GUILTY TX - Christina Morris, 23, Plano, 30 August 2014 - #40 *Arrest*

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
MIKAYOYO said:
I watched a Dateline the other night and the defense lawyer said it is basically malpractice if they don't submit these kind of motions. So it sounds routine and par for the course. IMHO
Click to expand...

That's really interesting! Thank you... It's so different in the UK.
 
greenpalm said:
Hi Lolly, I just wanted to say Hello because when this case started and Christina first went missing I lived in Collin County and I regularly drank coffee at a Starbucks where her missing flyers were posted. I lived right in her neighborhood, more or less.

Now I live in London. This has dragged on so so long. I feel horrible for her poor mother.

I wish they could find her. I almost wish that as much or perhaps even more than I hope the trial comes to a close, although, that too is obviously important.

I followed the April Jones case so closely and of course she was never found. I recently read their book, "Our April" which I purchased at a bookstore after I moved here to London. It was interesting watching a case in Wales from the US, the differences in the laws, and the trials, and in particular the restrictions put on media coverage are always fascinating.
Click to expand...

Hello :) oh wow! That's really interesting. I had never heard of where Christina went missing from, and I have no idea why but it just really drew me in from the day she went missing. I hope your enjoying London.

Yes I find it a bit confusing because of the differences in the US, things seem so much more open and more information available. The UK just goes lockdown and nothing is mentioned until the trial. All these motions etc you don't see anything like that. I also don't think the postponing of dates is very common. Not that I'v noticed.

April cases is so so sad. I remember it well, I'v not read any books on it. Don't know I could stomach it.
 
The trial is postponed!?!? That sucks! This isn't helping her family at all!
 
05/16/2016 Brady Motion

Comments: Defendant's Motion to Suppress and Brady Motion: Computer- Based Evidence Obtained in Violation of Section 1702.101 of the Texas Occupations Code and Testimony Related to this Evidence [Via Forensics Cell Phone Examination]

05/16/2016 Motion Limine

Comments: Motion to Suppress Evidence and Motion in Limine Concerning the Defendant's Exercise of His Constitutional Right to Not Have His Phone Searched


05/16/2016 Motion

Comments: Motion for Discovery: Identification of Witnesses who testified Before the Grand Jury and Whose Testimony was Transcribed; Production of Grand Jury Testimony Prior to Trial; Production of Grand Jury Testimony after the Witness Testifies and Sufficient Time to Review as Required by T.R.E. 615 (d)

https://apps.collincountytx.gov/JudicialRecords/Case/1387104/100/Other|Inmate Detail
 
zippixx said:
05/16/2016 Brady Motion

Comments: Defendant's Motion to Suppress and Brady Motion: Computer- Based Evidence Obtained in Violation of Section 1702.101 of the Texas Occupations Code and Testimony Related to this Evidence [Via Forensics Cell Phone Examination]

05/16/2016 Motion Limine

Comments: Motion to Suppress Evidence and Motion in Limine Concerning the Defendant's Exercise of His Constitutional Right to Not Have His Phone Searched


05/16/2016 Motion

Comments: Motion for Discovery: Identification of Witnesses who testified Before the Grand Jury and Whose Testimony was Transcribed; Production of Grand Jury Testimony Prior to Trial; Production of Grand Jury Testimony after the Witness Testifies and Sufficient Time to Review as Required by T.R.E. 615 (d)

https://apps.collincountytx.gov/JudicialRecords/Case/1387104/100/Other|Inmate Detail
Click to expand...

What does this all mean? Is this all stuff that is not admissible at the jury trial?
 
bradfordsleuth said:
What does this all mean? Is this all stuff that is not admissible at the jury trial?
Click to expand...

These are requests. The specifics are in the wording of the motions, which we don't have. In conjunction with a slew of others, they will be argued in court (on June 6, I believe) and at that time a determination will be made by the judge.

The ramifications vary, depending on the motion's request, and again these are only requests to the court.

Judging from the titles (which may or may not be telling us what all we need to know)
1 Comments: Defendant's Motion to Suppress and Brady Motion: Computer- Based Evidence Obtained in Violation of Section 1702.101 of the Texas Occupations Code and Testimony Related to this Evidence [Via Forensics Cell Phone Examination]
This appears to be an allegation by defense that an unlicensed investigator was used, and the evidence found by such should be tossed. We don't have any idea what evidence this might be. However, the law apparently being used as a basis for this request is about licensing - with whatever penalty, if any, something that would be imposed on the investigator rather than on the client. So unless the title is misleading, or there's something really bizarre, this request looks like a weird longshot with no real legal basis.
2 Comments: Defendant's Motion to Suppress and Brady Motion: Computer- Based Evidence Obtained in Violation of Section 1702.101 of the Texas Occupations Code and Testimony Related to this Evidence [Via Forensics Cell Phone Examination]
This would seems obvious, but the devil is always in the details. On its face, the defense is alleging that the state searched the contents of a phone without the permission of owner and without a warrant. Whose phone, we don't know. Did it happen, we don't know. But such activity is not allowed by LE - it does take permission or a warrant to search someone's phone, and an illegal search can cause the results to be excluded from a trial.The facts of whether permission was granted, or a warrant was obtained, should make this one fairly easy to adjudicate.
3 Comments: Motion for Discovery: Identification of Witnesses who testified Before the Grand Jury and Whose Testimony was Transcribed; Production of Grand Jury Testimony Prior to Trial; Production of Grand Jury Testimony after the Witness Testifies and Sufficient Time to Review as Required by T.R.E. 615 (d)
This one is a bit murkier than it looks, a case of conflicting rights. Defense is demanding evidence (grand jury testimony) that the state has acquired, pertaining to the trial, because a defendant is entitled to exculpatory evidence. But the grand jury proceedings are legally conducted in secret and not open for the defense to examine. So this is a bit of a fishing expedition in some ways, and where it goes will depend on the specifics of the request. Would a judge give a defense attorney full and unfettered access to anything they want re a grand jury and its proceedings? Yes it's possible, but not likely, and more likely he'll instead draw a line somewhere that will be decided by the what, how, and why of the defense's specific request, and the what, how, and why of the state's answer. It's important to keep in mind that all the defense can get out of this request is information, and can't change the facts the GJ saw and heard.
 
Just been reading all the posts and very sad for all. One thing that struck me (if I am remembering correctly) is how he was 3 hours late to work. This may suggest he traveled away from area (maybe an hour or so) which may be reason he is so confident and smug about her location. Just a thought for those that may be familar with area etc. Hoping some answers will come soon!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 141 more.
Total: 3,002 (members: 142, guests: 2,860)

Online statistics

Members online
142
Guests online
2,860
Total visitors
3,002
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
602,694
Messages
18,145,381
Members
231,494
Latest member
malik562
Back
Top