Tink56
MOO...IMO
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2008
- Messages
- 2,650
- Reaction score
- 25,289
I am confused. I thought the court had ruled on this?
I was or maybe still am confused....but, I think this is the "way it is."
1. Schoenhorn holds a press conference and files his potion.
2. The state needed to respond and was granted an extension until Monday. Both motions are now in play.
3. The Appellate Court now has to rule as to whether or not they will hear Schoenhorn's complaints in a trial or move the motion should be dismissed. I think the 10 days started ticking on Monday.
From the Case Lookup:
MICHELLE C TROCONIS
Juris: 101507 ANDREW B BOWMAN
Juris: 101793 JON L SCHOENHORN
Defendant Petitioner/Movant
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Juris: 401810 STATE'S ATTORNEY-JD STAMFORD
Plaintiff Respondent
Case Activity
Activity Number Date filed Initiated By Description Action Action Date Notice Date
PRE APPEAL MOTION
AC 194348 6/17/2020 E-filed Petition for Review of Order Concerning Release on Bail (P.B. § 78a-1)
Filed
OTHER DOCUMENT
6/24/2020 E-filed Transcript
Filed
OTHER DOCUMENT
6/29/2020 E-filed Other Document
Returned
APPEARANCE
AC 194348 7/6/2020 E-filed Appearance Form
Filed
OPPOSITION, RESPONSE OR WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION
AC 194348 7/6/2020 E-filed Opposition, Response or Withdrawal of Motion
Filed
OTHER DOCUMENT
7/6/2020 Clerk Uploaded Return of Filing Notice
Filed
Supreme/Appellate Case Look-up
Last edited: