Accused child murderer demands new attorney, more time to prep.

The life of accused child murderer Tami Huntsman may be at stake and her fate now rests in the hands of the criminal justice system.

As Huntsman’s defense team prepares for pretrial proceedings in arguably the most gruesome case to ever occur in Monterey County, the decisions of Monterey County Superior Court Judge Pamela Butler, who presides over her case, are instrumental to the case’s outcome.

Huntsman’s defense team, however, is questioning Butler’s judgment after she shot down a request to replace attorney Kay Duffy with attorney William McLennan as co-counsel and the attorney of record.

In a writ filed March 17 with California’s Sixth District Court of Appeal, Duffy claims Butler’s decision is a violation of Huntsman’s right to due process, since Huntsman could face the death penalty if convicted of torturing and killing two siblings, ages 3 and 7, that were under her care.

The writ requests that an appellate court panel reverse Butler’s decision, as well as push back a preliminary hearing currently scheduled for May 23 to a date in September in order to give attorneys more time to find and fund expert pathologists that can testify about the fatal injuries of the children. The children’s bodies were found stuffed in plastic containers in a storage unit in Redding last December; the children are believed to have died from ongoing physical abuse at Hunstman’s former home in East Salinas.

Huntsman, who is pregnant and jailed, is charged with the murder of the two children and the torture of a third 9-year-old child. Her reputed 18-year-old boyfriend, Gonzalo Curiel, is also accused in the alleged abuse and killings.

Prosecutors continue to contemplate whether they will seek the death penalty, and Monterey County Deputy District Attorney Steve Somers says that decision will come after the preliminary hearing, in which prosecutors lay out the gist of their case. The appellate panel is also being asked to consider excluding the public from the preliminary hearing to “prevent inflammatory pretrial publicity.”

There is no time frame for when the appellate panel needs to respond to the defense’s requests. It could happen before or after the preliminary hearing is set to take place.

Duffy declined to comment on the issue, but Somers says he is concerned about any delays in the case. Somers adds the Attorney General’s Office is handling the writ on behalf of his office, as is standard protocol.