NoSpoonFeeding
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2021
- Messages
- 2,077
- Reaction score
- 10,306
It sounds like you think he must be telling the truth.Officers of the Court can opine based on fact and interpretation of law upon the facts, but they can't materially misrepresent.
i.e McClelland can't materially misrepresent or deceive the Court as to there being "good reason to believe that Richard Allen is not the only actor in this heinous crime."
I think he can easily get around justifying his "opinion" of what he thought was going on in the investigation. He has some kind of statement from ISP and from a prosecutor's office investigator. He can easily say that he based his statement on information from LE. He could even say he can't elaborate due to it being related to other ongoing investigations or compromising a source. I'm not familiar with the wording of court rules/statutes in Indiana.
Also, his giving this reason for sealing the affidavit was only 1 of 6, all of the other points being valid, no decision rested on this one point. A decision was not made that affected the outcome for the defendant and did not result in the loss of or production of false evidence. It will be interesting to see if the defense ever throws this up in the future. MOO I think it was odd/risky for the prosecutor to keep this position at the 2nd hearing. In any case, it's not malicious.