North_Idaho_Nony
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2022
- Messages
- 896
- Reaction score
- 8,215
MOO, I kind of feel like you’re putting the cart before the horse by accepting the Defense’s claim as factually true.(snipped for focus)
this is the part that is confusing for me and perhaps there is a legal process or legal reasoning behind this, but what would be the difference between the report that was prepared for the grand jury a year ago and the report that was created for the Defense the day before the hearing we just witnessed.
Is it different data? why would they not just hand over the previous report that they created for the grand jury or simply re-create it again for the sole purposes of giving to the defense. why did it take a year to produce if they already had the data for the grand jury and the AA?
The Defense is alleging the State hasn’t complied with discovery requirements; the State maintains it has and will continue to comply with Idaho Criminal Rule 16 regarding discovery & inspection as well as other applicable law.
MOO, it’s impossible, at least at this point, to form an opinion on the validity of the Defense’s allegation(s) because so much is rightly-if-frustratingly (MOO) sealed.
There’s a dispute Judge Judge has been asked to resolve, which is the point of the hearing next Thursday morning, MOO. Testimony will be offered, the judge will examine the record, including the sealed records, exhibits, etc, and he will render a decision in due course. At least, that’s my IANAL understanding!
In any case, I’ve followed many criminal cases throughout my life, and these kind of pre-trial “disputes” & sparring are very common, MOO.
Indeed, I’m all for a vigorous criminal defense, which BK is certainly receiving, at least so far, MOO.
As always, all MOO.