newbysleuther
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2014
- Messages
- 39
- Reaction score
- 303
In my understanding, that is the conflict. Rashbaum used to represent Charlie, now he represents Donna. If Charlie testifies, Rashbaum, as counsel for the defense, would be able to cross-examine him. Potentially, that could pose a conflict, because Rashbaum used to represent him, and presumably he might know privileged information which he could elicit on cross. Such information might be helpful to Donna, but not helpful, or even damaging, to Charlie and his appeal.Interesting new Motion on the docket - any attorney out there care to weigh in?View attachment 531665
Well, I am an atty but not a criminal atty. Rashbaum representing both Charlie and Donna is a huge issue for her. And these filings show that. Even with a waiver of conflict of interest. "Ethical Wall" LOL We used Chinese Wall in some cases. How this will result, we shall see.Interesting new Motion on the docket - any attorney out there care to weigh in?View attachment 531665
If the defense is anything other than double extortion, it’s going to be more difficult for the state, in my opinion, because I don’t believe they will be prepared.Well, I am an atty but not a criminal atty. Rashbaum representing both Charlie and Donna is a huge issue for her. And these filings show that. Even with a waiver of conflict of interest. "Ethical Wall" LOL We used Chinese Wall in some cases. How this will result, we shall see.
I don't see how this won't cause a delay in jury selection. And given Charlie received notice he was going to be a witness back in July there is no excuse for waiting until the day before jury selection to raise this. The judge is going to be very unhappy with the defense.Interesting new Motion on the docket - any attorney out there care to weigh in?View attachment 531665
Prof Potuto & Tim Jansen weigh in on that new motion
Pretty much every issue and question is addressed by the Prof & by Tim J
I read the motion and I don’t see the issue or why anyone is up in arms and views this as a nefarious tactical move by the defense. They are reacting to a decision by Charlie’s appellate attorney who is doing his job and it should have been expected that the appellate attorney would have raised the issue about Charlie not waving his privilege. I watched the STS live and don’t agree with Professor Jo – she was taking the position that this was some nefarious action by Donna’s defense team. The defense responded appropriately to the appellate attorney advising his client not to waive privilege and there was nothing nefarious done by Donna’s defense team. The appellate attorney could give two sh_ts about Donna. His job it to protect Charlie’s best interest – not to make decisions that make Donna’s case easier for the state. In the motion, the defense states that they believe an ethical wall was built between Morris & Charlie. I would assume the same and that Morris could do the cross. The defense has ALSO brought on another attorney ‘IF’ the need arises – I view this as them doing the right thing and being proactive. What would be the need for the ‘third party’ council? I would imagine the third party would only be needed ‘IF’ it is determined by Judge Everett that Morris was tainted. The defense is making it clear they believe an ethical wall was built. Charlie’s appellate attorney is raising the flag that the ethical wall does not exist. This is something Judge Everett needs to flush out. Pretty standard stuff and I’m sure Judge Everett can easily resolve this issue. That may include legal waivers that the defense sign and agree to as a precaution and to avoid any ‘potential’ motion for mistrial. Seems like standard stuff as long as it’s addressed properly before the start of the trial.
Yes, why he had the smirk. This conflict has always presented a problem. They created it. They knew they would lose that Motion in Limine on Corbitt. They're playing games. Also, they waited until now knowing how much work the prosecution is putting in this past weekend to pull the rug out from under them.Well, well, well....Charlie's smile "seems" to be obvious, now. "He's baaaack!" Quoting TimJ, "They are playing games." Chinese wall or Chinese checkers?
It seems to me that this conflict, and in particular the issue regarding cross-examination of Charlie, should have been apparent to Charlie’s appellate counsel as soon as Charlie was listed as a witness, and so I do question why this Motion was only made only, on the eve of trial.
Regardless of intent, as I understand it, the practical effect of the Motion, should it be granted, would be for Charlie to be effectively precluded from testifying for the state, as he cannot be cross-examined. If the defense does not call him, then he does not testify at all, and in my understanding that would mean that there would be no witness to tell the double extortion story.
In my opinion, that has consequences for Donna’s defense, and it may be helpful for her.
