Pretty standard actually. Then throw in the death penalty, trials two, three years out is the norm IME.
DP qualifying cases always tend to take longer. Both sides and the court itself are very aware of the gravity of a case where the verdict can mean death for the defendant.
IMO it isn't taking longer than would be usual for a high-profile, multiple murder, death penalty case. For example, the James Holmes case in CO-- Holmes was arrested minutes after the theater shootings but it was nearly 3 years later almost to the day before there was a conviction. And even if it was taking longer than is usual, better a delay now than having to have a second trial later because of errors made in haste.
It is.
I'm not clued up on such matters but can we tell if the defence is going for damage limitation more than a thorough and believable defence? or both. I would guess both as thats their job but I would presume a smart one would simply "bite the bullet".
Not sure what you mean by "bite the bullet." AT is a skilled DP-qualified lawyer. Are you suggesting she should give up defending BK? I'm confused. Of course, a defense attorney would prefer the client get off but if that's not possible, lessening punishment is thought important, especially in a DP case.
Up to this point, much of the Defense's energy (bluster) has been toward suppression. The evidence is damning beyond all damning so the best defense would have knocked out evidence.
yeh bite the bullet means to face something unpleasant and deal with it, in this context im thinking she probably knows its a lost cause so would plow more effort into avoiding the DP. nothing about not defending him. im also wondering if its possible to see her angle, which mightgive an insight to her approach.
Well, even with the gag order and the sealed documents both sides are "talking to" the potential jury pool with pre-trial matters. So I wouldn't expect to see a skilled defense attorney obviously give up on winning the guilt phase of the trial. That's just my opinion, of course.
sounds like fr her health she should quit. its not biting a bullet its chowing a cannonball. Any info on what his family position is? the way one of the article reads they were thought to have suspicions.
I doubt AT will decide to quit her job. She is a public defender and one of the few death penalty qualified ones in that area. I expect she can handle the case without endangering her health unduly. This isn't her first rodeo.
IMO her approach is predictable.
sounds more desperate to me, lol.
AT is a very skilled attorney, and she has been, and will continue to fight for her client, at every challenge, before and during trial. She will provide a vigorous defense, likely challenging every piece of evidence presented at trial. However, she can only work with what she is given to work with, and she doesn't have a lot to work with. She is not a miracle worker. If she keeps BK from getting the dp, which may be possible, that is as close to a win as BK is likely going to see in this case. JMO
I've been 'house' since the beginning, and have yet to read anything to shift me from that. Of course, there's a vast amount of information that will come out at trial that may change the face of this crime and the events of it completely. We're working theories from so little.
I really really miss the laugh emoji.
