mysteriew
A diamond in process
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2004
- Messages
- 23,811
- Reaction score
- 819
At a guess based on Brodsky's interviews with media, DrewP's defense is going to be that he carried the weapon while working and that makes it ok. The state hasn't stated their position other than it is an illegal weapon.
My guess on the supeona issue is that DrewP is looking for further proof that he did carry the weapon at work and that the department was aware of it.
That would be a weakness in the state's case. Because it might make the judge waver on the illegality of the weapon. So they (the state) are continuing with the stand that the weapon was illegal and will try to ignore the issue that the department was aware that he was carrying it. As such they will try to prevent any proof that the department was aware of the weapon being used from entering the court. Their stand would be that it doesn't matter that the department knew, it isn't a part of the case- the gun was still illegal.
My guess on the supeona issue is that DrewP is looking for further proof that he did carry the weapon at work and that the department was aware of it.
That would be a weakness in the state's case. Because it might make the judge waver on the illegality of the weapon. So they (the state) are continuing with the stand that the weapon was illegal and will try to ignore the issue that the department was aware that he was carrying it. As such they will try to prevent any proof that the department was aware of the weapon being used from entering the court. Their stand would be that it doesn't matter that the department knew, it isn't a part of the case- the gun was still illegal.