BF (reporter) is going to contact the assistant D.A. for clarification regarding "Defendant's Motion For Restrictive and Protective Order" & let me know...
You rock, Zippixx!
BF (reporter) is going to contact the assistant D.A. for clarification regarding "Defendant's Motion For Restrictive and Protective Order" & let me know...
http://www.texastribune.org/2013/03/08/ellis-duncan-file-compromise-criminal-discovery-bi/
"State Sens. Robert Duncan and Rodney Ellis filed legislation on Friday that they hope will provide a solution to the years-long debate over discovery laws in Texas and help prevent wrongful convictions."
Please read the article above first.
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/83R/billtext/html/SB01611I.htm
"SECTION 1. Article 39.14, Code of Criminal Procedure, is
amended to read as follows:
Art. 39.14 DISCOVERY"
The bill, (A Bill to be Entitled An Act), S.B. No. 1611, begins with rules outlining DISCLOSURE BY STATE then moves on to rules outlining DISCLOSURE BY DEFENDANT.
"This Act takes effect January 1, 2014."
"Sec. 7. PROTECTIVE ORDERS. On a showing of good cause by either party the court may at any time enter an appropriate protective order that a specified disclosure be denied, restricted, or deferred. "Good cause," for purposes of this section, includes threats, harm, intimidation, or possible danger to the safely of a victim or witness, possible loss, destruction, or fabrication of evidence, or possible compromise of other investigations by law enforcement or a defense offered by a defendant."
That last, Sec. 7. , seems to apply to victims.
I believe it has something to do with limiting certain evidence, witnesses, discovery, or testimony. SteveS?
Well, if someone among the picketeers has actually made a credible threat to EA, who is behind bars, or to his possible visitors (those on his list) then count me as someone who believes a police report should be filed.
(On a personal note, I have been harassed by a person in the apartment building where I live for over two years (and stalked prior to that) by someone who knows exactly what line to come up to without getting in police trouble. I have recently obtained some legal advice about it which gave me a possible remedy, thank goodness. I am no fan or harassment but that has not stopped me from living my life.)
However, back to the subject at hand, were my daughter in jail, no picketeers would stop me from visiting her.
Do you know if the picketeers have crossed the line into harassment or stalking? As you know, here in Texas, where anyone can have a gun, anything can happen. I don't think it is possible to make the world a perfectly safe place.
Not everyone in Texas can legally carry a firearm. Good law-abiding citizens have the opportunity to obtain a conceal and carry handgun license. Of a side note, I'd much rather live in Texas than Chicago where guns are banned.
Have the picketers crossed the line into harassment or stalking? I have no clue. Suppose we would have to ask them. Have to admit, I'd be a little afraid of their response.
It seems to apply to anybody and everybody who may be involved in a case in some way.
It may apply to a witness or the defendant or, if disclosed, could compromise other ongoing investigations.
Respectfully, did you read it slowly?
Maybe if you click on the link (or google Texas Law Article 39.14) and read about fair Discovery rules, the whole thing will make sense.
Not to say I know the exact reason for the motion but it has to do with publicizing certain details/claims too soon imo.
Yes, and I clicked both links as your post suggested. And I will read it again, because it interests me. I noticed some things are reserved to protect victims and/or witnesses, for instance the part about victims' and witnesses' addresses. I did not like the part about victim impact statements having to be available to the defense before trial begins. For instance, in a murder case in Texas, doesn't the trial decide guilty or not guilty, and if there is a verdict of guilty, doesn't the penalty phase then begin? Having the impact statements of victims before trial means that the raw emotions of victims are exposed to the defense for strategy and exploitation during cross. I don't like that. It makes victims unnecessarily vulnerable when they have to testify.
As I said, I will read it again when Dancing with the Stars is over.
ETA: I think the Michael Morton case was a travesty! Something had to be done to correct the balance.
Not everyone in Texas can legally carry a firearm. Good law-abiding citizens have the opportunity to obtain a conceal and carry handgun license. Of a side note, I'd much rather live in Texas than Chicago where guns are banned.
Have the picketers crossed the line into harassment or stalking? I have no clue. Suppose we would have to ask them. Have to admit, I'd be a little afraid of their response.
http://www.texastribune.org/2013/03/08/ellis-duncan-file-compromise-criminal-discovery-bi/
"State Sens. Robert Duncan and Rodney Ellis filed legislation on Friday that they hope will provide a solution to the years-long debate over discovery laws in Texas and help prevent wrongful convictions."
Please read the article above first.
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/83R/billtext/html/SB01611I.htm
"SECTION 1. Article 39.14, Code of Criminal Procedure, is
amended to read as follows:
Art. 39.14 DISCOVERY"
The bill, (A Bill to be Entitled An Act), S.B. No. 1611, begins with rules outlining DISCLOSURE BY STATE then moves on to rules outlining DISCLOSURE BY DEFENDANT.
"This Act takes effect January 1, 2014."
"Sec. 7. PROTECTIVE ORDERS. On a showing of good cause by either party the court may at any time enter an appropriate protective order that a specified disclosure be denied, restricted, or deferred. "Good cause," for purposes of this section, includes threats, harm, intimidation, or possible danger to the safely of a victim or witness, possible loss, destruction, or fabrication of evidence, or possible compromise of other investigations by law enforcement or a defense offered by a defendant."
I haven't been a huge believer that EA is part of a larger organization, so I'm mostly thinking out loud, but I wonder how this motion might protect EA (or his family) if EA was to disclose information about others. ... If at all
You are undoubtedly right. I sounded a bit like my aunt who had a fit because my cousin and I wanted to go to a drive-in movie. She clearly had her own reason for not wanting us to go and cried out: "But someone could have a gun." I don't oppose a properly licensed concealed firearm, but those open carry guns in grocery stores freak me.
My real point is that there is really no safety. I don't follow social media concerning the Arochi case and Christina's family, so I, like you, would have no way of knowing about stalking or harassment.
LOL in light of the confusion I provided before, it sure looks like I shouldn't answer again. :smile:
But it should mean that on 4/29 we'll get an answer to "how do you plead," after which we'll head to trial (with a trial date being set) if they don't have a negotiated deal in place.