I understand your point and certainly would not call any of this "nefarious." However, Charlie accepted notice he was going to be called as a witness in July and I cannot see any justification for waiting until the day before a jury is impaneled to raise this with the court and trial judges hate this sort of last minute interference with a long scheduled trial setting. I'm reminded of the motion filed by a non-participating attorney in the Chad Daybell case the weekend before trial and how livid the judge was. I disagree with you that this is "pretty standard stuff" that Judge Everett "can easily resolve." Any resolution that does not include a clear on-the-record waiver by Donna that she will not raise the issue on appeal would be a strong appellate point if she is convicted and I cannot see Rashbaum letting her waive those rights. In my opinion the court cannot impanel a jury without resolving this issue and that creates an immense problem now.I read the motion and I don’t see the issue or why anyone is up in arms and views this as a nefarious tactical move by the defense. They are reacting to a decision by Charlie’s appellate attorney who is doing his job and it should have been expected that the appellate attorney would have raised the issue about Charlie not waving his privilege. I watched the STS live and don’t agree with Professor Jo – she was taking the position that this was some nefarious action by Donna’s defense team. The defense responded appropriately to the appellate attorney advising his client not to waive privilege and there was nothing nefarious done by Donna’s defense team. The appellate attorney could give two sh_ts about Donna. His job it to protect Charlie’s best interest – not to make decisions that make Donna’s case easier for the state. In the motion, the defense states that they believe an ethical wall was built between Morris & Charlie. I would assume the same and that Morris could do the cross. The defense has ALSO brought on another attorney ‘IF’ the need arises – I view this as them doing the right thing and being proactive. What would be the need for the ‘third party’ council? I would imagine the third party would only be needed ‘IF’ it is determined by Judge Everett that Morris was tainted. The defense is making it clear they believe an ethical wall was built. Charlie’s appellate attorney is raising the flag that the ethical wall does not exist. This is something Judge Everett needs to flush out. Pretty standard stuff and I’m sure Judge Everett can easily resolve this issue. That may include legal waivers that the defense sign and agree to as a precaution and to avoid any ‘potential’ motion for mistrial. Seems like standard stuff as long as it’s addressed properly before the start of the trial.
Yeah we mentioned it many times on here and Reddit. It was always going to be an issue.It seems to me that this conflict, and in particular the issue regarding cross-examination of Charlie, should have been apparent to Charlie’s appellate counsel as soon as Charlie was listed as a witness, and so I do question why this Motion was only made only, on the eve of trial.
I understand your point and certainly would not call any of this "nefarious." However, Charlie accepted notice he was going to be called as a witness in July and I cannot see any justification for waiting until the day before a jury is impaneled to raise this with the court and trial judges hate this sort of last minute interference with a long scheduled trial setting. I'm reminded of the motion filed by a non-participating attorney in the Chad Daybell case the weekend before trial and how livid the judge was. I disagree with you that this is "pretty standard stuff" that Judge Everett "can easily resolve." Any resolution that does not include a clear on-the-record waiver by Donna that she will not raise the issue on appeal would be a strong appellate point if she is convicted and I cannot see Rashbaum letting her waive those rights. In my opinion the court cannot impanel a jury without resolving this issue and that creates an immense problem now.
On STS nation, Tim Jansen stated that Charlie was served July 11th via his attorney that the State had him on their witness list. So, this has been known over 60 days.
The curve ball is Charlie’s appellate attorney is raising the flag that he does not believe an ethnical wall exists between Morris and Charlie. IMO, he is just being overly cautious – he would have no idea if an ethical walls exists. My main point is this motion being filed by Rashbaum and Morris is standard procedure based on the motion filled by Charlie’s appellate attorney, but I’m not surprised it will be viewed as some nefarious tactical move by Donna's defense. They are just proactively covering the bases AND they are also stating an ethical wall does exist between Morris and Charlie. Morris was hired by Donna after Charlie conviction and had nothing to do with Charlie’s trial. As long as Rahsbaum didn’t share any ‘privileged’ information with Morris an ethical wall exists. Judge Everett can solve this issue in his sleep. I’d be willing to bet the third party attorney will not be needed.