Seattle1
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2013
- Messages
- 41,304
- Reaction score
- 428,958
Typical -- if SB didn't initiate it, then it's false or not admissible!I missed that there's a new handwritten motion, uploaded on September 5th to the Orange County court! It looks like it was written before Owens joined the case because she refers to herself as pro se in it. Orange County Clerk of Courts Records Search
The title is MOTION TO OBJECT BY THE DEFENDANT TO STATE'S DIGITAL EVIDENCE (USB JUMP DRIVE).
The gist of her issues seem to be:
- The cell phone video/audio can't be authenticated.
- The cell phone video/audio would prejudice a jury against her.
- She believes the the cell phone video/audio was obtained illegally and that violates her Fourth Amendment rights.
- Same complaints about authenticity of the police body cam videos.
- She says she wasn't read her Miranda rights before being questioned by LE so her Fifth Amendment rights have been violated.
- Interrogation video doesn't have a time stamp so it can't be authenticated.
I imagine this is all moot since she's no longer pro se, but we'll see what the judge does with it.
There are forensic phone experts for each side who can authenticate the cell phone video for all -- including the jurors. Just because SB can't spy with her tiny eye the date stamp on the video she took of Jorge begging to be freed from the suitcase does not mean it's not authentic. And SB had a right to remain silent but keeping her mouth shut would be torture to SB. The interrogation video can be authenticated to the satisfaction of her counsel. And good luck to you Mr. Owens...JMO