More Motions
Paper Flies Ahead of Friday’s Status Hearing
It’s become the norm that motions are filed ahead of the status hearings and this week is no exception.
Three of them have hit the DC Superior Court Clerk’s office in recent days:
Gov’t Response to Defendants’ Joint Motion to Exclude Uncharged Criminal Misconduct Filed Attorney: PHILLIPS, CHANNING
Gov’t Response to Defendant’s Motion for Scheduling Order Filed Attorney: PHILLIPS, CHANNING
Defendants’ Reply to the Gov’t Opposition to Defendants’ Joint Motion to Dismiss Counts One and Two of the Indictment Filed Attorney: SPAGNOLETTI, ROBERT; Attorney: GRIMM, BERNARD; Attorney: CONNOLLY, THOMAS; Attorney: SCHERTLER, DAVID
We’re at the courthouse now trying to obtain the hard copies and will post and update when they become available. Just appointed, Judge Lynn Leibovitz gavels in her first status hearing on the case tomorrow at 2:05pm.
“Joint Motion to Exclude Uncharged Criminal Misconduct”
Uncharged criminal misconduct? Can’t wait to see this one.
Hurry Eds!!
What drives a married couple (or trouple) who are truly innocent of a crime to retain seperate legal counsel?
For example, if my wife and I were accused of a burglarly which we both knew we did not commit, I think the last thing that would cross my or my wife’s mind is that we need counsel seperate and apart from each other. Why would I need or want that? And, knowing we were both truly innocent and would have the same defense, why would we want to incur legal fees in double or triplicate?
Does the defendants’ hiring of seperate counsel say anything about what they individually may think, know, or be concerned about with regard to the other defendants? Seems like it might.
I would love to know what and who drove the decision to lawyer up in triplicate. I’m sure I’m just reading too much into this…
Lyn – The multiple gunslingers retained by the defendants has always been a big question mark. David looked at the dynamics of the early lawyering up a couple months ago.
Maybe Dylan’s family would only pay if he had separate counsel? Maybe Victor/ Joe felt it would increases their chances of at least one of them staying free if they had separate counsel? Maybe Joe’s counsel wouldn’t represent the others, or vice versa? Or maybe Victor knows how guilty the other two are and and wanted to disassociate a bit. Or maybe I’m just dumb. Its quite intimidating at times trying to keep up with you brainy folks!
It’s not brainy or not-brainy. It’s legalities and ethics. Defendants almost always have separate counsel even if they have identical stories and are tried together (see, e.g. Menendez Brothers trial for killing their parents). Because each defendant CAN be adverse to the other(s), an attorney could not represent more than one without committing malpractice. The ins and outs of this are on the prior thread which Craig graciously provided (to spare us all that leg work).
How closely do the different counsels work with each other? I mean, wouldn’t Joe’s counsel be concerned that Dylan was acquitted, etc.? Do you think they will try to place blame on one or two of the others to defend their individual client? I am so grateful we have legal knowledge here.
OK, I know..I should go read the lawyering up post again. Always looking for the easy way, I am.
They appear to be working together and sharing workload on many things at this stage. That said, each lawyer is meeting privately with his own client to discuss all the angles. For example, if one of the three was asleep during the time Robert was murdered (we’ll call him “Z”), but the other two were downstairs and awake, then the defense of Z would want Z to be distanced from the other two in the juries’ minds. Of course, Z’s lawyer cannot force Z to tell the truth and make a deal – though we hope he hasn’t given up trying.
Just for starters, of course.
Thanks Bea!
Forget coffee, I’m on my second Dr. Pepper and waiting on our fearless bloggers.
On its way in about 10 minutes. Sorry for the delay.
No reason not to spend the absolute maximum on lawyers. Kathy will end up owning whatever the lawyers don’t.
Touche!