Found Deceased WY - Gabrielle ‘Gabby’ Petito, 22, Grand Teton National Park, 25 Aug 2021 #85

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
I didn't realize the judge must assume that the facts claimed by the plaintiff's are true in this motion to dismiss. With that in mind I think he will allow this case go to trial. JMO.
 
I didn't realize the judge must assume that the facts claimed by the plaintiff's are true in this motion to dismiss. With that in mind I think he will allow this case go to trial. JMO.

Yes, the standard for all Motions to Dismiss is that the Judge assumes that all the facts alleged by the Plaintiff to be true, and then there needs to be another reason for the dismissal.

I think the Judge made a good point that the 5th Amendment right might be better as an Affirmative Defense.
 
My opinion/thoughts only...

The Judge is questioning the Laundries' attorney about what crime they would be afraid of being accused of if they spoke. The attorney admitted that it would have been Brian Laundrie who committed the crime.

There was a warrant for Brian on the CC/Debit Card - if they help him escape, they'd be obstructing justice (and possibly something more - I'm not a criminal lawyer).
 
The question by the Judge about what crime the Laundries committed that made using the 5th amendment valid is intresting. Is he saying the defendants must show they committed a criminal act?
 
Last edited:
Is there a chance case will ultimately require representation by constitutional attorneys, or is that a stretch?
 
The question by the Judge about what crime the Laundries committed that made using the 5th amendment valid. Is he saying the defendants must show they committed a criminal act?

Maybe this will help:

"Finally, the testimony must be self-incriminating, such that the information would provide a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute the individual for a crime. Thus, the information itself need not be incriminating; it suffices that the information would lead to the discovery of incriminating evidence."

 
Isn't the source of the statement made by the Laundries lawyer protected by attorney client privilege. Will the lawyer be forced to testify about his communication with his clients?
 
Isn't the source of the statement made by the Laundries lawyer protected by attorney client privilege. Will the lawyer be forced to testify about his communication with his clients?

The attorney is the agent for his clients. He put out a public statement, there is no attorney client privilege there.

It's unlikely he will be forced to testify, because most of their communications will be protected by Privilege.

If Bertolino didn't put out this statement, there may not be a hearing right now. (MOO)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
165
Guests online
234
Total visitors
399

Forum statistics

Threads
608,943
Messages
18,247,951
Members
234,512
Latest member
aammmaaayyyaa
Back
Top