The defense has already filed a Change of Venue Motion to my recollection, correct?
Will this motion result in a scheduled hearing whereas the SA can argue against it?
It appears to be a given that the defense has contributed to attempting to taint a jury pool since the beginning of this case, and to my knowledge, the SA has never held a press conference, interview, appeared in front of media, etc.
This week, we have seen a clearcut attempt by the defense to manipulate the media and general public on two occasions.
The first would be the Motion to Recluse. It appears the defense clearly "leaked" this impending motion to the media prior to filing it at 4:58 pm on Friday. This is shown by the media interview conducted with MD early Friday morning.
The second would be the set of 4 consecutive motions for reconsideration that were given to a tv media source and that to date have NOT been filed with the court (although some members of the public are now under that assumption based on the posting of the documents of tv station website).
I am interested to see if perhaps there were other incidents in the past where it can be documented that the defense provided "advance" copies of court documents to the media BEFORE filing them with the court (easy to determine....date and time of posting to media website vs. date and time of court filing).
So my QUESTION....
With this documentation, are these relevant arguments for the SA to use against a COV? Could the SA argue that the defense has gone on record many times with unfounded accusations that SA is "leaking" information in order to taint or sway a potential jury pool, wherein it can be shown by documentation that in fact, the defense has used these SAME tactics for the SAME purpose?
Can the SA argue that with the accessibility of the internet throughout the country, once the media reports on an aspect of this case, whether concerning court filings or other information, various news media pick up the story and carry it into their town? Or that a person residing in Palm Beach FL has the same access to news and information about the case as someone in Orlando, due to the era of the internet, which is probably one of the most used forms of media source?
Can you briefly explain the process in which a judge will consider a COV? Any "surprises" to us laypersons such as the one with the recuse motion where allegations are deemed as fact in consideration of granting or denying (that one was a big shocker to me!)