Motions Hearing Update

In and Out

Boy, were we ever wrong about what was on tap for today’s status hearing.

Sooner or later, probably later, Judge Michael Rankin may get around to hearing arguments and ruling on the stack of 5th Amendment motions that are piling up on his desk, but today he had one item only on his plate, the MPD Motions to Quash police detectives’ testimony, and the defense’s opposition.

We were in and out in 30 minutes and left courtroom 517 without a very clear picture of Rankin’s style.  At first blush, we thought him to be a cross between Weisbgerg and Leibovitz.  Nah, maybe not the best description.

In any event, a full post on the short hearing comes up tomorrow morning.

Hint: The password is…

17 comments for “Motions Hearing Update

  1. 04/19/2011 at 5:12 PM

    Above is a link to the Examiner scoop on the hearing.

    Seems the judge will likely allow the police and the defendants to remain silent. The widow would be wise to demand a payment (limits of policy) and walk away from this MPD mess.

    • Bill Orange
      04/19/2011 at 6:08 PM

      Thank you for the link, Ben!

      I disagree with you on Kathy Wone’s next move, however. No matter how badly the MPD bungled this case (and I’d say they bungled it pretty badly), I think it’s been pretty well-established that Robert Wone was stabbed to death in the defendants’ house. If I were her, I would not stop demanding answers from the defendants until they sat down and gave me credible answers to everything I had to ask.

      Also, keep in mind that the passage of time favors her at this point, not them. This isn’t costing her much (if any) money in legal fees, and the defendants look worse and worse with each hearing (and the resulting media coverage). The defendants, on the other hand, are facing the potential of an enormous civil judgement, and the longer this drags out, the more likely it is that their insurance company is going to turn on them. None of this is really going to affect Dylan that much, but Joe and Victor are going to be going through the ringer for the foreseeable future.

      • BenFranklin
        04/19/2011 at 7:38 PM

        The defendants cannot sit down and talk to the widow and it’s silly to say they should given what they’ve been through. No one is going to talk or “keep talking.”

        MPD is clearly trying to cover their record of malicious incompetence with the cloak of privilege. Sadly the widow and the defendants are both victims of the MPD.

        I think everyone agrees that homeowners policy should pay the widow for her loss–and to its limit. A great defense combined with the botched police work might make a jury award worth less.

        • Bea
          04/19/2011 at 8:02 PM

          Oh, Ben, OF COURSE the defendants can sit down and talk to Kathy Wone. Honor and integrity would dictate that they SHOULD give her every bit of information they have about what happened to her husband. Because they haven’t, she’s had to resort to filing suit. The first time they (really only Joe) talked to her in the basement of her home, they/he told her things which didn’t match up.

          You’ll recall Joe made three stabbing motions to coordinate with Robert’s groans – yet his position later was that he was killed instantly – and how did he know that Robert groaned after each thrust of the knife if he was still upstairs? I’m sure she has many questions she’d like to ask the three men who only now have to worry about being indicted for murder. . .

    • Bea
      04/19/2011 at 7:14 PM

      Ben, where do you get that the judge will allow the defendants to remain silent? The article you referred to says “Rankin gave no indication when he would rule on whether the three defendants must answer deposition questions.”

      I’m sure they’ll get to plead the 5th as to many questions but I’m doubting there will be an across-the-board ruling. But too I read the article to say that even as to the MPD that both sides need to “keep talking” to come to an agreement on THAT privilege as well.

      I’m with Bill O that Kathy Wone is not likely (and shouldn’t, in my mind) just take the money. That’s not her primary motive here. She has to pay costs but not legal fees, and the more pressure the case exerts, the closer she’ll come to finding answers. It’s still possible that someone will turn prosecution witness (much as I’d like that to be one of the defendants, it may be someone else).

      • Craig
        04/19/2011 at 7:37 PM

        The simple answer is that Ben Franklin is making things up. Again.

