Well for comparison, Leilani Simon is about to go on trial, and her defense team is filing motions in limine, too. Her trial's due to start Monday. Jury selection began two days ago.
Has that trial been delayed like Delphi's?
They were only arrested less than one month apart, so the timeframe from arrest to trial was virtually the same.
One man gathers what another man spills
Yes just another repeat that has already been legally ruled upon and shut down. Amazing they want to transport these people to trial when most were ruled off limits and named.
I mean, once in a while you get shown the light in the strangest of places....
Um, not a lawyer, but the whole thing about 'substance' makes me think it's basically 'you said we didn't have any substance to our third party/conspiracy angle in the pretrial hearing but we think we did so that's enough for us to present it based on your wording about proof, and if you deny this we're going to drag things out and delay things throughout the trial'.
I suppose it all depends on if they have any new evidence to bring forwards? The Judge did say that she is willing to hear them out so that's fair enough, MOO
Where are the proceeds from their book going? Do we know if they plan to donate them to the victim's loved ones or some cause the kids would have really wanted to contribute towards (eg: a donation in their memory)? I acknowledge authors are not required to do this, however, I always think it is a lovely gesture when they (true crime authors in general) profit off the misery of the families left behind (moooo).
They were just talking about Google AI, not the specific motion filed by the defense.
That's something I also wondered, because they do mention how this tragedy has negatively impacted the families as well as local businesses etc. Ultimately I am just content the families are involved. jmo
That motion is just the defense telling the court that they do plan to make an offer of proof regarding 3rd party culpability at trial, and that rather than recall all the witnesses to testify in court during the offer of proof, the defense would ask the court to defer to what was said during the hearings. It's another expediency and efficiency motion.
Thank you so much for putting this in plain English for us! Sorry to keep asking questions, but I wonder if normally, restating of the same evidence that got shot down has a real chance of being accepted without any new evidence, or if it is more of a formal motion to create a trail for appeals? I get the gist of the motions, it is the reasoning behind them that is obscure to me, but I totally get that some steps are not for me to understand but for the court to operate efficiently.
This wording makes me think they're just going to present the same stuff from the prelim as the proof.
It is both. They are making a record of exactly how these issues all occurred and the order that they did, but they will be attempting to have 3rd party culpability introduced in some form.
I'm tipping my hat to all attorneys and paralegals out there. The US legal system and the verbiage/procedurs it requires keeps confounding me, and I've written bibles on the driest technical matters.
I agree with them here actually. The State can certainly ask the people what they directly heard RA say - no problem with that. But if they're asked to assess RA's mental health / thought process etc... I'd take issue with that. I'd agree that they're not really qualified to assess that formally, and I'd worry their uneducated opinions might affect the jury in a negative way. MOOOOO.
