But did the evidence LE gathered in their investigation of the leaked discovery even get presented in the SC case? I suppose sanctions (probably not removal unless criminal action is proven?) can still be brought since the old/new are being charged with contempt. Up to the judge to decide the correct sanction(s) after hearing all the evidence on both sides?
Good point. D’s Franks memo would probably not mention any such injury as it undercuts the premise that RA could not have acted alone. Cynical.Yes we don't know what other injuries the girls may have suffered too. It's possible one was even knock unconcious so the killer could concentrate on the other.
Oh this is just something considering the motion the Prosecution just filed about the D not handing over their discovery by the deadline and other missing information.
Interesting since in the article posted above by Caylee Advocate the Prosecutor himself states that investigators do not believe RA acted alone.
!!
How many other Indiana attorneys coming forward and ISC opinions do you need before you can admit that Judge Gull has handled certain things poorly? I’m not saying that she’s part of a conspiracy or that she’s purposefully trying to screw RA over or even that she’s doing a bad job overall but she has made some bad decisions. That’s a fact. It’s frustrating to see people accuse attorneys who have given their time and expertise to right those wrongs in a case they’re not even on of doing it for fame and publicity.
As I've stated many times here freely, Judge Gull did not handle the DQ of the original Defense procedurally correct. I have never denied that, although I think she was trying to give them an opportunity to withdraw without publicly holding the hearing. Bad move on her part she should have forced the hearing in open Court. IMO
From his filing and a few other things I’ve read, it doesn’t sound like this situation can’t be anything except for indirect criminal contempt. Ausbrook argues that the prosecution isn't following the correct procedure— such as filing it under RA’s case instead of its own— and that means Judge Gull wouldn’t have the right to find them in contempt or sanction them. If she does do that without the appropriate procedure, he says she will be violating his 6th and 14th amendments and he could file for federal habeas relief which is Ausbrook’s specialty and I believe he also alluded to potentially another original action with ISC.
I guess we'll have to wait a couple of weeks to find out if it's ruled direct or indirect criminal or civil contempt, but I would be surprised if Judge Gull hasn't covered her legal bases on this considering the last SCOIN argument.
I agree the evidence didn’t show she had a bias against them or RA at the time the OA was filed. IMO there’s some additional evidence now but it’s still unlikely to be enough to prove bias.
I’m glad you brought this up because I was just thinking about this earlier. If someone’s attorney of choice commits a crime and is then unable to represent the client then does the client’s 6th amendment rights carry more weight than consequences for the attorney?
RSBM
RSBM
I think the accomplices, if there were any, maybe were part of the lure to get the girls on the trails...possibly a meet and greet. Just some thoughts.
exactly.
Maybe he's worried it could involved a criminal charge? What comes to mind as a possible...IF AB knowingly leaked discovery? Would that be criminal and not just ethics?
