561 users online (63 members and 498 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 58
  1. #1

    Defense files motion to vacate/motion for clarification?

    Any local guys see this hit the news yet? I guess they don't like the recent rulings... ?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    scotland
    Posts
    374
    what does it mean plz?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    12,328
    Motion to vacate =
    A motion filed with the court seeking to set aside a previously rendered decision or judgment entry. It seeks to undo something that was already ruled on in a court case.

    Motion for Clarification = Motion of clarification would only be used to clarify issues not directly addressed in the decision. This is a broad stroke, and should probably be answered by an attorney.

    I don't know if it's been filed, but I heard rumblings. It's not on an MSM site that I can find. That doesn't mean I don't expect it to be, because I certainly anticipated that JB would be doing so today. He could not have been too happy with the rulings.

    MOO

    Mel




    Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_a_...#ixzz1HHBkbOfN

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    5,658
    Clarification? Here we go with the confusion again.
    Justice for GEORGE!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Fort Myers, FL
    Posts
    481
    AZLawyer has an answer:

    [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6237007&postcount=784"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #2[/ame]

    "I have no idea. You can't tell much from docket entries. All you can tell is that one side or the other wants to vacate something (maybe a hearing on a particular issue?) or in the alternative to clarify something (maybe that the hearing doesn't include that issue?)."

    Thanks AZ!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    4,427
    Quote Originally Posted by ClockWatcher View Post
    AZLawyer has an answer:

    Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #2

    "I have no idea. You can't tell much from docket entries. All you can tell is that one side or the other wants to vacate something (maybe a hearing on a particular issue?) or in the alternative to clarify something (maybe that the hearing doesn't include that issue?)."

    Thanks AZ!
    ..that could explain why the defense recently asked for, and judgeP ruled for the JAC to pay for-- these entire transcribed hearings:

    http://www.wesh.com/pdf/27242152/detail.html
    ---Amended Order for Motion for Transcriptions---

    Transcriptions from Hearings on:

    a. 12/12/08 Emergency Motion to Preserve/Inspect Evidence and Participate in Forensic Testing

    b. 12/16/08 Motion to Preserve Forensic Evidence

    c. 7/15/10 Motion to Suppress 911 Calls

    --------and the "Motions to Suppress Statements" from the most recent March 2-7 Hearings.

    d. 3/2/11 - 3/7/11 Motion to Suppress Statements/Motion to Supress Statements by Agents of the State
    my opinion...........and i happen to agree with it.....

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    North
    Posts
    5,964
    Does this mean another 'official, in the courtroom, pocket square' hearing for this too (sigh), or can Judge Perry just rule sans hearing?
    JMO

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    16,024
    Quote Originally Posted by lauriej View Post
    ..that could explain why the defense recently asked for, and judgeP ruled for the JAC to pay for-- these entire transcribed hearings:

    http://www.wesh.com/pdf/27242152/detail.html
    ---Amended Order for Motion for Transcriptions---

    Transcriptions from Hearings on:

    a. 12/12/08 Emergency Motion to Preserve/Inspect Evidence and Participate in Forensic Testing

    b. 12/16/08 Motion to Preserve Forensic Evidence

    c. 7/15/10 Motion to Suppress 911 Calls

    --------and the "Motions to Suppress Statements" from the most recent March 2-7 Hearings.

    d. 3/2/11 - 3/7/11 Motion to Suppress Statements/Motion to Supress Statements by Agents of the State
    But weren't these requests for transcriptions for work they had already done in preparation for the last hearings?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Beaufort by the Sea
    Posts
    608
    Wonder if it could be they want to now request Robyn's statements to Casey not be allowed in, since HHJBP mentioned in his ruling that they didn't even challenge them...
    Did you know that "Dammit, I'm mad" spelled backwards is "Dammit I'm mad" - well, I still am!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    359
    Quote Originally Posted by ClockWatcher View Post
    AZLawyer has an answer:

    Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #2

    "I have no idea. You can't tell much from docket entries. All you can tell is that one side or the other wants to vacate something (maybe a hearing on a particular issue?) or in the alternative to clarify something (maybe that the hearing doesn't include that issue?)."

    Thanks AZ!
    I know that based just on the docket entry this could have been filed by either side, but something tells me the SA wasn't the one to file this. Whatever it is, I can't wait to read it! I can't help but think there will be a good bit of this when we do get to see it:


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Rhode Island
    Posts
    919
    Quote Originally Posted by logicalgirl View Post
    But weren't these requests for transcriptions for work they had already done in preparation for the last hearings?
    03/17/2011 Amended Motion for Transcription of Proceedings

    The defense filed this the day after (3/16) Judge Perry ruled on the motions heard the week before at the two days of hearings ... No doubt Jose was getting ready to pull something ...

    It's hard to tell what this Motion on to Vacate and in the Alternative Motion for Clarification is about or which order or orders this relates too .... I sure hope one of the news agencies posts this soon ... tomorrow would be nice ...
    Last edited by denjet; 03-21-2011 at 10:02 PM.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Rhode Island
    Posts
    919
    Quote Originally Posted by Shear22 View Post
    I know that based just on the docket entry this could have been filed by either side, but something tells me the SA wasn't the one to file this. Whatever it is, I can't wait to read it! I can't help but think there will be a good bit of this when we do get to see it:
    I'm thinking that since Perry ruled pretty much in favor of the prosecution on the motions heard that it is the defense that is not happy ... JMO

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    5,658
    Quote Originally Posted by logicalgirl View Post
    But weren't these requests for transcriptions for work they had already done in preparation for the last hearings?
    And that was before she was "indigent" - but guess that doesn't matter.
    Justice for GEORGE!

  14. #14
    kaRN's Avatar
    kaRN is offline Verified Health Professional - Registered Nurse
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    4,752
    I wonder if the DT is revisiting the whole family can't visit ICA issue now that it came out that not all inmates visits are taped.

    Injustice for Caylee Marie Anthony.

    Copyright that Cindy

    Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot. Nothing is going to get better. It's not. Dr. Suess

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    6,586
    Quote Originally Posted by Horace Finklestein View Post
    And that was before she was "indigent" - but guess that doesn't matter.
    ----------
    Thats what I thought! Why should JAC pay for them!!
    My Buffy. He lives in Heaven now
    with my loved ones..xoxox

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Defense files motion to have 911 calls, party pix tossed
    By Muzikman in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 183
    Last Post: 03-29-2010, 09:18 AM
  2. 2009.11.19 Defense Files Motion suggesting Kronk as Killer #4
    By Insomnia Momma in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 391
    Last Post: 01-04-2010, 04:27 PM
  3. Nejame Files Motion to Strike for TES/Baez 7/16/09 Motion
    By Drivenon in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 408
    Last Post: 08-21-2009, 09:38 AM