Mods, I apologize if this should be in another thread instead of in a new one. I tried to find one I thought appropriate but decided to go with a new one instead. If you think it would be better elsewhere, please move it accordingly. (thanks) In today's news link [ame="http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=88493"]2009.09.03 Today's Current News - ***NO DISCUSSIONS HERE PLEASE *** - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame] I see that Judge Strickland has said the new trial date will be set soon - not that it will happen soon but be set soon - and that the defense is disappointed in this ruling. I think the perfect solution for the defense's concern that this will take their time and attention away from the murder case would be for KC to plead guilty or at least "no contest" to those charges and there would be no need for a trial. She already admitted to taking and writing AH's checks and there's store and bank video to verify her guilt so I can't imagine trying to put up any type of not guilty defense here. So the defense would only need to make a plea for leniency in sentencing and since this would be KC's 1st offence or conviction isn't it likely that her sentence would be rather light on these charges PRIOR to a conviction for murder? And wouldn't the time she's in jail awaiting the murder trial be counted toward whatever sentence she might get for the check fraud? I realize that once she is convicted of murder, the defense would prefer that she not have a felony conviction on her record that could be considered during sentencing, but come on, does anyone (including JB & AL) really think that a record for check fraud is going to be the deciding factor for the jury when deciding whether she should get life or death? So what is the real reason that the defense doesn't want to see this trial date set? Am I missing something? Is there really any NEED for this to consume much time at all from the defense?