THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE i HILLSBOROUGH, SS S PERIOR COURT DOCKET NO.

11-CR-1055 NOKFHERN DISTRICT STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE v. ADAM MUELLER h STATES OBJECTION TO TIMELINESS OF DEFENDANI"S POSTj RIAL MOTION NOW COMES the State of New Hampshire, by and through the Hillsborough County Attomeys Office, and objects to the defendanfs requests for post-trial relieijstating as follows: 1. On August 13, 2012, the defendant was convicted after a jury ial on three counts of Wiretapping. Prior to and during trial, the defendant represented himself pro se. On at least two occasions, the Court inquired with the defendant that he understood whattie was doing and that he was knowingly and voluntarily waiving his right to counsel. The defe dant, now through Attomey Brandon Ross. now moves the Court to extend the time to file a posttrial motion and for various other post-trial relief. This motion is untimely and no good cause kxists to disregard the time limit. As such, the State objects. 2. Superior Coun Rule 105 requires the defendant to file a motion to set aside the verdict within seven days. As the verdict was retumed on August 13, 2012, a motion to set aside the verdict was due by August 20, 2012. By cover letter dated August 23. 20i2. counsel for the defendant mailed his appearance and this motion. The motion was received and stamped in by the Court on August 27, 2012. \ 1

W W W W W 3. The defendant claims to have good cause"l to ask the Court tri accept his late W. . filing, but his claims are ultimately nothing different than his failure to appearl in this Court ` previously in another case and his admitted disregard for the law in this case. \The defendant simply does not care about the rules whether they are substantive or procedural. The defendant had ample time to prepare his case. lf his current motion claiming that his neyv arguments have merit is to be believed. then he either failed to prepare his case or chose not ui raise these issues. The defendant never challenged the constitutionality of the statute under whicli he was charged; W he never challenged the jury instructions; and, he never raised his ignorance an affirmative W defense. Even the defendant`s argument as to why the Court should set aside Wthe verdict because of insufficient evidence is based on a question of statutory interpretation that he should have raised before the trial. Now that his strategy has failed, he belatedly seeks cotjtnsel to belatedly raise these issues for the first time. W 4. While it is true the defendant has been incarcerated, it is hardly unusual for 1 W incarcerated individuals to contact defense counsel. A brief review of the defpndanfs web site confirms that he has had no trouble making contact with the outside world. In fact, the defendant published an article the very same day that undersigned counsel visited him to provide discovery in the case. E http://www.copblock.org/19175/ademo-gets-visited-by-michael-valentind (last visited August 30, 2012). Thus, it can hardly be argued that his incarcerationWis the basis for his ` W disregard of Rule 105. Moreover, while the defendant makes a number of clalims about being ` denied legal materials. his motion is unsupported by an affidavit attesting to siich claims. Se; W W I There is no question that the Court can suspend its rules for "good cause" and allow the latd filing of pleadings. E ln re State, 152 N.H. 205. 208-09 (2005) (allowing the States untimely motion for reconlsideration because of confusion as to when the c|erks oftice sent notice of a decision because that notice was undawted). However. merely claiming good cause unsupported by any factual argument, as the defendant has done here, is not grounds for *good cause." E State v. Chamentier, 117 N.H 647, 648 (1977); see also State v. Knight, 161 N. .338, 340-41 (2011) (upholding Courts decision to reject untimely motion to suppress), State v. Lavoie, 152 N.H 542. 546 (2005) (rejecting good cause" because infomation necessary to timely nle notice of defense was known by defendant). Quite simply. "good cause" implies establishing something outside the control ofthe defendzint. i 2

r l Super. Ct. R. 57 (The Court will not hear any motion grounded upon facts, uhless they are l verified by affidavit. . ."). Given the length of time the case was pending priori to the defendants incarceration, the defendant can not claim that it was anything other than his fault that he was not prepared for how to proceed when he was convicted even assuming his claims of being restricted from legal materials is true. 5. The defendants tmtimely motion is nothing more than anotherl attempt to get the Court to play along with the defendant`s ovm rules. He provides no good cauke to waive Superior Court Rule 105 and the Court should deny his motion without furthei hearing. If the Court does consider the defendants substantive arguments, the State will be liappy to file a further response describing how the defendant has failed to timely raise any of his legal arguments. WHEREFORE, the State respectfully requests this Honorable Court: A. DENY the defendants post-trial motion without hearing; and B. Grant the State such further relief the Honorable Court deems just and proper. Dated: August 31, 2012 Respectfully Submitted, l 1 Michael G. Valentine, Esq. #16506 Assistant County Attorney CERTIFICATION l hereby certify that a copy of the forgoing motion has on this day been forwarded to Brandon Ross, Esq., counsel for the defendant. _ K { LW M f [ a' * Y S l \(l ,L .t rj L \ {//~` Michael G. Valentine, Esq. 3]