Kidnapping Charges

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
After tm sees the vid of sm flirting we may not need a trial...he may well disappear too.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

:whip::scared: Back in the handcuffs for you Sidney Moorer! Maybe prison would be better.
 
Or... She'll be in denial about that too. . Ostrich-like.
 
What flirting video are we talking about?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
 
The judge has ruled in favor of the 2 charges (kidnapping and obstruction of justice) being tried separately. I am surprised. I thought it would go the other way. I do not see where there is not a link between the 2 charges.


http://www.wmbfnews.com/story/32227...attorney-says?clienttype=generic&sf28743850=1

Does this mean the defense can object when the state tries to introduce the lie he told about the pay phone call because of the obstruction of justice trial?
 
Does this mean the defense can object when the state tries to introduce the lie he told about the pay phone call because of the obstruction of justice trial?

I was just coming here to ask the same exact question.
 
Does this mean the defense can object when the state tries to introduce the lie he told about the pay phone call because of the obstruction of justice trial?

I am not sure if it means the defense can object, but when the judge was addressing this, I am pretty sure he said that separate trials or not, that evidence would come into the kidnapping trial.
 
Does this mean the defense can object when the state tries to introduce the lie he told about the pay phone call because of the obstruction of justice trial?

I am not sure about objections, but the judge said "there really is no prejudice to the state, clearly that evidence is coming in anyway. I do agree there is an overlap." I guess we will have to wait and see if there is an objection and if it is overruled or sustained.
 
WTH! If the evidence is coming in anyway, then why waste yet more taxpayer $$$ to have to try SM separately for an OOJ charge? I do not understand this judge. It's a criminal offense for goodness sakes. So a(nother) jury will have to be called and seated just to hear the OOJ case after this kidnapping charge is litigated?
 
WTH! If the evidence is coming in anyway, then why waste yet more taxpayer $$$ to have to try SM separately for an OOJ charge? I do not understand this judge. It's a criminal offense for goodness sakes. So a(nother) jury will have to be called and seated just to hear the OOJ case after this kidnapping charge is litigated?

I'm with you. The judge said, "clearly that evidence is coming in anyway. I do agree there is an overlap", yet he decides to separate trials? I don't understand the judge's logic either.
 
I think he acted like he knew her imo......
 
WTH! If the evidence is coming in anyway, then why waste yet more taxpayer $$$ to have to try SM separately for an OOJ charge? I do not understand this judge. It's a criminal offense for goodness sakes. So a(nother) jury will have to be called and seated just to hear the OOJ case after this kidnapping charge is litigated?
Agreed. What a waste of time and money.
 
WTH! If the evidence is coming in anyway, then why waste yet more taxpayer $$$ to have to try SM separately for an OOJ charge? I do not understand this judge. It's a criminal offense for goodness sakes. So a(nother) jury will have to be called and seated just to hear the OOJ case after this kidnapping charge is litigated?
Agreed! OOJ is a charge related to doing something to interfere with a specific criminal investigation, correct? How could the two charges NOT be related? What other criminal case was he interfering with if not Heather's?? I don't understand this at all. Would live to hear an attorney pipe up.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
125
Guests online
2,862
Total visitors
2,987

Forum statistics

Threads
603,994
Messages
18,166,388
Members
231,905
Latest member
kristens5487
Back
Top