GUILTY TX - Christina Morris, 23, Plano, 30 August 2014 - #38 *Arrest*

[MIKAYOYO]

BF (reporter) is going to contact the assistant D.A. for clarification regarding "Defendant's Motion For Restrictive and Protective Order" & let me know...

You rock, Zippixx!

 

[Woe.be.gone]

http://www.texastribune.org/2013/03/08/ellis-duncan-file-compromise-criminal-discovery-bi/

"State Sens. Robert Duncan and Rodney Ellis filed legislation on Friday that they hope will provide a solution to the years-long debate over discovery laws in Texas and help prevent wrongful convictions."

Please read the article above first.



http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/83R/billtext/html/SB01611I.htm

"SECTION 1. Article 39.14, Code of Criminal Procedure, is
amended to read as follows:
Art. 39.14 DISCOVERY"

The bill, (A Bill to be Entitled An Act), S.B. No. 1611, begins with rules outlining DISCLOSURE BY STATE then moves on to rules outlining DISCLOSURE BY DEFENDANT.

"This Act takes effect January 1, 2014."

"Sec. 7. PROTECTIVE ORDERS. On a showing of good cause by either party the court may at any time enter an appropriate protective order that a specified disclosure be denied, restricted, or deferred. "Good cause," for purposes of this section, includes threats, harm, intimidation, or possible danger to the safely of a victim or witness, possible loss, destruction, or fabrication of evidence, or possible compromise of other investigations by law enforcement or a defense offered by a defendant."

 

[daisytrail]

http://www.texastribune.org/2013/03/08/ellis-duncan-file-compromise-criminal-discovery-bi/

"State Sens. Robert Duncan and Rodney Ellis filed legislation on Friday that they hope will provide a solution to the years-long debate over discovery laws in Texas and help prevent wrongful convictions."

Please read the article above first.



http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/83R/billtext/html/SB01611I.htm

"SECTION 1. Article 39.14, Code of Criminal Procedure, is
amended to read as follows:
Art. 39.14 DISCOVERY"

The bill, (A Bill to be Entitled An Act), S.B. No. 1611, begins with rules outlining DISCLOSURE BY STATE then moves on to rules outlining DISCLOSURE BY DEFENDANT.

"This Act takes effect January 1, 2014."

"Sec. 7. PROTECTIVE ORDERS. On a showing of good cause by either party the court may at any time enter an appropriate protective order that a specified disclosure be denied, restricted, or deferred. "Good cause," for purposes of this section, includes threats, harm, intimidation, or possible danger to the safely of a victim or witness, possible loss, destruction, or fabrication of evidence, or possible compromise of other investigations by law enforcement or a defense offered by a defendant."

That last, Sec. 7. , seems to apply to victims.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

That last, Sec. 7. , seems to apply to victims.

It seems to apply to anybody and everybody who may be involved in a case in some way.
It may apply to a witness or the defendant or, if disclosed, could compromise other ongoing investigations.

Respectfully, did you read it slowly?
Maybe if you click on the link (or google Texas Law Article 39.14) and read about fair Discovery rules, the whole thing will make sense.

Not to say I know the exact reason for the motion but it has to do with publicizing certain details/claims too soon imo.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

Also, Sec, 7, applies to both parties/sides.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

I believe it has something to do with limiting certain evidence, witnesses, discovery, or testimony. SteveS?

Not sure if "limiting" is the right word. Maybe waiting to reveal specific info for a specific reason as put forth
in Sec. 7?

Oh, I see the word "denied" used along with "restricted" or "deferred".
So, not allowed at all ever, partially allowed in some way but not fully, or secret until a later date.

 

[Bootsctr]

Well, if someone among the picketeers has actually made a credible threat to EA, who is behind bars, or to his possible visitors (those on his list) then count me as someone who believes a police report should be filed.

(On a personal note, I have been harassed by a person in the apartment building where I live for over two years (and stalked prior to that) by someone who knows exactly what line to come up to without getting in police trouble. I have recently obtained some legal advice about it which gave me a possible remedy, thank goodness. I am no fan or harassment but that has not stopped me from living my life.)

However, back to the subject at hand, were my daughter in jail, no picketeers would stop me from visiting her.

Do you know if the picketeers have crossed the line into harassment or stalking? As you know, here in Texas, where anyone can have a gun, anything can happen. I don't think it is possible to make the world a perfectly safe place.

Not everyone in Texas can legally carry a firearm. Good law-abiding citizens have the opportunity to obtain a conceal and carry handgun license. Of a side note, I'd much rather live in Texas than Chicago where guns are banned.

