Dhighsmith
SouthGA
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2017
- Messages
- 633
- Reaction score
- 5,150
I was actually about to layout the same areas that in my personal opinion that lacks direct experience in the criminal courts seem to contradict certain arguments of not having clear insight into the purpose of the scheduled hearing- blindsided by calling into question their competency based on perceived pattern of certain actions.What I found in the transcript that was interesting is
Page 3 line 24-25.
BR acknowledges he had requested the huddle up and asks to lead. ( judge affirms Pg 4 ln 2)
Page 4 line 13-15
BR acknowledges that DQ had been mentioned weeks prior.
Page 4 lines 17-20
BR acknowledges they will be airing this in open court and that it also had been mentioned in a prior email. (Judge affirms)
Page 5 lines 1-3
BR states he feels more comfortable discussing this privately (on record) or ex-parte CONFIDENTIAL hearing.
Page 5 line 22
AB states he feels ambushed but doesn’t want to use that word.
Page 5 line going into the top of page 6
AB mentions that he thinks Nick used the word “ disqualification “.
The reason I find this interesting is that they used the word ambush within a few moments of having the floor. The judge had not laid out her thoughts “hobsons choice” at that point. ( she doesn’t until page 13)
AB had introduced that word “ambush”even though they both had heads up that DQ was on the table.
I think this was strategic.
AB arrived with counsel and a file showing that leaks had occurred on the onset of the investigation. They spent two+ pages in attempt to point fingers at non lawyers under no gag order or protective order of discovery that may have been involved in early leaks.
This does not point to ambush to me.
I think they introduced the scenario of wanting to keep this leak issue and the possible legal/professional consequences for them out of the public eye.
The most revealing point to me in rejecting an “ambush” is:
AB arrived with counsel