Donna Brock

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

nforsee said:
My personal opinion is that RC has been a snitch a time or 2 before this incident. I agree with the poster who said if he was a snitch in this latest incident he would not still be sitting in the county jail. They have video evidence of him involved in a drug transaction and he is going to have to cut a deal with the prosecutor’s office to get time off of his sentence and if he wants to get off he is going to have come up with some thing big.

a civilian undercover/informant is a snitch
Click to expand...

And nobody likes a snitch..
 
snookie said:
It could be that she was going through a mid-life crisis, and then got wrapped up in the "fame" of these young notorious wannabe thugs. She thought it was hot!! It made her feel wild and free, like some kinda badazz. Perhaps she enjoyed being the older cool chick :)dance: ) who had connections, and got a bit too carried away. And I kind of suspect she might've been in experimentation mode and had some "romantic" feelings towards Misty.... :sick:

Just my own humble opinion.
Click to expand...

bold is mine-

Mine too!
 
Oh I know that...it was specified there would be a Nebbia hearing when she was first arrested if anyone tried to post bond - but today there was a motion made for one....so I am thinking someone has come up with the bond and now they want a hearing???
But does the "take it under advisement" mean they don't have to grant a hearing? That the judge can take it under advisement and decide yes or no?
That's what I don't understand.
 
wasalurker said:
Oh I know that...it was specified there would be a Nebbia hearing when she was first arrested if anyone tried to post bond - but today there was a motion made for one....so I am thinking someone has come up with the bond and now they want a hearing???
But does the "take it under advisement" mean they don't have to grant a hearing? That the judge can take it under advisement and decide yes or no?
That's what I don't understand.
Click to expand...

IIRC, it's up to the discretion of the judge.
 
wasalurker said:
Oh I know that...it was specified there would be a Nebbia hearing when she was first arrested if anyone tried to post bond - but today there was a motion made for one....so I am thinking someone has come up with the bond and now they want a hearing???
But does the "take it under advisement" mean they don't have to grant a hearing? That the judge can take it under advisement and decide yes or no?
That's what I don't understand.
Click to expand...
In a nutshell, yes. The court can grant or deny the request (motion). The judge could have a number of reasons for withholding her decision. She might want to review the case, including the documents that accompanied the motion. If the court's docket is heavy, it might be a scheduling issue. We'll just have to keep checking the docket.
 
Thank you all - but now I'm just more confused - LOL.
Here is what I understand:

1) she was given a bond amt

2) has to have a Nebbia hearing before bonding out to prove where the money is from

3) it looks like they have requested this hearing

4) and now a judge can now decide yes or no to the hearing?

Isn't she entitled to it? If they gave her a bond amt don't they have to give her a Nebbia hearing since it was specified? Why not just do "no bond" if they don't want to have her be released? Totally, totally confused....
 
The bond is subject to the Nebbia hearing. Donna is entitled to post bond. But the court is entitled to know where the money comes from.
 
debs said:
The bond is subject to the Nebbia hearing. Donna is entitled to post bond. But the court is entitled to know where the money comes from.
Click to expand...

Exactly - so how can they take the hearing "under advisement"? Don't they have to give her one as she is entitled to post bond? :waitasec::waitasec:
That's where I am confused....
 
wasalurker said:
Exactly - so how can they take the hearing "under advisement"? Don't they have to give her one as she is entitled to post bond? :waitasec::waitasec:
That's where I am confused....
Click to expand...

IF I were guessing (which I admit I am doing) I would imagine that it is under advisement because her attorney objected to the court questioning where the bond funds came from, since it could be stated that there is a presumption of guilt behind the court's actions in assigning Nebbia at all.
 
It's the way the justice system works, wasa. Almost any action in court has to be has to be preceded by a motion. The court has the authority to grant or deny the motion. If the motion is denied, the attorneys usually request a hearing or conference to discuss the judge's ruling, and on and on, ad nauseum.

To answer your question, yes, the judge could deny the Nebbia hearing. What occurred today, however, should not be viewed as a denial of her bond. Nor has the court denied her a Nebbia hearing. For whatever reason, the judge was just not ready to make a decision today.
 
bessie said:
It's the way the justice system works, wasa. Almost any action in court has to be has to be preceded by a motion. The court has the authority to grant or deny the motion. If the motion is denied, the attorneys usually request a hearing or conference to discuss the judge's ruling, and on and on, ad nauseum.

To answer your question, yes, the judge could deny the Nebbia hearing. What occurred today, however, should not be viewed as a denial of her bond. Nor has the court denied her a Nebbia hearing. For whatever reason, the judge was just not ready to make a decision today.
Click to expand...
I don't care for this process-it seems unfair. I could understand denying bail AFTER the hearing, but not the hearing, itself.
 
debs said:
IF I were guessing (which I admit I am doing) I would imagine that it is under advisement because her attorney objected to the court questioning where the bond funds came from, since it could be stated that there is a presumption of guilt behind the court's actions in assigning Nebbia at all.
Click to expand...
No attorney worth his salt is going to do anything that would delay a client's release from jail on bond, especially on something like a Nebbia hearing which is fairly standard in drug cases. (By the same token the fact that she was arrested at all could be viewed as a presumption of guilt.) To base an objection on a "presumption of guilt", I'm pretty certain her attorney would need more than that to show that her rights were violated. And it's early in the proceedings for that type of argument.

ETA: In my humble opinion.
 
This comment may be way off base - but, in some cases I've known about the following happening:

If a person was declared indigent and was provided a public defender by the court - the judge always questioned "how" they could afford/arrange bond. Bottom line usually was (if the bond was sizable) if you can make a bond this large - you can pay for a private attorney. So, stay in jail with a PD or get a private attorney and you can post bond.

Don't know if this applies to DB's situation at all - just thought I'd toss it out there.
 
So now she stays in jail for now til the deciion and has 2 more hearings to go???
 
I wonder if Hubby decided to step up to the plate and post her bond. We all know he was not happy with her involvement in this whole thing. He may have cooled off a bit. But with it being reported that they own 3 homes together it is difficult to understand how she could plead indigent at all.

If I was her hubby I'd spend that bond money on a divorce attorney and let her sit in jail and rot.
 
Boots-OK said:
This comment may be way off base - but, in some cases I've known about the following happening:

If a person was declared indigent and was provided a public defender by the court - the judge always questioned "how" they could afford/arrange bond. Bottom line usually was (if the bond was sizable) if you can make a bond this large - you can pay for a private attorney. So, stay in jail with a PD or get a private attorney and you can post bond.

Don't know if this applies to DB's situation at all - just thought I'd toss it out there.
Click to expand...

That's a great point and makes a lot of sense if DB has a PD but then is seeking now to post bond. Fair is fair.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 61 more.
Total: 2,130 (members: 62, guests: 2,068)

Online statistics

Members online
62
Guests online
2,068
Total visitors
2,130
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
601,922
Messages
18,131,922
Members
231,187
Latest member
atriumproperties
Back
Top