Search results

I've been thinking about it and the only way it wouldn't seem shady is if it was at the first opportunity (i.e. when the 3rd party first contacted him.) But it appears there were multiple communications. If a request to delete everything came after a chain of communication, I'm sorry but it...

Of all the unbelievable things in this case, this prosecutor still pursuing contempt is high up there imo. Aside from the law clinic attorney filing a brief telling the court NM was asking for the wrong charges and in the wrong court, his opponents apparently have discovery of him asking...

I don't believe there will be material differences in what showed up in the Franks Memo and what the investigators stated in their recorded depositions, which tracks with the felony murder angle. As for the alleged confessions, I would need to go back but iirc it was in the press first before...

sbm. IMO I don't believe they have much if anything in that department unless something else has been found, and it would need to be big like DNA. The hint (other than stating it in depos lol) they have very little tying him to the crime scene came with their reliance on felony murder and the...

On the phone data discussion from the previous thread, the alleged killer is "forensically aware" enough to turn his phone off or to leave it at home, but in six years doesn't destroy clothes or toss weapons/bullets that possibly link him? Doesn't seem to be aware enough that his victim is...

bbm. If there is something unsigned I don't think it matters whether it was willful or not, with improper chain of custody documentation there will be admissibility issues (even setting aside the debate on the science of the underlying pattern-matching analysis). And if admitted it would be a...

It was something about their notice of delivery on the filing, but it's been corrected as far as I can tell. In other updates, the judge has filed a motion requesting more time from the SCOIN to respond.

Yeah this is something I can't wrap my head around. They have a sworn affidavit from this guy admitting what he did, they have ISP chasing down those involved with the dissemination, but he hasn't faced any repercussions yet except reputation damage.

I can get the confusion, obviously it's confusing to us Americans as well which is why a higher court has been asked to rule on the issues. The discovery materials, from my understanding, are under a court-ordered protective order. (Side note: separate from the much-discussed "gag order"...

Well, through the record submitted to the Supreme Court we know the state asked for the defense attorneys to be DQd. Weirdly, and unless I'm missing something, the guy who originally disseminated the materials is out giving interviews and not under arrest. There was no benefit to defense with...

So regardless of your feelings on the security of Baldwin's conference room, consider this from the petition brief: The big legal question is whether the court had any authority to remove RA's attorneys, even if you buy the narrative the state is peddling about the leak.

I believe it's included as part of the the record for the appeal. Not exactly a leak.

Am I alone in wondering if it even exists?

Because she's not infallible and until it's on the record it's all just assumption or taking it on faith.

Eh, if they get famous for protecting a defendant's constitutional rights, more power to them. :D

No, just the judge stating it. It appears arbitrary because we don't know how she made this finding, no hearing on the record with evidence and argument as you'd expect. The larger point is it doesn't matter if counsel was appointed, once an attorney/client relationship is established, the law...

No. Edit: and it hasn't even been alleged by any party. The judge is not there to keep their insurance premiums low.

To be clear this quote from a case is in the context of an attorney disqualified because of a conflict of interest, as apparently they were representing a defendant's co-conspirators simultaneously. Not analogous at all to the current situation.

What serious legal proceedings? A bar complaint which the state bar handles but other than possible contempt of court, what would be the charges? Can't see it.

Interesting that there is the legal question as to whether the judge had the authority to remove his counsel in the first place.