TTF14
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2014
- Messages
- 16,104
- Reaction score
- 75,008
Not a good look. Terrible optics.
I think it's strategy.
Not a good look. Terrible optics.
Agree. I made a comment a few weeks ago saying that I think the D will as for a continuance and will blame the P because huge discovery, blabla.This D has never been ready. They lied in Oct 18th in chamber meeting with Judge G, they lied when they said they were ready to go to trial on the original Jan date to the SCOIN, and again when they filed the Motion for Speedy Trial. It's always been a ruse.
They have constantly and consistently lied about being ready and I've said that more times than I can count. Now the rubber has met the road and they have no recourse except to blame it on the State for late discovery and things not presented to them all labeled neatly and nicely showing them exactly where to find each and every piece of information they might need. Sorry fellas, it doesn't work that way.
This flood of Motions is not unexpected, nor am I worried about them. What I do find ironic is that Todd Click has turned into a stink bomb problem instead of star witness. Rut roh.
ALL JMO
Agree. I made a comment a few weeks ago saying that I think the D will as for a continuance and will blame the P because huge discovery, blabla.
I don't blame them for are not ready. It is a huge investigation, there are 2 differents attorneys law firms, their client isn't that close to them, etc. I just don't like how they seem to lie/deceive the public and how sometimes their filings seems to be more for the public to than the judge.
Their dramatic and colorful language is which seems, to me, that sometimes their filings are more for the public than the judge.Also the mention of someone who "appeared" to be dead could have been them simply waking a sleeping suspect or performing a search warrant. Their language is most dramatic and colorful.
It is defined by statute so it varies among jurisdictions. In my jurisdiction, discovery can continue from the time of filing to up to 10 days before trial. Discovery is normally finished much sooner than that, simply because both sides want to be prepared for trial by then.What is the typical time it takes for the state to turn evidence over to the defense? I have seen a former prosecutor say they handed over discovery ASAP to get the ball rolling, but what is a typical amount of time? What is the longest (but still reasonable) time you are personally aware of for discovery being turned over? Thank you for your input!
Agree. I made a comment a few weeks ago saying that I think the D will as for a continuance and will blame the P because huge discovery, blabla.
I don't blame them for not being ready. It is a huge investigation, there are 2 differents attorneys law firms, their client isn't that close to them, etc. I just don't like how they seem to lie/deceive the public and how sometimes their filings seems to be more for the public to than the judge.
12/7 means December 7 to us Americans! I know, we are wierdos, with our feet and pounds measurements too!Here is an example of what I am talking about with discovery in fact not being late according to the Judge's timetable
The FBI drive was clearly on time. Is the date for ORION simply wrong? B&R were not 'off the case' on 12 July????
I can understand an appeal court looking at all this and saying it's unfair to the defense - which is mostly the fault of the judge for setting a 1 Nov deadline. But how can it be fair to the prosecution for the judge to sanction them for meeting her deadline?
12/7 means December 7 to us Americans! I know, we are wierdos, with our feet and pounds measurements too!
Time to respond by motions is also a statutory thing; I think I read somewhere not long ago it is 15 days. The State can respond but does not have to do so.@AugustWest - Regarding the motion the defense filed yesterday, seeking sanctions, etc. What's the process in terms of the State responding to it versus the judge ruling on it. Meaning, does the State HAVE to respond? Are they allowed to? If so, is there a time limit? Can the judge rule on it without asking the State if they want to respond?
Hopefully this makes sense.
Well, I would love to know also, and that is the million dollar question, isn't it? I really have no idea why they didn't address those "incriminating statements" but I really can't speak to that issue without knowing the content and circumstances of the statements. The other 3 categories you have listed they want classified as actually 1 category; state actors. If they work for the state, then there is a problem with right against incriminating oneself.I agree they would not include the content, but don't you think they need to at least particularise the various categories of confessions, with timings, in their motion in order that it can be argued in Court?
Having seen both filings it seems there are actually 4 categories of confession whereas the defence only referred to two.
The defence appears to argue that RA suffered a psychosis due to an 'extended interrogation' and confessed to agents of the state. But their pleading does not explain how cat 3 applies? Ditto what is the context for cat 4? To my mind it is hard to see how the medical people are the same category the other 'agents of the state' but presumably there are arguments to be made here. They just didn't even mention this! Or what about police officers? Presumably this was not even in the prison then? When did these happen? etc
- Inmate
- Prison Guards
- Wife/Family
- Misc: Warden, Health Professionals, Police Officers
I am interested how you think such a motion should actually be plead so the judge has all the legal arguments
As @FrostedGlass pointed out above, discovery deadline was December 14, 2022 per Indiana law cited in the postI woke up refreshed with a new annoyance about how the D is handling this case. They have all the discovery they need that was due by the court's deadline. Just because they haven't seen it doesn't mean it's not there.
Also the mention of someone who "appeared" to be dead could have been them simply waking a sleeping suspect or performing a search warrant. Their language is most dramatic and colorful. The Judge made a discovery deadline of 11/1/2023. I'm going to start calling this the extended discovery because it has nothing to do with their client and his case. Their theme has been to mention how it's way too much discovery to discover their client innocent. They want to be hand held and I guess for the State to give them an organized thumb drive of files. But wait they have it because Andy sent it to BW "on accident" who sent it to other youtubers.
View attachment 499193
I’m a bit confused what you mean?For the Axiom software. Doing a bit of research on it and I found Axiom Magnet is used by law enforcement. The lawyers said they need a license to interact with the program. Possible this is one of the expenses the court deemed unnecessary. This is a tool used by law enforcement. Sigh.
I'm still looking for an instance that a lawyer would use this software. Not to mention there is a free trial they can sign up for on the website
ETA: I did find something about a district attorneys office using the software.
View attachment 499226
It's not blaming the Defense for not being ready, what I do blame them for is lying and stating they were ready to go straight to trial, even on the Jan date. Then filing a MST when they knew, by their own admission of having not reviewed all the Discovery, they still weren't ready.Agree. I made a comment a few weeks ago saying that I think the D will as for a continuance and will blame the P because huge discovery, blabla.
I don't blame them for not being ready. It is a huge investigation, there are 2 differents attorneys law firms, their client isn't that close to them, etc. I just don't like how they seem to lie/deceive the public and how sometimes their filings seems to be more for the public to than the judge.
I mentioned before about the unpredictability of jurors getting crazy ideas. I actually thought this is where the defense was headed:The defence appears to argue that RA suffered a psychosis due to an 'extended interrogation' and confessed to agents of the state.
Or the State wants the Defense to list specifics instead of waving a magic wand over 'all the statements' made by RA. I think that is good lawyering for NMcL even though a lot here think he is incompetent.Well, I would love to know also, and that is the million dollar question, isn't it? I really have no idea why they didn't address those "incriminating statements" but I really can't speak to that issue without knowing the content and circumstances of the statements. The other 3 categories you have listed they want classified as actually 1 category; state actors. If they work for the state, then there is a problem with right against incriminating oneself.
I think otherwise the defense did an adequate job with the motion. They are looking for at minimum a hearing to discuss the matter, and likely detailed enough facts they felt necessary to achieve this.
ETA: there is a lot left out in motions as far as law goes. Another reason I have stressed in the past that the judge is the intended target of motions is that the authors know and understand the judge knows the law very well, so there is no need to make a huge treatise of background for the judge. They know she is aware of the issues they are discussing, so there is no need to discuss all issues and the history of the law on them, only what is particularly needed in any given circumstance.