Judge had not received state's response memorandum re: aggravation/next motion, reading over it quickly.
AL: (I'm paraphrasing, this is only a bit of what she's saying.)
Says state's memorandum contains almost no law, but says that the state "should not have to educate the defense", that the defense should "rely on their much touted experience", and that the defense should use the "mountain of discovery" they've received to find any mitigating factors.
AL says frankly that "mountain" is the problem. The indictment doesn't even tell what the state's theory is regarding the murder, there is no info regarding aggravating factors, the burden is on the state to prove aggravating factors. Out of 14,000 pages of police reports and mountains of other documents and "new science", how are we supposed to discern how to spend our time and limited resources....
the state made the statement in their indictment that new circumstances made them decide to pursue the death penalty. What circumstances? Based on what evidence? Given the vagueness of the charging document, we don't know what their theory is regarding aggravation. I take them at their word there was something specific that caused them to change their mind regarding the death penalty, I request that they tell us what it is and what their theory is.
JA saying that the defense stood before the court and said that she can't figure out what was different in those 14,000 pages of discovery. Even when the State said in court what the difference was, she still feigns ignorance.
