I don't think it is a tactical game she is playing. Once she has been assigned to this case I see no games being played and everything seems to be happening very quickly now. She not only added murder charges on to Dylan Adams but all three are now charged with aggravated rape x3. Each of those are specific charges she knows she has to prove and imo she can.
She would not go back just to set the clock back and add charges she cant prove in a court of law. That is just ridiculous and about as ridiculous as implying any DA can get an indictment as if that is their only goal when they are all fully aware each charge must be proven BARD and supported by evidence.
I don't think this ADA is playing any games. This has always been an ongoing investigation even after the two main culprits were arrested. She/LE have recently uncovered additional evidence that now supports a charge of murder on DA and three specific charges of rape on all three. An ADA can only return to a GJ if he/she has additional evidence in hand to support further charges. Its quite that simple. She now has it in her possession so she returned to get the proper indictments as she should.
They were re-indicted like a lot of other criminals have been when more evidence is uncovered to support the additional charges.
There is nothing supporting the speculation that Dylan Adams' statements makes up most of their evidence. I think that is nothing more than defense spin (wishful thinking) which I have seen repeated ad nauseum over the years by other defense attorneys. I have never seen any ADA, especially one in death penalty cases, put all their evidence in one basket hoping the words of one participant makes it stick. In fact after the trials are over we usually find out the state had even more damaging evidence they could have presented but felt they weren't needed due to the high volume of evidence that was entered or the evidence was ruled too prejudicial.
In almost all of the death penalty cases I have kept up with for over thirty years plus they were chocked full of evidence and more evidence was entered than we see in other cases that weren't death penalty cases. I don't see this case being any different.
I saw nothing said by the Judge that would even lead me to believe he was considering dismissing any charges on anyone. In fact his words said in court showed all of these cases were going forward to trial.
There is no assurance they will all be tried together and just because she got new indictments on all three doesn't mean they will be tried together either. That will be decided by the presiding Judge. I haven't even see this DA mention she wants the cases tried together. I have seen many multiple offenders tied to one case but were tried separately and I have seen one or two tried together and another one went to trial later on. So its no given they will all be tried together although that certainly would save a lot of time and money. Personally, I would like to see them tried together but I am not convinced they will be. I do think ZA & JA should be.
I have no clue what you mean weaseling evidence in through the backdoor although I do see you seem to take pro-defense stance in this case. Nothing gets in without the approval of the presiding Judge.
IMO
Actually, she started playing tactical games as soon as she was appointed. When one of the defense teams objected, she basically claimed that she wasn't going to do anything more until the question was resolved. She would have still been preparing but otherwise stonewalling complying with the courts discovery requirements. That is game playing. There was nothing stopping her from providing the information in the interim, she just didn't do it by invoking a technicality.
She can set the clock back. The way it works is that the old charges are dismissed without prejudice (which happens when a prosecutor drops a charge before the court makes a final resolution on the case). Then new charges are filed and the process starts from scratch again. That appears to be what she has done.
The "new evidence" is probably the statements DA made while cooperating with LE after the case was under way. These were the statements that led to him being charged. Those statements could also be presented to a grand jury as probable cause for the other two, and presto! New charges to replace the old ones. It is just more of the file/dismiss/file strategy the prosecutors have used in the entire case so far. It is just stalling for time.
In my opinion the way it went to was something like this: Initially DA was facing serious unrelated charges, so he decides to try to get a deal by offering to turn over on his brother. Coming up with something plausible wouldn't be hard for him, because, as we all know, rumors about the "A-team" (or whatever) had been flying around for some time, so he just repeated those to LE with some embellishment. LE had heard the stories too, so he was telling them what they wanted to hear. This is what lead to the initial charges. DA himself has credibility issues and would not make a good witness if that was all they had, so they needed something more since DA's claims had not yielded anything physical to support them. Along comes SA, who is also facing serious unrelated charges. He tells LE stuff that apparently corroborates DA, so all looks good to LE and they give him the deal. Only problem is that SA doesn't really know anything and he is selling them a line. But in the course of that he made stuff up that could be verified as not true, not expecting that to make a difference. LE get POed, and threaten to revoke the deal. SA realizes that he has dug a deep hole for himself and through guilt/pressure of it all kills himself.
Now no one corroborates DA, so this is a problem. LE follow wild goose chases after the mythical video, arresting the Pearcy brothers on the slightest of evidence, then release them when it becomes clear they have nothing and the charges would be dismissed by the judge if taken further. So, DA gets pulled in for further interviews so he can come up with a more credible account that jives with what is known otherwise he isn't getting his deal. Knowing that he needs to tell them what they want to hear to get his own deal in place he starts adding details to the story so it would be more useful to LE. It is useful, for sure, because these details implicate DA and he is well and truly in the trap now. So they charge him with rape, expecting to be able to force him to now testify in a useful way to get himself off the hook he put himself on. Only he doesn't. So what do they do now? They have no other evidence short of his initial claims, which were no longer credible, and his new statements can only be used against him due to hearsay rules, not the others unless he testifies against them, which he won't do because he would incriminate himself on his own charges if he did. Unless they come up with a new approach the charges against the other two are going to get dismissed.
The solution to this problem is a sly move: dismiss the charges against the other two and file new charges against all three. This would allow them to be tried together as it is a single crime. His statements can now be introduced in the trial since the hearsay would not apply to them collectively. They no longer need him to testify, his statements now fall under the hearsay exception. It might make for a weak case against the first two, but at least they could get it in front of a jury and hope that emotive argument would win them a conviction.
My question is this: If they really did have additional evidence outside of what DA and SA claimed, why would they have gone to all this trouble, missing deadline after deadline to turn over discovery and a bill of particulars, and engaged in semi-public spats between elements of the LE team over the nature of evidence? It is really simple - if they had clear evidence then all these deals, the hail mary charges against random individuals, the spurious peripheral charges against principals, the stumbling and bumbling, the stalling would be unnecessary. They would simply proceed and comply with normal trial procedure. They would not need to clutch at straws. This is not happening, and IMO it implies that the extent of their evidence in terms of implicating the accused is limited to what DA and SA have claimed, nothing more.
I don't have a pro anything stance. What I want is that the law be followed, justice be done and that the rules of fair play be followed. I want the RIGHT people to go to jail, not a bunch of people who are *probably* or *maybe* the right people. This isn't a game, mistakes have serious consequences, so it absolutely HAS to be right or it shouldn't happen.
In this case you are right, I don't know what all they might have. But, I can only draw conclusions on what we DO know, not what we don't know. So far, all the indications and facts that have appeared point to the case depending on rumors and DA's say so, with little else.
