The Deseret News - "As of the date of this filing, the state of Arizona has not charged the defendant with any crimes arising from evidence seized during the execution of the search warrants at the YFZ Ranch," Smith wrote. "This obviates standing to raise the issues the defendant asserts in his motion to dismiss."
So far in Texas, the state has said the people making the motion to dismiss the evidence seized don't have standing, and the FLDS has agreed, apparently waiting until there is such a situation to challenge the seizure. In Arizona they're saying "What? We haven't used it against you!" It would seem that no one in possession of the evidence wants to say they're using it, for fear it will be shown to be tainted.
In addition, parents can't get anything in discovery with the CPS and Texas. If they can't find it, don't need it, and arent' charging anyone with anything as a result of gaining that evidence, exactly why do they have it?
Sphere: Related Content
1 comment:
Good question. Perhaps a Constitutional question. Perhaps this holding of someone's possessions indefinitely without a charge can be covered under certain Constitutional clauses such as right to speedy trial, Due Process, or even Habeous Corpus reinterpreted? How about after a certain point, it's called theft under color of law? How about entrapment? How about extortion? How about duress?
Everything stinks about what's going on. There must be some way to make an appeal out of this dirty business.
Appellate courts know instinctively bad faith situations. But they have to wait until a lawyer makes a compelling argument. It's about time the right lawyer steps in.
It reminds me of the Tom Green case. He was basically framed. The appellate court justice noted as much in their ruling, but they couldn't rule in his favor, because his counsel didn't make the right arguments. They were forced to rule in the light most favorable to the prosecution.
http://freetoseparate.blogspot.com/2008/08/tom-green-sc-ruling-suggests-direction.html
It pays to have a good lawyer.
Post a Comment