It's partial, just like the DNA non-match in the glove box. It's unfortunate the judges couldn't differentiate between evidence and smokescreens
The judge wouldn’t need to “guess” if prosecution had everything ready before the arrest or at least the preliminary. I won’t blame a judge for a poor prosecution. Given what he knew and was presented to him he sent it to trial just said there was not proof positive. That was the right thing to do.
Maybe about the voter fraud case? Was there also a separate case for something about one of the guns being illegal? Not sure why that is tickling my (poor) memory...
Definitely not the voter fraud case, as this is under the murder case docket.
Nope -- those cases were heard in Chaffee County. This is linked to the murder case slated for trial in Fremont County (Canon City). Possibly seeking the return of evidence or unfinished business. It's not lost on me that this hearing will be with a new Judge (not Lama) but we know that IE is good at that. JMO
Don’t know about unfinished business but can he legally seek the return of evidence?
Thanks @MassGuy.
IMO, defense counsel is good at asking for things. Doesn't mean she's going to get what she asks for. Actually, more like demanding things. JMO
Gravy Train:
