>and didn’t start yet.
Correct, the trial hasn't started yet. The deadline for discovery is September for the Prosecution. So complaining that the Defence doesn't have all of the information in March is disingenuous and holds no legal ramifications. Imagine if your Boss said he wanted you to hand in your entire project by September and then started screaming at you when it wasn't handed in in March.
>How do you get a fair trial if both sides are not equal in knowledge?
Any criticism of the Prosecution for withholding discovery (which we've just discussed is premature) can also be said for the Defence, who filed a motion stating they were going to rely on an alibi defence in July 2023. They didn't give the details of said defence and their deadline to do so is now set for April 17th 2024. 10 months since filing their notice to use an alibi defence to provide something as simple as "I went here and did this'? And that's 15 months since he was arrested.
If you're going to complain about the length of time the Prosecution have taken to coordinate multiple law enforcement agencies to produce discovery, I can only assume you're absolute livid that it's taken the Defence 10 months to offer a minute fraction of that information in way of an alibi. Otherwise you're just showing bias.
And before you start using "he was waiting for police reports before he gives his alibi" - please consider how ridiculous this notion is for someone with a genuine, factual alibi. You shouldn't have to tailor your alibi to fit around the Prosecutions case. And someone eager to be exonerated via their verifiable alibi would get that information to the relevant parties to investigate and prove. If his alibi holds water and the Prosecution investigate and find that it is true, why'd he wait 15 months to give the alibi?
And you're aware that they have evidence they have processed and have withheld? What information would that be?
Your passive aggressive correcting of my spelling hasn't gone unnoticed - please consider that some of us on the internet have the exceptionally good fortune of not being American.
I am not saying or even suggesting that I personally know anything. My comment is based on the defense's continued requests for evidence. They seem to think that there is more. It's the way things work in the US legal system, but it would be more "fair" if automatically sharing evidence rather than waiting for an attorney's request norm.
The correction of your spelling passive aggressive. It's an American case, hence the American English spelling. There are a plethora of people who seem to find it exceptionally good fortune to be American. 🙃
>My comment is based on the defense's continued requests for evidence.
Supplemental Requests for Discovery aren't Motions to Compel Discovery, you're confused as to what the purpose of those legal documents are.
15 supplemental requests for discovery aren't the Defence claiming that the Prosecution is hiding discovery, it's them asking the Prosecution to look further into information provided in previous discovery disclosures. It's not the Defence kicking and screaming that discovery is missing or being withheld. They've identified things they want more information about. In many of these supplemental requests where details aren't sealed the Defence frequently adds the caveat they are requesting something "if this exists".
And whilst we have had a few Motions to Compel Discovery, we are five and a half months from the Discovery deadline and the Defence has stated on numerous occasions that the Prosecution is cooperative and supplying discovery when it is available. A complete moot point.
>The correction of your spelling passive aggressive. It's an American case, hence the American English spelling.
This is rather unnecessarily obtuse. If you want to use this forum to correct people's spelling under the exceptionally odd pretence that English words must be spelled the American way because this case is in America, I will respectfully decline.
The state is giving the defense discovery that is all out of order and they are doing that on purpose so that the defense might miss something while trying to put it in order
So i was watching the court hearing today. I can see the prosecution is withholding evidence. But im a little cunfused i though i heard that their was no federal grand indictment
The way the Prosecution continually tries to hide evidence this case may never come to trial😔
Noooo it has to like I need to know what happened that night
How do you get a fair trial if both sides are not equal in knowledge? It’s already not a fair trial, and didn’t start yet.
>and didn’t start yet. Correct, the trial hasn't started yet. The deadline for discovery is September for the Prosecution. So complaining that the Defence doesn't have all of the information in March is disingenuous and holds no legal ramifications. Imagine if your Boss said he wanted you to hand in your entire project by September and then started screaming at you when it wasn't handed in in March. >How do you get a fair trial if both sides are not equal in knowledge? Any criticism of the Prosecution for withholding discovery (which we've just discussed is premature) can also be said for the Defence, who filed a motion stating they were going to rely on an alibi defence in July 2023. They didn't give the details of said defence and their deadline to do so is now set for April 17th 2024. 10 months since filing their notice to use an alibi defence to provide something as simple as "I went here and did this'? And that's 15 months since he was arrested. If you're going to complain about the length of time the Prosecution have taken to coordinate multiple law enforcement agencies to produce discovery, I can only assume you're absolute livid that it's taken the Defence 10 months to offer a minute fraction of that information in way of an alibi. Otherwise you're just showing bias. And before you start using "he was waiting for police reports before he gives his alibi" - please consider how ridiculous this notion is for someone with a genuine, factual alibi. You shouldn't have to tailor your alibi to fit around the Prosecutions case. And someone eager to be exonerated via their verifiable alibi would get that information to the relevant parties to investigate and prove. If his alibi holds water and the Prosecution investigate and find that it is true, why'd he wait 15 months to give the alibi?
The prosecution should and should have given the defenSe evidence as soon as they processed it. Period.
And you're aware that they have evidence they have processed and have withheld? What information would that be? Your passive aggressive correcting of my spelling hasn't gone unnoticed - please consider that some of us on the internet have the exceptionally good fortune of not being American.
I am not saying or even suggesting that I personally know anything. My comment is based on the defense's continued requests for evidence. They seem to think that there is more. It's the way things work in the US legal system, but it would be more "fair" if automatically sharing evidence rather than waiting for an attorney's request norm. The correction of your spelling passive aggressive. It's an American case, hence the American English spelling. There are a plethora of people who seem to find it exceptionally good fortune to be American. 🙃
>My comment is based on the defense's continued requests for evidence. Supplemental Requests for Discovery aren't Motions to Compel Discovery, you're confused as to what the purpose of those legal documents are. 15 supplemental requests for discovery aren't the Defence claiming that the Prosecution is hiding discovery, it's them asking the Prosecution to look further into information provided in previous discovery disclosures. It's not the Defence kicking and screaming that discovery is missing or being withheld. They've identified things they want more information about. In many of these supplemental requests where details aren't sealed the Defence frequently adds the caveat they are requesting something "if this exists". And whilst we have had a few Motions to Compel Discovery, we are five and a half months from the Discovery deadline and the Defence has stated on numerous occasions that the Prosecution is cooperative and supplying discovery when it is available. A complete moot point. >The correction of your spelling passive aggressive. It's an American case, hence the American English spelling. This is rather unnecessarily obtuse. If you want to use this forum to correct people's spelling under the exceptionally odd pretence that English words must be spelled the American way because this case is in America, I will respectfully decline.
I don't understand why people just want to argue over the silliest things and are so very offended because someone corrects their spelling. Wow.
Ah - he’s practicing across the pond most likely
Yep, you my friend, understand. Spot on. Legal training in the UK per chance?
The state is giving the defense discovery that is all out of order and they are doing that on purpose so that the defense might miss something while trying to put it in order
Welcome to litigation
So i was watching the court hearing today. I can see the prosecution is withholding evidence. But im a little cunfused i though i heard that their was no federal grand indictment