Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I don't think they should get anything necessarily but IME you do get the discovery packet. I know that there are a couple of letters and calls in my brother in laws case. I don't have them but see them as evidence. Just curious.Ah ok. But why would they give it to the family? What discovery do you think should be given to them? And why?
It definitely was a good read!Here here. I posted that on Thread 178, post 898.
She had to reel it back in because it was unconstitutional to remove them in the first place. Her decision on their removal violated the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.Since she had the initial gall to remove them. To me that means she meant it then but had to reel back and do it correctly. Which is the right thing to do. So after the States Motion to compel & the hearing I think it could happen.
Let me say I think only Andy. I think Rozzi and Auger will go to trial alone. I think both parties will receive sanctions. I wasn't mad at the defense filing today that basically said "deny it all it's too broad". I think the State is limited in what they will write out. They want the evidence to speak at trial and will take a few sanctions to get it done.
ETA. Yes they were just on this past Sunday. It's free on courttv.com. @TTF14
He could be offered a deal or ask for one even during trial no? So long as before the jury is sent to deliberate?I've long thought that this would never make it to trial and RA, if guilty, would eventually plead out. With the trial apparently imminent, what are the odds he ends up making a plea within the next two (?) weeks. Is it too late to be offered a plea? What would that look like?
There’s a decision coming tomorrow on that contempt? I’m way out of the loop!Not if they are removed tomorrow. I'll begin the refreshing on mycase at 8am early! If she removes them, what's next? Can she reinstate the other team she had in place? Or have they jeopardized it by appearing on CourtTv etc?
I don't have cable - antenna only but I get Court TV. It's on Channel 40-2 where I live.Why do you think she'll remove them?
Was the CourtTV footage of them recent? (I don't have cable/didn't watch)
I don't think she will end it before everyone has the time they need. She cannot just say STOP and prevent the defense from finishing their case as long as they truly have viable witnesses ready for testimony.IMOI think it will end on the day it's scheduled to end. Period. I have no idea how she will divide the time between the P and the D. I think she'll cut out a lot of what the D plans to present.
I'm certain they have the copies of the calls from the prison authorities already.Wonder if these are new calls? Wouldn't they already have done this?
Thanks for taking the time to answer all of our questions.She had to reel it back in because it was unconstitutional to remove them in the first place. Her decision on their removal violated the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.
"1. Court-appointed counsel may be disqualified only as a last resort after considering the prejudice to the defendant." at B1 here:
We won't see anything about those sanctions until after trial. A decision would prejudice the trial, especially at this late of a date.
I've rarely seen a case where the defense needs the same amount of time to present their case as the State does.Well, that answers my question about what happens if they run out of time. Do we think there will be a further "order" giving them each specific time limits? It would not be fair if Nick took 12 days and left the defense with 3 (I know that math isn't mathing but you get my point).
I'm glad to see court will go until 6 if needed and on Saturdays.
Judge Gull isn't having any shenanigans or malarkey period. Good on her.
One of Libby's Nike shoes was found in the creek. The 'infamous' FM said Abby was fully dressed including her shoes. This leads me to believe that it would have been Libby's other Nike shoe.The only way I can make sense of the killer knowing of the phone and even placing it there is if it actually was a frame job. Seems kind of unlikely, but nothing is rational about this case. Perhaps Libby stuck the phone up into the toe of the shoe while taking her shoes off, and the killer just never saw it. Maybe he had them take off their shoes & socks in order to cross the creek without them getting wet. I really wonder which girl's shoe it was, and if it was wet.
In her email to the P and D, she says: "That is the length of the trial, not "more or less."I don't think she will end it before everyone has the time they need. She cannot just say STOP and prevent the defense from finishing their case as long as they truly have viable witnesses ready for testimony.IMO
No, they're not now, and won't be then. IMOWith all the motions, memos and publicity campaigns, will the defense team be ready for the trial?
No, they're not now, and won't be then. IMO