10ofRods
Verified Anthropologist
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2019
- Messages
- 15,557
- Reaction score
- 194,899
Yeah I also disagree with sealed affidavits here. Once you charge someone, not only does the defendant get to see what the facts are, but the public should too. It will all have to be laid out at trial anyway. Unless there is some really good investigative reason I really don’t know about this. BM is lawyering up so it’s not like they are going to withhold evidence and catch him in any more lies. And they soecificallly said no other arrests were coming, so I don’t suspect there are others (accomplices after the fact etc) that might do anything with the information in the affidavits. I also don’t think they should keep saying it’s an ongoing investigation (except as to the whereabouts of Suzanne of course) as I feel like that weakens the case a bit, and sealing affidavits presents the idea that they don’t feel like they are substantial enough. Idk. Maybe I’m wrong. MOO.
I think it's the opposite - there's so much in the affadavit that even if the judge goes to open it, the defense attorney will likely object to parts of it (and that's his/her job to do that).
I think it is only ethical for the opposing attorney (the prosecution) to allow that process to take place. The defense should get to see the affadavit before we do, and the judge needs to rule on whether some parts need to be redacted (for example, names and addresses, just as one set of things, especially as regarding potential witnesses).
Once the defense and the prosecution speak with the judge, and the judge has his/her questions answered, then it's likely it will be available to the public. But we shouldn't see it before the defendant's attorney has a chance to discuss it with the court.