        We’d be wise to heed the real Ben Franklin who said, “Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.”

        • BenFranklin
          04/19/2011 at 8:35 PM

          This fool is the only one who called the bench trial and the verdict in the criminal trial correctly. I’ll play the fool again on this.

          • Bea
            04/19/2011 at 8:52 PM

            I don’t recall the Lunesta Zombie dicta in the opinion.

          • Craig
            04/19/2011 at 8:53 PM

            Ben – You were caught lying here and nothing you say can be trusted. This site operates on the honor system, and you have none. You’re a constant irritant who contributes zero, and an insufferable, whiny brat. Go fuck yourself. Twice.

            • Bill 2
              04/19/2011 at 11:24 PM

              In view of all of Ben’s half-truths, obfuscations, and misinformation over the months he’s been hanging around, maybe he is suffering from dementia and doesn’t even know what he’s saying. A person with full awareness of their surroundings would realize they can’t get away with delivering a pile of bullcrap every time they post a message.

          • Clio
            04/19/2011 at 10:15 PM

            Ben dearest, why do your school ties to W&M blind you to the obvious? The real Ben Franklin would have scoffed at such tenuous connections to an faux-aristocratic credo. Let the Age of Reason begin for you!

  2. Gloria
    04/20/2011 at 6:36 AM

    Hey, folks. Let’s not get sidetracked by Ben. He’s suckered us in before. One commenter can make clear to new reviewers that he’s an unreliable source and then let’s drop it. Please.

  3. Dieter
    04/20/2011 at 7:27 AM

    Though he might be a weirdo with poor manners and lacking in the profound loquacity and conciseness of a clio, we have to hand it to ben that he was right about things that the rest of us weren’t. despite this side issue, does no one care that the police seem to be hiding something? or is there not a shred of objectivity left here?

    • CDinDC
      04/20/2011 at 9:10 AM

      What do you think specifically they are hiding, Dieter?

  4. Bill Orange
    04/20/2011 at 9:09 AM

    “…does no one care that the police seem to be hiding something?”

    Yes and no. If the police are genuinely hiding something, then I want to know about it. But this all seems like legal posturing to me. The police are claiming that there are certain questions they don’t have to answer, because this is a civil case. The was, however, a prior criminal case, involving the same three defendants, all of whom were aware that a civil suit was coming their way. They should have been able to get any of the information they needed at that time. My big questions for the defense are: What information do you want now that you didn’t ask for then? And why the hell didn’t you ask before? This whole issue looks like an enormous screw-up by the defense team. If I were Joe Price, I would be furious about it.

  5. Michael
    04/20/2011 at 9:16 AM

    If a dear friend of mine was murdered in my own home, I would keep my mouth shut too. LOL SO MUCH FOR DEAR FRIENDS

  6. Hoya Loya
    04/20/2011 at 9:27 AM

    Ben was not a lone voice in the wilderness. A number of us expressed concerns about the sufficiency of the evidence for tampering, obstruction and conspiracy charges throughout the trial. The comments are all on record here on the site.

    Ben was nearly alone in predicting three “not guilty” verdicts, although I believe some of our defense lawyer posters (e.g. Kiki) were also skeptical, but that does not mean that the majority of posters expected three convictions on all charges. In fact, a poll taken by the eds prior to judgment showed that the vast majority expected some sort of mixed verdict.

    And what in the world could the police be hiding at this point? The screwed-up the blood testing, failure to image the blackberry, contamination of the scene with Ashley’s Reagent, notes by an initial responder that are grossly at odds with all other reports and interrogations and were never followed up — and this is all very public. What could they be hiding that would be worse or more embarrassing than this and what would be the motive? Evidence of an intruder? Wouldn’t they rather end this “very active” investigation by using that evidence to solve the case rather than vindictively pursuing the defendants when they’ve already failed on one set of charges, if they indeed had something else?

Comments are closed.