- Oct 22, 2018
- Reaction score
Appears to be an attempt to look more legal-y.Paragraph 10 ponders the question “who has the burden of proof and what exactly is the legal standard at a suppression hear”? Then they refer to paragraphs 6 - 10 in the Motion for Franks Hearing previously filed.
Looks to me as if they’ve realized they’re running in meaningless circles of chronic confusion, but don‘t want to outrightly admit it. If anyone thinks they’re clarifying anything, please chime in.
This is the Franks motion, previously filed.
And little else.