2010.11.18 AB/EB Court Dates - Other Charges [MERGED]

New Posts

Allusonz said:
I believe if i recall correctly that the Dec 13th was moved to january as per the request to keep the documents sealed
Click to expand...

The January 13th hearing is for a different set of warrants that they want to keep sealed.
 
Kimberlyd125 said:
Just a word of advice for all the GREAT Zahra supporters on this thread, get used to continuances.

JMO from following another VERY HIGH profile NC child death case, and hanging on every court date, for it to end in a continuance. This has been going on for over a year.

I don't think it's a bad thing. I think it gives more time for the state to get what they need. But it does get very frustrating to us WSers.

I guess what I'm trying to say, is don't get overly excited when a court date rolls around.

JMO
Click to expand...

Just bumping for those who may have missed this.

This is very common in NC. IMO
 
Mountain_Kat said:
That says a whole lot about his maturity level, doesn't it?
Click to expand...
Really? The last week of the month we normally have maybe $100 between me and my husband. What does it say for us? It says we are stretched tight because we do for OTHERS. ( like us adopting the 4 children) it takes a lot to raise six children and help out others when needed. I'd reather have that small $100 bucks then have a million and not of broken the cycle. Just saying. How much $ someone has does not always say how mature they are or how good of a person they are.
 
So does anyone know who this attorney is and what her possible interests may be:

http://www.wbtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=13662434

An attorney has filed a motion to have 30 search warrants in the Zahra Baker death investigation to be released to the public.

On Monday, December 13th, Attorney Amanda Martin filed a civil motion to have the remaining 30 search warrants unsealed.
For now, its appears there may be a hearing on January 3rd to discuss Martin's motion requesting the release of the remaining warrants.


Any clues - locals any ideas ?
 
raisincharlie said:
So does anyone know who this attorney is and what her possible interests may be:

http://www.wbtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=13662434

An attorney has filed a motion to have 30 search warrants in the Zahra Baker death investigation to be released to the public.

On Monday, December 13th, Attorney Amanda Martin filed a civil motion to have the remaining 30 search warrants unsealed.
For now, its appears there may be a hearing on January 3rd to discuss Martin's motion requesting the release of the remaining warrants.


Any clues - locals any ideas ?
Click to expand...

My first thoughts were this might be an atty for a media outlet. The media is generally front and center to request the search warrants are released to the public - but this is just my opinion. I do not know who this Atty represents in this case.
 
salvarenga said:
The January 13th hearing is for a different set of warrants that they want to keep sealed.
Click to expand...

snipped from the link below

The Catawba County district attorney's office filed a motion Wednesday to move a hearing to discuss at least 20 sealed search warrants in the Zahra Baker investigation. The new date is Jan. 3, 2011

Prosecutor Sean McGinnis initially filed a motion on Nov. 29 to extend current sealing orders on all search warrants relating to the case. The warrants were initially sealed for 30 days. In the motion McGinnis filed on Nov. 29, it stated a hearing was set for Dec. 13 to discuss the sealing orders on the search warrants.

unsnipped

it was all the warrants, not unusual, get use to lots more like this

It will be a long ride unless deals are cut

http://www2.hickoryrecord.com/news/...delay-hearing-zahra-baker-warrants-ar-601764/
 
wenwe4 said:
My first thoughts were this might be an atty for a media outlet. The media is generally front and center to request the search warrants are released to the public - but this is just my opinion. I do not know who this Atty represents in this case.
Click to expand...

That was my first thought as well - media. Will be interesting to find out what her interests are. Have not heard her name associated with a particular person either. Just curious. Maybe Google can be my friend.


Google says Raleigh and associates her with reporters and the press in general. Good guess then.
 
WhyaDuck? said:
Yes, I think we can leave the topic of how poverty reflects morality or character, IMO.

However, we should return to the subject of these other charges before some damn mod gets us. :angel:
Click to expand...

Bumping this. :)
 
raisincharlie said:
So does anyone know who this attorney is and what her possible interests may be:

http://www.wbtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=13662434

An attorney has filed a motion to have 30 search warrants in the Zahra Baker death investigation to be released to the public.

On Monday, December 13th, Attorney Amanda Martin filed a civil motion to have the remaining 30 search warrants unsealed.
For now, its appears there may be a hearing on January 3rd to discuss Martin's motion requesting the release of the remaining warrants.


Any clues - locals any ideas ?
Click to expand...

Amanda Martin, a lawyer representing the Observer, the Hickory Daily Record and other media outlets, said the administrative order suggests the warrants should be made public because the 30-day limit has elapsed and no specific alternative date has been set.​

She also argued in a recent letter that appellate courts have ruled that judges must state reasons, supported by specific findings, for closing trial proceedings or sealing search warrants. Her letter says a judge must enter the "most narrowly tailored order" that can meet the governmental interests compelling the closure.​

"You will see that (the orders) are neither specific nor limited," her letter says. "Each order is both conclusory and speculative, stating that the release of information 'potentially' could undermine the interests of the State or of a defendant.... Moreover, each order is entirely open-ended.'"
Martin, the general counsel to the North Carolina Press Association, said Monday: "The media plan to pursue their rights of access to the sealed warrant information." ​


 
I just posted an updated article from the Hickory Record in the media thread. It updates what happened with the hearing today. It also states officially from the clerk of court that there have been 41 search warrants in total issued in this case.
 
