How do public defenders get appointed if not by the judge?The judge hand-picked new attornies from her own court?? Wow. No bias in that...
Baldwin/Rozzi seem outlandish. The judge seems biased and the prosecution doesn't seem particularly confident in the case. Ugh.
I stand by my previous description of this case: ****-show.
Can Judge Gull pick lawyers from any county? If so, why would she pick from her "home court"? Were Baldwin/Rozzi from Allen Co.? (or maybe they were assigned by previous judge??) As to "very good ones", I'll have to take your word for it. According to Baldwin/Rozzi, Judge Gull wouldn't know a good defense lawyer due to her lack of practice in defending clients. I'm left wondering if they are right in their assessment.How do public defenders get appointed if not by the judge?
They are public defenders in Allen County, that's all "home court" means, and by all accounts, very good ones.
No idea if the judge can pick from any county or not. The previous attorneys were assigned by the Carroll co. judge and at least one of them was from Carroll co.Can Judge Gull pick lawyers from any county? If so, why would she pick from her "home court"? Were Baldwin/Rozzi from Allen Co.? (or maybe they were assigned by previous judge??) As to "very good ones", I'll have to take your word for it. According to Baldwin/Rozzi, Judge Gull wouldn't know a good defense lawyer due to her lack of practice in defending clients. I'm left wondering if they are right in their assessment.
No idea if the judge can pick from any county or not. The previous attorneys were assigned by the Carroll co. judge and at least one of them was from Carroll co.
As to why she would pick attorneys from her home county, they are ones she is familiar with would be my guess. It's either pick who you know or throw darts.
Eh, he was explaining the forensics in general, not specifically in regards to this case. And he used a few wiggle words as well. " often, not always " "can be" etc.And if one of them just happens to have publicly endorsed the prosecution's key evidence, that's just a coincidence. Or is the the word I'm looking for "bonus"? Blame the darts I say!
Eh, he was explaining the forensics in general, not specifically in regards to this case. And he used a few wiggle words as well. " often, not always " "can be" etc.
So I wouldn't say he was endorsing the prosecutor's evidence.
And how do you know that's the prosecutions key evidence?
...but it is safe to say that the discipline of tool-mark identification (ballistics) is anything but a science. The entire discipline has been under attack in courtrooms across this country as being unreliable and lacking any scientific validity,”
Yeah I would expect a layer who was working on a case to say the same. Especially in a motion to exclude it. Whether they believed it or not. I also wouldn't be surprised that a lawyer who has no expectation of being involved would say what Scremin said.Fair enough, but it's hard to imagine how someone could agree with the legitimacy of this kind of evidence in general but someone find something wrong with it in this particular case. I would expect the defence in this case to start questioning the legitimacy of it in principle, for example:
I know that nothing prevents the new team from taking this position, and hopefully the prosecutor won't be allowed to say in court that they previously sang a different tune. But it does indicate what they really think. I would not want to give up a lawyer who thinks this stuff is junk science and is prepared to argue that in court, for one who thinks it's generally solid but maybe it was handled wrongly in my particular case.
As regards whether it's key evidence, that's generally how it has been referred to so far. It's the basis of the arrest warrant and of his subsequent detention. If it was excluded the whole case could fall apart.
My theory is he racked the slide as an intimidation tactic and didn't realize it was already chambered and dropped the live round on the ground.An unspent round found between two people who were stabbed to death just doesn't seem very persuasive to me. And that's before questioning the science of microscopinc ejector/extractor marks. I continue to believe the prosecution has more/better evidence.
I had a similar, but slightly different theory. One of the girls was said to be a "fighter" (bless her), and I wondered if she grabbed the pistol .... and in an ensuing short struggle, the slide was racked.My theory is he racked the slide as an intimidation tactic and didn't realize it was already chambered and dropped the live round on the ground.
Thoughts on the Supreme Court’s order to produce the transcript of what was discussed in chambers?
That's A position on the course of events.What we know so far:
* the judge ordered them to cease work on his case a week before the hearing (I saw the email thread that confirmed this somewhere but can't find it now)
* she then ordered Allen transported from prison to his court hearing even though she knew he could not appear at that hearing.
* she brought in TV cameras for this hearing, and only this one
* she had a private conversation with the attorneys
* she then claimed publicly that they had withdrawn, to her surprise, and thus she had no choice but to send Allen back
Now she doesn't want that private conversation revealed. She clearly planned the whole thing.
Judge Gull's delay in responding and/or producing the transcript seems odd to this lay person. I view some of her manners and decisions to have shown bias against the defendant, his guilt/innocence not withstanding. It wouldn't surprise me if both the judge and defense counsel are shown to have been a wee-bit outside the norms, however one might define that.
NacissisticA lot of narcissistic, weirdo (alcoholics) in the profession... you're going to have strange happenings.