S-24-0087 State of Nebraska (Appellee) v. Eric L. Ramos (Appellant)
Appeal from the District Court for Johnson County, Judge Ricky A. Schreiner
Attorneys: Timothy S. Noerrlinger (Nebraska Commission on Public Advocacy for Appellant) and Stacy M. Foust (Asst. Attorney General for Appellee)
Criminal: Life imprisonment for first-degree murder and use of a weapon to commit a felony and tampering with or destruction of evidence
Proceedings Below: A jury convicted Appellant of first-degree murder, use of a weapon to commit a felony, and tampering with or destruction of evidence. The district court sentenced Appellant to consecutive terms of life in prison, fifty (50) to sixty (60) years in prison, and ten (10) to twenty (20) years in prison, respectively. Life imprisonment cases are direct appeals to the Nebraska Supreme Court.
Issues: Appellant assigns the following error: 1) The district court erred by failing to grant the Appellant a mistrial after the Appellee disclosed newly discovered evidence during the Appellant’s case in chief at trial on the second to last day of trial; 2) The district court erred by failing to grant the Appellant a two-week continuance after the Appellee disclosed newly discovered evidence during the Appellant’s case in chief at trial, which included additional suspects to the alleged murder; 3) The district court erred by failing to order the Department of Corrections to transport material witnesses to the Appellant’s defense; 4) The district court erred by denying the Appellant’s request to present evidence in through the residual hearsay exception pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-803(24) of the statements made by the material witnesses who were not transported for trial; 5) The district court erred by failing to grant the Appellant’s motion for a new trial; 6) The district court erred by allowing the Appellee to present improper opinion evidence pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-701 from Tatianna De Los Santos and Kevin Klippert on their identification of the Appellant; 7) The district court erred by failing to grant the Appellant’s Batson challenge to the Appellee’s strike of a potential juror; 8) The district court erred by failing to grant the Appellant’s motion to discharge, in that his constitutional right to a speedy trial had been denied; 9) The district court erred by failing to protect the Appellant’s right to constitutional due process due to the irregularities and delays to his trial.