Here is video from the courtroom today:
This is much more clear to me anyway now that I have listened to this and am thankful they put this on youtube, since relying on tweets sucks!!!
In the first few minutes it is mentioned that in the course of preparing for a Motion for a New Trial it dealt with a lot of the work that McGee did, and now that he has taken this position (saying there is a conflice of interest), the exchange of information is not the same.
Later Imes says something about reading between the lines, it seems like it will be one trial attorney against the other ... to which the judge said that now that they are not in the same office/practice, it may not be as big of an issue. Cathy's tweet earlier said there was less of a conflict between McGee/Maline because they weren't practicing together anymore... now I know the context and it makes sense.
I will be shocked if they don't claim ineffective assistance of counsel in a Motion for a New Trial... of course, against McGee. This is why it's sealed as well, it's information that they may file in a motion for a new trial, and the prosecution doesn't get to hear or read that before it's filed.
On another note.... filing motions for a new trial or for a reduction in sentencing is common and done all the time, this isn't just Merritt delaying, it's the lawyers doing their jobs, and my guess is that you can look up any murder trial and find that they did the same thing after the verdict and before sentencing. JMO
Thanks Missy!
No doubt it's a common practice in any case by all DTs.
Its the same standard protocol as when all DTs files a motion to dismiss any case outright, implying the state had not met their burdern of proof in their CIC, as was also standardly done by this DT as well.
We also read the scathing dress down ruling of the DTs assertions by JS when he refused to dismiss the case..making very clear to the many legal whys.. he refused.
These same procedures happens in all murder trials. It's the duty of all DTs to try to get the case dismissed before, during, and all the way until its over in the lower court.
I know we can all search looking for such particular specific cases like this one.
But, imo, I think it would have to be specific, first, to death penalty cases.
Secondly, did the presiding judges, overturn it themselves, and did they on their own set aside the juries death penalty reccomendation by the same lower court presiding judge which presided over the actual cases themselves.
Also did the lower court judge themselves overturn the first one, granting a new trial before the first one was even completed, when after completion thereafter all cases would be determined by the higher appellate courts, and not by the trial court.
We also have to remember when any plea deal is offered by any defense attorneys to reduce sentence it is up to all prosecutors to accept or deny any offer made.
Pleas are usually done by both the state, and defense before it comes to trial. Iirc around 90 percent of defendants admit guilt, and pleas are done where a trial isnt necessary.
I find any plea deal here slim to none at this juncture, based on the final outcome rendered by all 12 jurors as required by law. Really why should the state do so after the jury has already found him guilty, and recommended death?
As far as IAoC of McGee, imhoo, that will go nowhere.
It's one of the highest legal burdens to prove, even appellate attorneys who file motions of convicted inmates know all too well what a high legal burdern it is to prove. If proven it can windup with an attorney being disbarred, and career ruined. It cant just be said to be true, it must be proven every step of the way with irrefutable evidence its true.
When done its the attorneys who are now being put on trial being judged by their own peers. That is one of the reasons it must be shown with proof. If not anyone wanting to ruin a certain attorney's career would be able to do so by merely making such claim.
Jmhoo