Comments on: Status Hearing Live Feed

By: Clio

Clio — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 22:26:47 +0000

Just like Joe was, at the turn of the century.

By: des

des — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 21:56:29 +0000

i swear part of me thinks ben is joe. but then again joe always seemed smarter than ben appears in these posts.

By: Doug

Doug — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 21:13:03 +0000

It’s taking some time, no, Ben? We wait…where are you?
-Doug, co-editor

By: SheKnowsSomething

SheKnowsSomething — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 20:29:45 +0000

Thanks, CD. If I remember correctly, Patrick Martin served as the prosecutor on that case. The charge was drug possession with the intent to distribute. MPD had video and voice recordings of the attempted transaction between the accused and undercover police. The defense attorney made the customer claims of police misconduct and entrapment (I guess defense counsel is paid to make those claims, even if you can swim a catfish thtough the holes in the argument, right Bea?). Her Honor was respecful of the defense position, but very matter-of-fact about denying the validity of the position. During the jury selection process, I begged to be excused because a lengthy trial (one lasting more than a 4 days) would have interfered with a new job that I was expected to begin with a new customer on the West Coast. The judge assured me that the proceedings would be very orderly and should not last very long. The case was handed to the jury for deliberations after one day of argument. On the third day of deliberations (!) I sent a note into the judge concerning the objectivity of two jurors who lived in the same neighborhood where the arrest was made and where the defendent also lived. After interviewing the jurors in chambers, the judge dismissed them from service, replaced them with the alternates and thirty minutes we arrived at a unanimous guilty verdict. After I delivered the verdict in court, the judge polled each juror to assure that we had reached a unanimous verdict and that each juror agreed with the verdict as I had delivered it. She thanked us for our service and we were dismissed. No navel-gazing … no constitutional skimishness … no giving either side enough rope to hang themselves … all business … clean, neat and simple.

By: CDinDC

CDinDC — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 19:08:57 +0000

Awesome post, SKS. Great to hear something from some that has actually witnessed her in action!

By: SheKnowsSomething

SheKnowsSomething — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 14:29:20 +0000

As both a distant acquaintance of the Swann Streerters and a former jury foreperson for a trial before Judge L’s bench, I am SO looking forward to the progress of this trial. In the trial on which I served, the judge was all business, as our editors observed. She is plain-spoken and low-drama, swift and efficient, and exercised great restraint on the bench, as long as the lawyers all played nice together. As Connally expects this to be a lengthy and contentious trial, the judge’s swift application of justice, couple with her sharp and cutting wit, will be a joy to witness.

By: AnnaZed

AnnaZed — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 07:05:02 +0000

Well, lie down with dogs I say.

I’m not a lawyer or even any kind of peripheral legal type and I found that motion laughable. If Connelly doesn’t like having his head handed to him by the judge then he’s going to have to do better than that, and maybe even consider doing his own lawyering. As long as this group allows Joe to drive the car then they are all headed for disaster. Connelly probably most of all needs to do his job and advise his client that his interests and Joe’s are not one in the same.

By: Bea

Bea — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 02:35:10 +0000

Not often. On the civil side, if they are granted it’s with a period of time to fix the problem – courts want to hear cases “on the merits” and not toss them on the basis of what the general public would call a “technicality”. Here, though, the defense was going for the home run – to have all the ‘acts’ definitively rejected as possible obstruction/conspiracy. It does surprise me that they thought there was more than a remote chance. If they truly believe the soundness of their legal position, they will at least consider an appeal.

I still think that Connolly’s comment about ‘not a good day’ had more to do with the judge letting the defense know, in no uncertain terms though clearly indirectly, that she’s inclined to let the prosecution cast a wide net. She’d prepared her opinion before arriving at court essentially letting the defense know that their oral arguments were a waste of time. She certainly seems to be more pro-prosecution than Weisburg ever was. Yea.

By: Craig

Craig — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 02:22:32 +0000

This makes me wonder how often judges grant these motions to dismiss. I’m sure it depends on a host of circumstances.

Price would know. Not the other two.

By: Bea

Bea — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 01:27:04 +0000

I suspect he’s a 30 year old poser.