|
You know, that's a very good idea.
And if he doesn't, wouldn't that give the defense yet another ground
for appeal?
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 11:46
AM
Subject: RE: [Sndbox] Providing
clarification
I've been thinking about that
evidence. If the judge is supposed to be deciding whether this trial
goes to court based on the evidence, then the thing for him to do since the
evidence presented is obviously against the prosecution, is to demand they
show what they have before he makes his decision. He can't rule on what
they "might" have. He can only rule on what is presented in the
prelim. You think he will do that in order to be fair? I'm betting
he won't.
Charles
Mims
In a message dated 10/16/2003 12:27:22 PM Eastern
Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
He could be counting on knowing
his jury pool...there are cases all the time that prosecutor's bring against
people that will enhance their career. This is the kind of case that
will make or break him, maybe he's willing to take a
gamble
pretty big gamble if
there really is no evidense
________________________________
Changes to your subscription
(unsubs, nomail, digest) can be made by going to
http://sandboxmail.net/mailman/listinfo/sndbox_sandboxmail.net
|
________________________________
Changes to your subscription (unsubs, nomail, digest) can be made by going to
http://sandboxmail.net/mailman/listinfo/sndbox_sandboxmail.net
