Judge Boyce is explaining how these cases are currently all in their pre-trial phases and not yet at a trial. He talks about some of the cases cited by the State and how exactly delays happened in those cases, and that Defendants (even defendants joindered in a case) may not go through the same Pretrial Motions and hearings.
He then tackles their argument of having separate (and multiple hearings) and how that would be inefficient, he mentioned that’s not yet happened once in this case - and even says he won’t have that happen. I think that really takes down part of their argument (see my previous post if you’d like).
“the assignment of two Case numbers does not sever the right of the State to seek a single trial in this case. I am going to set one trial, one trial for both defendants. And we’ll hope that we can get both defendants to trial, but now when there’s a delay and no one knows how long that delay is going to be, at some point we may need to reconsider.” Judge Boyce says.
Judge denies the Motion of the State.
Judge says he will hear and consider the Motion to Sever at a future time.
State asks if Judge will issue a written order with his findings and rulings.
Judge Boyce says he will issue an Order that mentions what he said on the record…..and this hearing is in recess.
[sorry for my lack of formatting, was trying to capture as much as I could, as quickly as I could]