Im confused by this! Does this mean that 2 of the warrants we have already seen are resealed? If so does this make any sense? Why reseal something everyone has already seen?

Id really like to see the rest of the warrants but not at the expence of prosecution.
JMO


http://www2.hickoryrecord.com/news/...eal-more-warrants-zahra-baker-case-ar-614566/

A hearing in Catawba County Superior Court for a motion to unseal two search warrants in the Zahra Baker case was cancelled on Monday because the clerk of court released those warrants with the others on Nov. 30.

When Judge Nathaniel Poovey ordered the release of the warrants, these two warrants should not have been released, according to his order.

The two warrants that were under orders to be sealed are back under seal, as of Dec. 10. On the outside of the two search warrants is a copy of Poovey’s order, along with a note, stating they are resealed per an order signed by Poovey.
 
westsidefox64 said:
Im confused by this! Does this mean that 2 of the warrants we have already seen are resealed? If so does this make any sense? Why reseal something everyone has already seen?

Id really like to see the rest of the warrants but not at the expence of prosecution.
JMO
Click to expand...

..no, when the warrants were released on november 30th, 2 were held back, remaining "under seal".

..a hearing was to be held december 13th, on those 2 alone.

http://charlotte.news14.com/content...b-results-may-be-released-in-zahra-baker-case


"Meanwhile, the search warrants released Tuesday ,Nov.30, shed some light on the investigation into Zahra's death."


"There are two more search warrants the judge did not make public. A hearing will be held on Dec. 13 to see if they will be released."
 
6angels said:
Really? The last week of the month we normally have maybe $100 between me and my husband. What does it say for us? It says we are stretched tight because we do for OTHERS. ( like us adopting the 4 children) it takes a lot to raise six children and help out others when needed. I'd reather have that small $100 bucks then have a million and not of broken the cycle. Just saying. How much $ someone has does not always say how mature they are or how good of a person they are.
Click to expand...

This comment of mine was from quite some time ago, and I clarified what I meant shortly after I posted.
 
westsidefox64 said:
Im confused by this! Does this mean that 2 of the warrants we have already seen are resealed? If so does this make any sense? Why reseal something everyone has already seen?

Id really like to see the rest of the warrants but not at the expence of prosecution.
JMO


http://www2.hickoryrecord.com/news/...eal-more-warrants-zahra-baker-case-ar-614566/

A hearing in Catawba County Superior Court for a motion to unseal two search warrants in the Zahra Baker case was cancelled on Monday because the clerk of court released those warrants with the others on Nov. 30.

When Judge Nathaniel Poovey ordered the release of the warrants, these two warrants should not have been released, according to his order.

The two warrants that were under orders to be sealed are back under seal, as of Dec. 10. On the outside of the two search warrants is a copy of Poovey’s order, along with a note, stating they are resealed per an order signed by Poovey.
Click to expand...

This is what I got from the article, and I will be the first to admit that I could be wrong:

Anyways, I took it to meant that when the the large group of search warrants were released. The two search warrants for the house dates 10/27 and 10/29 were NOT supposed to be released as their 30 day seal had not expired. According to the clerk of court, that is not the way that they interpreted the judge's order and that is why they were in the group that were released. So now, these two warrants are back under seal...which I don't know how you can do that since the cat is already out of the bag. The hearing for yesterday was supposed to be about unsealing these two warrants but since they were already out...the hearing was moot.

Did that make any sense or did I just confuse the issue more?
 
much more clear than mud.
 
salvarenga said:
This is what I got from the article, and I will be the first to admit that I could be wrong:

Anyways, I took it to meant that when the the large group of search warrants were released. The two search warrants for the house dates 10/27 and 10/29 were NOT supposed to be released as their 30 day seal had not expired. According to the clerk of court, that is not the way that they interpreted the judge's order and that is why they were in the group that were released. So now, these two warrants are back under seal...which I don't know how you can do that since the cat is already out of the bag. The hearing for yesterday was supposed to be about unsealing these two warrants but since they were already out...the hearing was moot.

Did that make any sense or did I just confuse the issue more?
Click to expand...

I wonder if the list of items taken from the house was the part they did not want released.
 
salvarenga said:
This is what I got from the article, and I will be the first to admit that I could be wrong:

Anyways, I took it to meant that when the the large group of search warrants were released. The two search warrants for the house dates 10/27 and 10/29 were NOT supposed to be released as their 30 day seal had not expired. According to the clerk of court, that is not the way that they interpreted the judge's order and that is why they were in the group that were released. So now, these two warrants are back under seal...which I don't know how you can do that since the cat is already out of the bag. The hearing for yesterday was supposed to be about unsealing these two warrants but since they were already out...the hearing was moot.

Did that make any sense or did I just confuse the issue more?
Click to expand...

This reminds me why I certainly do not miss being a paralegal lol

You are right. Although they requested that all of them remained sealed on Nov 29th, some had expired beyond the 30 days thus were released (note the October 27th ones). They were set to hear the request on Dec 13 but that was moved to Jan 3.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 241 more.
Total: 2,986 (members: 242, guests: 2,744)

Online statistics

Members online
242
Guests online
2,744
Total visitors
2,986
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,314
Messages
17,967,305
Members
228,743
Latest member
VT_Squire
Back
Top