I dunno. From the preview of today's prelim before it was shut down, I'm seeing a pattern here with the defense.
The State put out the bench brief for the prelim on 5/13 which was discovered to the defense. The pre-admitted evidence exhibits from the bond detention hearing is outlined in the brief, and already part of the record, where it should not be necessary to repeat the effort.
For example, part to the evidence (exhibit) previously admitted, includes a crucial witness with state immunity where the transcript of their entire police interview was long ago discovered to the defense-- as long ago as the bond detention hearing.
IMO, it seems disingenuous for the defense to allege today that the State quoting the witness from their transcript is the equivalent of preparing the witness's statement for them. The State did not author the words out of their mouth! Making an objection to this critical witness for the probable cause hearing at the 11th hour on a technicality (at best) does not work for me.
This reminds me of the advance, joint agreement the parties made regarding the content of the envelope (book draft) only for the defense to withdraw the agreement at the hearing. This defense take-back cost the defendant an incredible delay in moving the process forward. So let's not hear defense concerns about the defendant's custody status when rescheduling the preliminary hearing!
So now we know SL's defense strategy: frustrate the prosecution and confuse the Court while doing so.
MOO
I certainly agree that the particulars of the case appear to be significant, and the repeated posturing by SL that the state has no case and this shouldn't even go to trial seems quite ludicrous to me. The standard the state has to meet, at this point, is incredibly low, which makes me wonder who SL is trying to convince -- I can't imagine the judge will buy what she's selling.
Never say a case is a slam dunk, but the evidence (much of it from KR's own words and actions) appears overwhelming.
But that having been said, I do have 2 strong disagreements with this ^ post:
1 I do
not agree that 'SL shouldn't be doing what she's doing.' In fact, I think it is the right thing, to mount a vigorous objection, and to try to do whatever she can to defend KR, even if all the facts are against her. Maybe even more so.
... I have to think she's working to produce some concern by the state, in hopes of getting a good plea agreement offer. Because it looks to me like KR is buried by facts, and by the likely of being convicted on one charge after another. KR's own words have put a noose around her own neck.
2
The statement above that the defense "withdrew" or "took back" an agreement on how to deal with what to do about the so-called book is completely false. No such thing ever happened!! In fact, what happened was the opposite of that claim - the defense voiced their objections to the state getting the book, agreed to a process for their claims to be examined, and then
they participated as the process played out 100% just as agreed. Moreover, there wasn't even a way for the defense to renege on the agreement at any point.
So the court took possession of the "book," then farmed it out to an attorney for the state ("taint attorney") not involved in the case, who was allowed to examine its contents (but can't share it with the state for use in the trial), who then wrote up the reasons why it should be allowed as evidence. Then the defense was given a few weeks to respond why it should be marked as privileged attorney-client stuff instead. Eventually they had a closed hearing on the matter. But all the info in the "book" and the arguments, and maybe even motions, were kept out of the public domain.
At the hearing, the court heard arguments from both sides, then ruled that the book is attorney-client stuff. Nowhere in that did the defense ever fail to honor its agreement. Here's an article on the results of all that process.
A preliminary hearing date was set for 9 a.m. on May 15.
www.parkrecord.com
drive.google.com
lawandcrime.com
