monday, November 20th, as a reporting date on the status of the evidence items and said that a personal appearance might not be necessary at that time.

He reviewed the bail status of the defendant, which was set by Judge Hafner at $500,000 cash or $1 million bail bond. He left the bail unchanged and remanded the defendant back to the Public Safety Center.

Maxson was escorted out of the courtroom by an Oswego County Deputy Sheriff, followed by his parents and brother. Rossi followed the Maxson family members outside and met with them about a block away from the courthouse.

Family members and friends of the victim left the court room with ADA Dodd, who answered their questions about the morning's proceedings.

"What was that about the Brady decision?" asked Kathy Emmons, a niece of the victim.

"The Brady decision says that we have an obligation to lay all of our cards on the table," Dodd said. "Nothing can be held back. Any evidence that may tend to indicate that the defendant did not do this also has to be made available to the defense."

Ms. Cooper's daughters, April Searor and Kim McMillan, wanted to know what the next step in the process would be.

"The judge has to decide whether or not he's going to hold a hearing or decide by writing on the motions presented," Dodd explained. "So far he's indicated that he will do it by writing. I will let you know if there is going to be a hearing or if I receive a letter of decision."

Dodd also told the victim's family and friends that it would be at least November before there were further proceedings in the case because they were waiting for the return of the evidence items that are being tested at the NYS Crime Lab.

Emmons and Melissa Parish, another niece, gave the victim's tearful daughters hugs. "You've got to be strong to get through this," Emmons told Searor. Mick Kidd, who was Ms. Copper's fiance, and family friends Linda Carter, Janet Weston, Sue Desing, and Michael Dunn also comforted the daughters and discussed the day's events and plans to notify one another when Dodd is heard from regarding a hearing or the judge's decision on the motion.