Advertisement - Click to support our sponsors.

State argues hearsay
evidence in murder
case not improper

---

By Debra Barayuga
Star-Bulletin

Janice Cockett's constitutional right to confront her accuser was not violated during the trial in which she was convicted of murdering her husband, the state says.

In a response filed yesterday to a recommendation by a U.S. magistrate that Cockett's conviction be overturned, the state argued that witnesses who testified against Cockett were cross-examined and their testimony properly admitted.

U.S. Magistrate Barry Kurren issued his recommendation Nov. 20, saying Cockett's Sixth Amendment right of confrontation was violated "by the admission of improper hearsay evidence."

Cockett is serving a life term with the possibility of parole for the death of her estranged husband, Frank Cockett, in 1986.

Improperly admitted evidence, cited in arguments for Cockett's release, came from Billy Makaila and his wife, Jaymie Mineshima.

Makaila was given immunity by the state and testified at Cockett's trial. But he denied all knowledge of or participation in the death of Cockett's husband, a Habilitat executive. Makaila also denied he told his wife that he was involved in the murder.

Mineshima testified her husband told her that he and Cockett were involved.

The state argued that although hearsay evidence is usually not admissible, the court allowed Mineshima's testimony to be admitted only for the purpose of deciding whether Makaila was credible. The court instructed the jury not to use Mineshima's testimony as proof of Cockett's guilt, thereby eliminating any prejudice, the state said.

In addition,other evidence against Cockett was overwhelming, the state argued.

Cockett's own testimony that her husband had come to her home and the testimony of other witnesses who placed Cockett at the scene where her husband was murdered "constituted direct evidence of her guilt," the state said.

Cockett's attorney, Michael Green, could not be reached for immediate comment. Cockett has 10 days to respond to the state's objections.