The child homicide case of Ashlee Lynn Buzzard was continued Wednesday during a short hearing, as attorneys work through a newly filed defense motion that could affect what evidence is
lompocrecord.com
New motion delays progress in Buzzard child homicide case
The child homicide case of Ashlee Lynn Buzzard was continued Wednesday during a short hearing, as attorneys work through a newly filed defense motion that could affect what evidence is allowed in the case.
The six-minute proceeding took place in Santa Barbara County Superior Court in Lompoc before Judge Stephen Dunkle.
Buzzard was physically present in court for the first time since Jan. 21. At the outset, Dunkle reminded those in the courtroom and on Zoom that no audio or video recording is permitted, and that still photos cannot show Buzzard in restraints or include members of the audience.
The judge previously addressed concerns about members of the public shouting at Buzzard during earlier proceedings and ordered that such disruptions not occur.
During Wednesday’s hearing, Sutherland said she filed a motion Tuesday seeking to challenge a search warrant tied to the case. Known as a motion to “quash or traverse,” the request asks the court to either invalidate the warrant entirely or review whether it was based on accurate and sufficient information.
Prosecutors initially raised concerns about how the motion was filed but said they were no longer objecting, provided the documents remain sealed. The filing includes materials related to search warrants that are already protected from public release.
Dunkle agreed to keep the motion under seal, meaning it will not be accessible to the public.
The judge then raised a procedural question about timing — specifically, whether the motion must be heard during the preliminary hearing, where a judge determines if there is enough evidence for the case to proceed to trial, or if it can be considered beforehand.
Sutherland argued the motion can be heard in advance. Prosecutors did not take a firm position on timing during the brief exchange.
Because the motion was only recently filed, Dunkle said he had not yet reviewed it and scheduled a future hearing to address both the motion and the timing issue.
The case was continued to April 1 for that purpose.
Lockey also noted she is beginning a separate jury trial in Santa Maria expected to last several weeks and requested scheduling flexibility. Buzzard verbally agreed in court to extend her right to a speedy preliminary hearing — a legal time limit that ensures cases move forward without undue delay — through the end of May.
The extension allows additional time for the motion to be reviewed and argued before the preliminary hearing is set.