Have the picketers crossed the line into harassment or stalking? I have no clue. Suppose we would have to ask them. Have to admit, I'd be a little afraid of their response.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

Time will tell. My guess is it has to do with the Discovery process and nothing to do with the picketers.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

Not everyone in Texas can legally carry a firearm. Good law-abiding citizens have the opportunity to obtain a conceal and carry handgun license. Of a side note, I'd much rather live in Texas than Chicago where guns are banned.

Have the picketers crossed the line into harassment or stalking? I have no clue. Suppose we would have to ask them. Have to admit, I'd be a little afraid of their response.

bbm - A lot of good banning guns does! Legally registered guns are not Chicago's problem imo.
I guess Illinois law makers are trying to attack the big problem in Chicago though.
Maybe the laws make people feel safer in some strange way? And others less safe! Ugh!

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/06/us/chicago-gun-ban/

http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/illinois.pdf

 

[SteveS]

1 There are three separate motions here by EA. The motion regarding restrictive/protective is not the same as the one pertaining to 39.14.
2 The mandates in 39.14 are simply the legality that governs the parameters of discovery. It's not about anything specific within that process.
3 In 39.14, regarding the subsections mentioning witnesses and victims, those pertain to some limits on discovery itself.
... Speaking generally, those subsections are an attempt to balance discovery with the need to keep from endangering other cases or victims/witnesses in this or another case (think of a defendant who was a known drug dealer who was known to kill anyone who might testify). LE can't simply keep evidence under wraps completely, but it allows LE to consider other issues in how it provides the evidence.

 

[daisytrail]

It seems to apply to anybody and everybody who may be involved in a case in some way.
It may apply to a witness or the defendant or, if disclosed, could compromise other ongoing investigations.

Respectfully, did you read it slowly?
Maybe if you click on the link (or google Texas Law Article 39.14) and read about fair Discovery rules, the whole thing will make sense.

Not to say I know the exact reason for the motion but it has to do with publicizing certain details/claims too soon imo.

Yes, and I clicked both links as your post suggested. And I will read it again, because it interests me. I noticed some things are reserved to protect victims and/or witnesses, for instance the part about victims' and witnesses' addresses. I did not like the part about victim impact statements having to be available to the defense before trial begins. For instance, in a murder case in Texas, doesn't the trial decide guilty or not guilty, and if there is a verdict of guilty, doesn't the penalty phase then begin? Having the impact statements of victims before trial means that the raw emotions of victims are exposed to the defense for strategy and exploitation during cross. I don't like that. It makes victims unnecessarily vulnerable when they have to testify.

As I said, I will read it again when Dancing with the Stars is over.

ETA: I think the Michael Morton case was a travesty! Something had to be done to correct the balance.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

Speaking of Chicago -

http://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2376&context=cklawreview

Stemming back to 1937, the U.S. Supreme Court Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) allows a defendant to obtain a protective order restricting discovered information (Discovery) against the defendant from being revealed.
"This restriction is often sought to protect a party's secrets from being publicized."
The defendant must satisfy the rule's "good cause" requirements.

EA's lawyer might be asking for an order to protect EA from having some new information revealed about him.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

Yes, and I clicked both links as your post suggested. And I will read it again, because it interests me. I noticed some things are reserved to protect victims and/or witnesses, for instance the part about victims' and witnesses' addresses. I did not like the part about victim impact statements having to be available to the defense before trial begins. For instance, in a murder case in Texas, doesn't the trial decide guilty or not guilty, and if there is a verdict of guilty, doesn't the penalty phase then begin? Having the impact statements of victims before trial means that the raw emotions of victims are exposed to the defense for strategy and exploitation during cross. I don't like that. It makes victims unnecessarily vulnerable when they have to testify.

As I said, I will read it again when Dancing with the Stars is over.

ETA: I think the Michael Morton case was a travesty! Something had to be done to correct the balance.

I'm trying to watch DWTS too! Not easy to do while, at the same time, trying to digest law!
Most of the dancers are doing great and they make it hard to decide who to vote for!

Now I understand your previous comment applies to the whole Act versus only Section 7 (the paragraph I think may apply to the case).

Nevermind, you specifically refer to Section 7. I interpret it may apply to either side.

 

[daisytrail]

Not everyone in Texas can legally carry a firearm. Good law-abiding citizens have the opportunity to obtain a conceal and carry handgun license. Of a side note, I'd much rather live in Texas than Chicago where guns are banned.

Have the picketers crossed the line into harassment or stalking? I have no clue. Suppose we would have to ask them. Have to admit, I'd be a little afraid of their response.

