Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
IF there was a procedural error made during the extradition process from FL to AZ, what happens to the case in AZ - does it negate the case and back to square one?
I'm just toying with ideas of what type of procedural error would allow EJ to get out of jail.
snip
Elizabeths attorney had her convinced that the charges were going to be dropped because of some kind of procedural error on the prosecution..."
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/local/tempe/article_b4e011a2-acb5-11df-a5e8-001cc4c03286.html
What other types of errors might allow EJ to get the charges dropped and out of jail?
I was thinking the procedural error could have something to do with this.
Detective Salame of SAPD ordered to submit to interview at EJ's attorney's office on 7/9/2010
http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov...0/m4286135.pdf
What are your thoughts on this AZ? Does it sound like it could be considered a procedural error?
I just want to make sure that I am reading court minutes correctly. In the minutes from EJ's last hearing
http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/082010/m4351781.pdf
it shows EJ's Attorney NA, then it skips a line, and lists several departments and individuals, including Judge McMurdie and Victim Services.
Are those individuals people representing the victim (in this case, Gabriel Johnson), or is it like when you write a memo about a meeting and "cc:" people involved with the meeting?
I don't believe they have anything to do with the defense, or am I wrong?
Thanks!
I just want to make sure that I am reading court minutes correctly. In the minutes from EJ's last hearing
http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/082010/m4351781.pdf
it shows EJ's Attorney NA, then it skips a line, and lists several departments and individuals, including Judge McMurdie and Victim Services.
Are those individuals people representing the victim (in this case, Gabriel Johnson), or is it like when you write a memo about a meeting and "cc:" people involved with the meeting?
I don't believe they have anything to do with the defense, or am I wrong?
Thanks!
Hey there! I believe those are witnesses the defense is calling. I could be wrong but I think that is why they are listed.
I see every court minutes for EJ lists Victim Services in the same spot, so I am assuming they have nothing to do with the defense, since Gabe is the victim.
AZ Lawyer as always thanks for your input. I have a question about this court min doc relating to sealing of the motion for release conditions? What exactly does all of this mean? Is it possible that EJ and all her antics are going to land her in a mental hospital? I know she was found competent but there will be an evidenciary hearing on the 23rd related to that. Also if found incompetent again what does that mean for TPS? Thanks
Hi Az-
Do you think that we will eventually learn what info the confidential informant
gave to LE? Can they keep the informant from talking to the press?
As always, you're the best. Thanks.
Hi, AZ :blowkiss:
SAPD believes Elizabeth murdered Gabe. If Detective Salame, who is from San Antonio PD, spoke with Elizabeth only in that context, could the charges in TX (kidnapping, custodial interference) still be dismissed?
My concern is how closely they are tied together, and I'm not sure how he would have talked for 3 hours in that context without ever saying anything that would tie to the kidnapping etc charges.
Hope that made sense.
Thanks!
Hi AZ-
If there was a procedural error from the detective's part, why wouldn't the courts just decide to:
1) throw out the evidence from that interview with the detective (hasn't surfaced anyway)
2) replace her attorney (since the detective only said not to trust her attorney not all attorneys in the world) and only that relationship is damaged (whatever, but that's according to al *advertiser censored*)?
How likely is it they will go with dismissing the whole kidnapping case while Gabriel is still missing over something like this? Hardly reasonable, but I didn't study our laws. :banghead:
Thanks so much AZ!