vislaw
Verified Forensic Consultant
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2019
- Messages
- 605
- Reaction score
- 8,305
Wow ... Cannot wait to see what she says!The docket indicates that Katie's proffers were provided to Charlie's counsel yesterday (it says there are 3).
Wow ... Cannot wait to see what she says!The docket indicates that Katie's proffers were provided to Charlie's counsel yesterday (it says there are 3).
Agreed. The response is well drafted and persuasive. To be fair, Rashbaum didn't have the proffers when he drafted the motion, so it is understandably short on details. I would hope he has more specific points during oral argument (or potentially in a reply brief). I'm also curious whether the State will take a position now that the motion has been opposed. If the proffers contain evidence that may lead to the arrest of co-conspirators, GC may ask to keep it sealed.Here's WCTV/CourtTV brief opposing CA's motion to keep the KM proffer secret until trial, which I think is very strong -- certainly much stronger than CA's motion.
Case management conference that was set for 2/24 has been moved to 2/28 at 10:00am (same time as the hearing on motion to seal the proffers).Charlie just filed a (short) motion for continuance of trial until late July or August.
Rashbaum says that everyone has been diligent, but they need more time "given the sheer volume of discover, the seriousness of the charges, and the need to complete our own investigation..."
Charlie just filed a (short) motion for continuance of trial until late July or August.
Rashbaum says that everyone has been diligent, but they need more time "given the sheer volume of discover, the seriousness of the charges, and the need to complete our own investigation..."
Not sure, but couldn't Charlie himself share that info with his family if he wished to?Since Charlie’s attorney has access to the proffer, is there any reason that this information would be prohibited from sharing with any of the potential co-conspirators (or their attorneys’) who have not been charged? If there is a requirement not to share, could it still be done and tip the hand of anyone who has not been charged yet, due to minimal repercussions if it is shared?
This is a fascinating question. I don't know the legal prohibitions involved but if the proffer reveals that Donna, Wendi and/or Harvey are soon to be charged, Rashbaum may position himself ($$$) to be involved in their trials as well. Could be a savvy way to extend his client list and billable hours. Then again, I have no idea how any of this works; it may be illegal for him to engage co-conspirators.Since Charlie’s attorney has access to the proffer, is there any reason that this information would be prohibited from sharing with any of the potential co-conspirators (or their attorneys’) who have not been charged? If there is a requirement not to share, could it still be done and tip the hand of anyone who has not been charged yet, due to minimal repercussions if it is shared?
Wow! That's a little nugget...I don't know how to post it here but the Rashhbaum Continuance filing explicitly points out "WhatsApp chats" in the list of discovery material that they will need to review.
Rashbaum had suggested starting the trial in late July or early August. But Assistant State Attorney Sarah Kathryn Dugan said that would conflict with other murder trials scheduled for the same time. Wheeler asked the lawyers to check their calendar and propose new dates for perhaps late September and early October.