You are undoubtedly right. I sounded a bit like my aunt who had a fit because my cousin and I wanted to go to a drive-in movie. She clearly had her own reason for not wanting us to go and cried out: "But someone could have a gun." I don't oppose a properly licensed concealed firearm, but those open carry guns in grocery stores freak me.

My real point is that there is really no safety. I don't follow social media concerning the Arochi case and Christina's family, so I, like you, would have no way of knowing about stalking or harassment.

 

[Doj1234]

http://www.texastribune.org/2013/03/08/ellis-duncan-file-compromise-criminal-discovery-bi/

"State Sens. Robert Duncan and Rodney Ellis filed legislation on Friday that they hope will provide a solution to the years-long debate over discovery laws in Texas and help prevent wrongful convictions."

Please read the article above first.



http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/83R/billtext/html/SB01611I.htm

"SECTION 1. Article 39.14, Code of Criminal Procedure, is
amended to read as follows:
Art. 39.14 DISCOVERY"

The bill, (A Bill to be Entitled An Act), S.B. No. 1611, begins with rules outlining DISCLOSURE BY STATE then moves on to rules outlining DISCLOSURE BY DEFENDANT.

"This Act takes effect January 1, 2014."

"Sec. 7. PROTECTIVE ORDERS. On a showing of good cause by either party the court may at any time enter an appropriate protective order that a specified disclosure be denied, restricted, or deferred. "Good cause," for purposes of this section, includes threats, harm, intimidation, or possible danger to the safely of a victim or witness, possible loss, destruction, or fabrication of evidence, or possible compromise of other investigations by law enforcement or a defense offered by a defendant."

I haven't been a huge believer that EA is part of a larger organization, so I'm mostly thinking out loud, but I wonder how this motion might protect EA (or his family) if EA was to disclose information about others. ... If at all

 

[SteveS]

I haven't been a huge believer that EA is part of a larger organization, so I'm mostly thinking out loud, but I wonder how this motion might protect EA (or his family) if EA was to disclose information about others. ... If at all

As I've said before, until we see the "protective" motion, it's really hard to offer a reliable guess as to what it might be about.

But there are a few things that need to be noted:
1 It was a motion by the defense, not by the prosecution.
2 From what I can tell, the "new discovery rules" cited in a post earlier http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodo...l/SB01611I.htm did NOT go into law as written there. It appears to me that we're only looking at a proposal on this website, and that the final law was appreciably different.
3 Disclosure by the defense pertains to issues like witnesses to be called and so on, and it is required at a much later point in the process.

As a result, I would guess that whatever "protective" order is being requested is for a different purpose, and perhaps based on a completely different issue than disclosure. But, who knows? We'll find out eventually.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

http://cijspub.co.collin.tx.us/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=1387104

Three motions were filed on April 1, 2015.

1. Defendant's Motion for Restrictive and Protective Order
2. For Certification by the State Texas of Compliance with Article 39.14 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure
3. To Preserve Evidence and for Equal Access to Observation of Testing Evidence

Today, April 6th, three Motion Hearings were scheduled. Did these Hearings take place?

I also see there are three Motion Hearings scheduled for April 29, 2015.

Some people have permission to read the Motions.
If you don't, the message is, "User doesn't have permission to view this document."

One motion consists of six pages, another is four pages and the last one is eight pages.
I'm not sure which is which but I think the pages are in the order of the Motions listed above.

Were the Motion Hearings scheduled for today postponed until April 29?

 

[Woe.be.gone]

The case numbers are 401-80513-2015 (AGG Kidnapping) and 401-80512-2015 (Sexual Assault Child)
Both case pages note "Related Cases" referencing the case number of the other one.

 

[SeeAlice]

You are undoubtedly right. I sounded a bit like my aunt who had a fit because my cousin and I wanted to go to a drive-in movie. She clearly had her own reason for not wanting us to go and cried out: "But someone could have a gun." I don't oppose a properly licensed concealed firearm, but those open carry guns in grocery stores freak me.

My real point is that there is really no safety. I don't follow social media concerning the Arochi case and Christina's family, so I, like you, would have no way of knowing about stalking or harassment.

That's so funny about the drive-in movies. (I'll be singing Stranded at the Drive-In by John Travolta all night now. "I sit and wonder why-aye-aye, oh, why, you left me, oh, Sandy.")

 

[Gigglingtoes]

LOL in light of the confusion I provided before, it sure looks like I shouldn't answer again. :smile:

But it should mean that on 4/29 we'll get an answer to "how do you plead," after which we'll head to trial (with a trial date being set) if they don't have a negotiated deal in place.

I predict..
Not guilty


Hi everyone