Wednesday, November 14, 2007

Good Reader's Comment re Today's Springsteen and Scott Hearing:

"Springsteen's and Scott's Joint Pretrial Hearing Today: Part 2"

2 Comments - Show Original Post

Neleh said...

Hey Iris,
At one point Judge Lynch said the defense's request was "one of the most expansive definitions of exculpatory I've ever seen". As I see it, our tax dollars pay for all that copying. Imagine if all the stuff in those boxes is in date order instead of grouped by a category?

I think they all agreed that most everything they wanted was in discovery already (not the database of course). I think the state agreed to copy anything that the defense "flagged" - it just puts the burden on the defense to mark those items they are looking for. The judge also told the state that if they come across an item that they know the defense has been looking for, the state has to give it to the defense right away (and not just stick it in the discovery box without telling them).

I believe that if the defense comes back at the next hearing and says they are not getting any help from the state that the judge will move things along. Hope that makes sense.

-- Neleh

November 14, 2007 10:41 PM

Delete
Iris said...

Neleh,

THANK YOU! You're absolutely right, and I'm now remembering thinking that the "flagging" arrangement sounded reasonable and fair. I appreciate your pointing this out!

Although I try to be balanced, occasionally I get sidetracked on a certain train of thought and forget the forest for the trees.
--Iris

November 14, 2007 10:53 PM

Delete

2 comments:

Bob Springsteen III said...

Iris,
Because of the trumped up nature of the case, the prosecutors are trying to minimize any chance we have in presenting a defense and any chance the public has in seeing what is going on. Texas does not require the prosecutor to do much in the way of providing access. Lynch said in August he does not think he has the authority to order the prosecution to do anything about access. And since this case still has "suspects" walking around, the possibility of prosecutors trying to keep docs secret still exists. The last time (2000) Lynch kept refusing to make an availability decision and just keeping saying "Play nice." (that went on for 9 months - I was at the hearings). I also suspect that, beyond the minimum, if it's a choice between time and money or defendant preparation, Lynch will most likely not chose defendant preparation.

Iris said...

Mr. Springsteen,

I appreciate reading your perspective. If you read my previous post, "Springsteen's and Scott's Joint Pretrial Hearings:
Part 2 (My Humble Opinion...)" I think you'll see that I, as a fairly objective observer, definitely felt the defense's frustration.

So, I can't imagine the level of frustration you, as an understandably biased observer, must feel.

I don't consider myself particularly pro-prosecution or pro-defense when I listen to any hearings/trials, but I do strongly believe in a defendant's 5th Amendment right to the presumption of innocence and that the State must meet its burden of proving from the evidence guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

We'll see what happens at the January pretrial hearing.

--Iris