yeknomaras
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2008
- Messages
- 1,188
- Reaction score
- 1
Any local guys see this hit the news yet? I guess they don't like the recent rulings... ?
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
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!
But weren't these requests for transcriptions for work they had already done in preparation for the last hearings?
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: :silly:
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.
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.
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 ... :waitasec:
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