Margarito vs Mosley 8 year anniversary

Transcript from the hearing:

http://www.dca.ca.gov/csac/about_us/meetings/20100818_agenda.pdf

B. The Commission timely produced all available evidence. Petitioner contends the Commission withheld "three key pieces of evidence" from him 21 leading up to the hearing ofFebruary 10,2009. (Pet'r.'s Mem. P. & A. p. 14: 14-15.) The claim .22 is without merit because the Commission did not withhold any of the evidence in question, and 23 because two ofthe pieces of evidence are wholly irrelevant to the Commission's decision to 24 revoke Petitioner's license to box. First, Petitioner contends the Commission did not disclose that two inspectors disputed 26 "key factual statements" in the post-incident report of one ofthe Commission's inspectors.
27
28 12 OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDATE (BS120436) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

(Pet'r.'s Mem. P. & A. p. 14: 16-22, Exh. B, C, Dl Petitioner claims he was prejudiced because
without this information he could not adequately cross-examine that particular inspector about his
"truthfulness, biases, and motives." (Pet'r.'s Mem. P. & A. p. 15: 1-2.) However, all three of the
inspectors in question were made available and were cross examined by Petitioner's counsel at
the February 10, 2009, hearing. Moreover, Petitioner admits the disputes in question concerned
immaterial matters such as which inspector directed Capetillo to remove Petitioner's right hand-
wrap after an illegal insert was found in the left knuckle pad. (Pet'r.'s Mem. P. & A. p. 14: 19
22.) In any situation with a large number ofeyewitnesses, post-incident accounts are going to
have minor variances. Counsel for the Commission exercised her prosecutorial discretion by
deciding not to involve an immaterial personnel matter in the factual record of the case. The
material, undisputed facts remain that on January 24,2009, Commission inspectors removed an
illegal insert from Petitioner's left hand-wrap, and thereafter found a similarly illegal insert in the
wrappings on his right hand. (AR Exh. X, Factual Finding Nos. 3,4, and 6.)

This content is protected

Petitioner provides no basis for his contention that the use ofthe photographs violated
his right to due process. Accordingly, the Court should discard Petitioner's argument. Lastly, Petitioner contends that because the Commission did not produce the laboratory
testing results for the right hand-wrap until months after the hearing, the Commission's
revocation ofhis license violated his due process rights. (Pet'r.'s Mem. P. & A., p. 11-18.)



So the wraps were not MISLAID, the were at the Department of Justice office for examination...!!!