Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I couldn't agree more. I think McGee wants to move on from this case and everything Merritt but Maline wants to file motions and delay the inevitable.How about McGee is tired of Merritt's games and he is fed up with Maline being buddy buddy with Merritt. The two have not gotten along as people may think and McGee I think wants out and to go on with life. I think Maline just wants to delay delay delay!
I was hoping we would get a tidbit more info on what the conflict is! From the tweets... the judge thinks that Maline/Merritt should be given time to "investigate" the conflict... but the conflict is less since Maline and McGee are no longer in the same office.... wth does that mean????
We did learn that they have NOT filed a Motion for a New Trial yet... or a Motion to Reduce Sentence... which I think is just asking the judge to give him life instead of death, since the jury recommendations are just that, recommendations.
Anyone have thoughts on what this "conflict" could be?
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
I understand the burden to prove ineffective assistance of counsel and understand that it's rarely successful. It will be interesting to see what they have to say if that is the avenue they go down, McGee was "good" until about mid March, and then something changed, whether it was his illness or his fake illness or whatever, but JMO.
As for the standard motions that are filed, they are filed in death penalty and not death penalty cases. The thought that they are being filed to "delay" further is silly IMO it's being done because that's what is done and if it wasn't, I believe that would amount to negligence on the attorney's part. I personally think it's a flaw in the system to ask the same judge that presided over the trial to then look at error's in the trial they presided over to decide if they were wrong. It rarely happens and that's why most cases that eventually get overturned are done at a higher level. I also think that the attorney's need to be strategic about what they argue in a Motion for a New Trial because it can affect later appeals. JMO
My take from watching the video (thanks for posting it, Missy!) is there is a conflict between McGee and Maline, not a "conflict of interest" caused by a motion. It seems (to me) that McGee and Maline can't even get together on filing the motions necessary at this stage.
I hope they can follow this new schedule and file the motions by Nov. 22nd, the state has until Dec. 9th to file their response, and then motions hearing/sentencing on Dec. 13th. McGee has until Nov. 1st to file something about this conflict and a closed door hearing on the 12th (I think he said) on that.
I feel they would have had all of this done had they been dealing with a stricter judge (conflict or no), Judge Smith was just 'mildly surprised' no motions whatsoever had been filed and they had 3 months to do it. If I were Imes I'd have asked for sanctions or some penalty, they have been wasting the courts time for one reason or another since the beginning of the year.
Missy, I think the delay is that the motions could have been filed in the three months that have already passed. It shouldn't take 6 months for the filing of post trial motions. To show up on sentencing day empty handed and a request for 3 more months seems excessive to me. But I think I am viewing it with thoughts of how long the victim families have had to put up with this. At some point they should be allowed to move forward with their lives.