Two weeks of trial have been scheduled for the weeks of Feb. 6 and 13 after both sides agreed to proceed during a pre-trial conference last month via telephone under Judge Kenneth Hayden.

The double-murder trial of Susan Elizabeth Van Note is set to get underway Monday morning with jury selection beginning at 9:00 a.m. in Laclede County Circuit Court.
Two weeks of trial have been scheduled for the weeks of Feb. 6 and 13 after both sides agreed to proceed during a pre-trial conference last month via telephone under Judge Kenneth Hayden.
Van Note, who was a Lee’s Summit lawyer, is accused of killing her father William Van Note, 67, and his girlfriend Sharon Dickson, 59, on Oct. 2, 2010 at her father's lakefront Sunrise Beach home. Prosecutors believe Van Note killed the couple to get hands on her father's will in which she was named executor and Dickson as the primary beneficiary.
Prosecutors also say she forged her father’s signature on a power of attorney document that eventually led him to him being taken off life support while undergoing treatment at Boone County Hospital where he passed four days later.
Initial proceedings began in September 2013 under Judge Stan Moore. A combination change of venue and judge motion was granted from Camden County, where charges originated, to Laclede County.
Kevin Zoellner, Assistant Attorney General, of the Missouri Attorney General’s Office will lead the prosecution along with Camden County Prosecuting Attorney Michael Gilley. The defense team is led by Overland Park attorneys Tom and Tricia Bath, as well as Lake Ozark attorney Tim Cisar.
Originally scheduled for trial in January 2015, the Van Note case has been delayed several times, most notably at that time when jury misconduct resulted in a mistrial ruling. Another major aspect of the case were motions to suppress evidence related to the collection of Cell Site Location Information (CSLI).
On Aug. 10, 2015, the defense filed a motion to suppress all evidence recovered as the result of warrantless searches of Van Note's cellular telephone records. The defense also filed a second motion to suppress on Nov. 23, 2015, seeking to suppress all Cell Site Location Information (CSLI) gained by law enforcement's general subpoena.
Considered key evidence in the State's case, court documents say cell data showed Van Note's cellphone pinged a transmission tower approximately seven miles from William Van Note's Sunrise Beach residence. The phone call was made roughly five minutes after her father called 911 the night of the murder.
However, Susan Van Note's mother told investigators that her daughter was with her in Lee's Summit at her home, almost two hours away when the shootings occurred.
According to the undisputed underlying facts brought before the court, the subject records introduced as evidence on Nov. 3, 2015 - in the form of State's Exhibit #1 through #4 - were acquired through the use of an investigative subpoena issued by an associate judge pursuant to Section 56.085 RSMo at the request of then Prosecuting Attorney Brian Keedy.
Although the content of the cellular information was requested in State's Exhibit #1, no content information was produced by AT&T in response to either State's Exhibit #1 or #3, and #2 and #4 did not provide any voice call recordings, text message content or e-mail content, according to the court filing.
State's Exhibit #2 contains data which reflects dates, durations, telephone numbers, length of connection time and cell tower location for calls to and from Van Note's cell phone for the time period in question.
State's Exhibit #4 contains data which reflects cell phone numbers of cell phones which used certain requested cell towers as well as data indicating whether the connection was for a phone call (including number called), SMS texting (including number texted) and data (presumably from an internet search of some type), as well as data that reflects cell tower location, duration of connection, and if a voice call, whether a voice message was left, according to the filing.
The defense argued that Van Note's rights under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and Article One, Section 15 of the Missouri Constitution, were violated as a result of the subpoena issued.
In the first motion to suppress, Hayden ruled that although a defendant has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of voice calls, text messages and voice mails, that content was not produced by AT&T and therefore no ruling is required "as the Court cannot suppress evidence which was not produced or seized."
In regards to the supplemental motion to suppress related to the cell tower location produced by AT&T, Hayden wrote that he had found no Missouri case which directly addressed this issue and no Missouri case addressing this issue was cited by either side. Hayden ultimately ruled that Van Note does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy for CSLI data as information that is voluntarily turned over by the person to a third party, in this case AT&T and created by AT&T.
"This court agrees with Judge Motz that the nature of the governmental activity in the case at bar 'critically distinguishes this case from those on which the majority relies' and on which Defendant relies upon as well - 'cases in which the government did surreptitiously collect private information.'"
Hayden wrote that the cited case laws by the defense did involve specific examples of invading a reasonable expectation of privacy, but were not applicable to this case. Those examples included the Drug Enforcement Agency placing a tracking beeper within a can of ether inside a private residence, the Department of the Interior using a thermal imager to gather information regarding the interior of a home, and a case involving the FBI and a local law enforcement agency secretly installing a GPS tracking device on a suspect's vehicle.
"This Court does believe as did Judge Motz that the majority holding in Graham is certainly the minority view on this Fourth Amendment question. This Court notes that both the Eleventh Circuit and Fifth Circuit and a host of lower Federal Courts identified in foot note 3 to Judge Motz's opinion have all reached the same conclusion as Judge Motz," Hayden concluded. "Finally, this Court cannot rely on the holding of the majority in Graham as authority since rehearing has been granted by the Fourth Circuit Court."