Legal and Law Questions - * No Discussion *
- Thread starter NewMommy09
- Start date
New Posts
-
-
IN IN - Blake Brown, 34, poss. in Marion area, Kokomo, 8 Aug 2024
- Latest: citizen_sleuth
AZlawyer
Verified Attorney
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2008
- Messages
- 7,883
- Reaction score
- 2,123
I doubt it--it would have to be a pretty serious error. What kind of error are you thinking of?? Has one been alleged?
I'm just toying with ideas of what type of procedural error would allow EJ to get out of jail.
snip
“Elizabeth’s 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?
snip
“Elizabeth’s 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?
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?
AZlawyer
Verified Attorney
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2008
- Messages
- 7,883
- Reaction score
- 2,123
Hmmm. Yes, that one kind of worries me. Why was there an "interview" of EJ at the jail with a San Antonio homicide detective present, that her attorneys apparently didn't know about? :waitasec:
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!
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.
AZlawyer
Verified Attorney
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2008
- Messages
- 7,883
- Reaction score
- 2,123
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
AZlawyer
Verified Attorney
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2008
- Messages
- 7,883
- Reaction score
- 2,123
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
The minute entry is granting a request to seal a motion to reduce EJ's bond. IIRC, her bond is about a million dollars right now. I really couldn't speculate why the motion was sealed.
It is definitely possible that EJ will end up in a mental hospital after the evidentiary hearing. If she does, though, it will have no effect on TPS.
BeanE
Inactive
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!
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!
noopy
New Member
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2010
- Messages
- 144
- Reaction score
- 0
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!
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!
AZlawyer
Verified Attorney
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2008
- Messages
- 7,883
- Reaction score
- 2,123
Oh, I think when that person gets out of jail, they will talk.
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!
I don't think there is any possible way he could have talked to her for 3 hours or for 3 minutes without asking her about something that would connect at least to the custodial interference charge. "Did you take Gabriel to TX and kill him?" would be about the potential TX charges, but would sure as heck relate to custodial interference and kidnapping as well. Ask yourself why he went to talk to the AZ police officers after he left, if he wasn't asking questions on "their" charges.
Also, I'm not convinced that it would have been OK for him to talk to her even if he did limit the conversation to TX charges. It might not affect the AZ charges in that case, but it might prevent TX from proceeding with their charges (if any).
The judge might try to limit the damage that way, but this was a pretty serious violation from the way Alcock has described it. I'm still waiting for the other side of the story....waiting...waiting...:waitasec:
Feldman said that the detective initially denied he had tape-recorded the interview but later admitted he had. Feldman and Alcock have not been able to obtain the interview because of the gap in jurisdictions.
Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/community/...-baby-gabriel-case-tainted.html#ixzz12FcyCZRo
Hi Az...since this interview was obtained in AZ and not done legally....doesn't the tape actually become the property of the Tempe PD ? The fact he said he didn't tape and then recant's...that bothers me alot....thx's....
Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/community/...-baby-gabriel-case-tainted.html#ixzz12FcyCZRo
Hi Az...since this interview was obtained in AZ and not done legally....doesn't the tape actually become the property of the Tempe PD ? The fact he said he didn't tape and then recant's...that bothers me alot....thx's....
AZ...sorry to bother you again...it appears in the article the Det. spoke with the "informant" and EJ. 2 people if I read this correctly. Therefore, could he have also taped the interview with the "Informant" as well, and could he interview said "informant" without their legal counsel there? Thank You!