Oh my! There is just so much truly good stuff in this one. I thought the motion challenging the dogs was the worst thing ever written. But that one did not seem to actually harm both the clients case and the attorneys careers. This one looks disturbingly like suicide on all fronts.
- Missing the deadline by arriving at 5:02pm. Oh boy is HHJP going to rip them one about this. He already addressed this in open court while questioning the defense team. The deadline was NOT close of court 5pm. it was 12 noon. The y missed it by half a day. These are court filings, not dropping off the telephone bill. Time does matter. They were nowhere close. Harping on the 5:02 filing in this motion is clearly a deliberate attempt to be disingenuous to the court and the public, and is yet another action of bad faith before and to the court by this team. :maddening:
- Whether or not they think they do or do not have to produce the reports of information is pretty much irrelevant. the judge ruled. The judge than affirmed and clarified his ruling. It is not a subject open for debate. Failing to follow those orders is CONTEMPT. it does not matter whether or not the judges ruling was right or wrong. You challenge the ruling later or on appeal. BUT YOU MUST OBEY THE ORDER TO THE LETTER. Not only did they continually refuse to do that. This motion clearly telegraphs that they continue to have no intention of doing so. Ummm! WOW! :maddening::maddening::maddening:
- The whole may or may not testify, or probably will not testify etc. IT DOES NOT MATTER! If they are on the defense witness list at this point, the state gets to depose them. In order to do so the defense is required by both law and clear and unequivocal judges order to provide certain documentation. So either provide the documentation or strike the witness from the witness list. No maybe's. There are no maybe's in DP trial witnesses at this late stage. :banghead:
- So they have a private ME report that they seek to use to undermine the coroners autopsy report, because they found mud pooled inside the left side of the skull. WOW! I'm going to guess that they either didn't really read their own expert reports, didn't talk to their own experts, or are just really really not that smart. Not only is that mud mentioned in their experts report, but they called attention to it in their filings in order to stupidly play GOTCHA! Did no one tell them what that mud means? For mud to be pooled inside the cranial cavity it means that the skull or body had to be under water. How many motions have they been filing, and how many people have they subjected to interview and investigation in order to prove that the body or area the body was in was not submerged, and that the body was placed there later? And they publish the physical evidence that their own expert found that supports the conclusion that yeah, it was. BANG UP JOB THERE BOYS! :banghead::banghead::banghead:
- And lets not escape the entire tone of this filing. I mean really WTH?!?!?! Do they think that the judge is going to respond favorably to being called out in this manner? Do they think another judge called in to review the case will respond any differently? Regardless of the actual root issue (the expert reports or information) they are seeking to undercut judicial authority within the courtroom. Judges and courts strive to treat defendants impartially. But the only requirement they do have is that the court itself is respected. And they tend to act dis-favorably to attempts to disrespect the court. :maddening::banghead::furious::maddening:
- Oh and lastly, let us not forget the tired and aft repeated mantra "The state doesn't have these financial limitations". While I almost expect this sort of amateur bullplop from JB. CM is so fond of reminding us he has been practicing the law for 40 years. (you would have hoped that with 40 years of practice under him he might have gotten a bit better at performance, but what can you say...) One would think that over 40 years of defense work someone might have pointed out to him that that "fairness principle" for indigent defendants is that their funding and costs are held to be similar to the expenditures of other defendants, not the prosecution. This is well established in the states laws and court decisions. And I believe has federal decisions backing it up. This was covered pretty thoroughly when KC was declared indigent. Apparently CM and JB missed that day. :banghead:
Oh boy is the next hearing going to be entertaining.
