Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Judge agrees to let Texas Rangers be questioned

The immovable object, moves;

"Mohave County Superior Court Judge Steven Conn...ordered Schleicher County Sheriff David Doran, his deputy John Connor and Texas Ranger Brooks Long to submit to interviews with Jeffs' defense team — or face a deposition.

Contacted by the Deseret News (today), Doran was unsure if he would submit to an interview.

'Until I receive something officially, I can't answer that,' he said. 'We're going to work with our attorney general's office and take advice from them'."

Oh, I like seeing the shoe on the other foot. I'd also like to see Doran booted from office so that he can't play the game as if he has some sort of Nixonian Executive privelege.

"During (today's) hearing, Jeffs' attorney, Michael Piccarreta, said he warned the Mohave County Attorney and the attorney general's special prosecutor not to go or send any Arizona officers to Texas. They ignored his advice.

Piccarreta said the defense has a right to interview the three Texas officers because they had contact with Arizona law enforcement and investigators."

The DEFENDANT HAS RIGHTS. He is not an animal. He is an American Citizen. HE HAS RIGHTS. Texas and Arizona both have been acting as if Warren Jeffs does not have rights.

"Doran said he did not know why his office would need to be interviewed as part of Jeffs' criminal case in Arizona.

'I have no idea because the state of Texas, I don't believe, has anything to do with their case,' he said."

I think the Sheriff, frankly, is out of his depth. He may be able to bully out of the limelight in a small out of the way town, but he's in it now. I don't think he has any experience with not being able to control the agenda.

"The judge did not rule on the defense's motion to suppress evidence from the Texas raid and expressed reservations about not ruling on that motion.

'I would rather rule sooner than later on the legality of the search,' the judge said."

It sounds as if the Judge simply doesn't believe the prosecution, and is using the defense to get a glimpse into what is going on in Texas, between Arizona law enforcement and law enforcement in Texas.

When he gets that look, he'll rule. It would be easier if he ruled against the evidence for the FLDS, but either way, the FLDS will get traction out of the ruling.



Sphere: Related Content

5 comments:

ztgstmv said...

It's a slam dunk; case law says up and down, this was an illegal search. Even TBM admits the scale of this search and seizure had no precedent. The best he could do was dredge up some case of a compound suspected of illegal arms manufacturing. The best analogy to probable cause to search each and every family dwelling was suspicion of bigamy!! (even if that were the case, they would have to not only suspect bigamy -- a very individual crime in nature -- but a conspiracy to commit mass bigamy to justify the mass warrant, which is ludicrous) Oh, and then there's Voss' assertion that every house had an underage marriage involved therein. Hmmmm, she must've thought there were only 5 households, since there were by her best estimates only five currently underage married girls. But then why did the state admit there were 19 some houses...Doesn't add up.

http://freetoseparate.blogspot.com/2008/09/case-law-dealing-with-flds-warrant.html

kbp said...

I tip my hat to that judge, so far.

TxBluesMan said...

Hugh,

Hate to bust y'alls bubble, but it ain't goin' happen... It doesn't matter what Judge Conn ordered, Jeffs' team of lawyers aren't going to talk to the Rangers...

Check my blog for the reasons...

TxBluesMan said...

Ziggy,

If you are going to quote me, please do it correctly. I have never stated that the scale of this search and seizure had no precedent - and have provided plenty of case law references to support my position. Please pay attention at how Hugh and I discuss it (other than the fact that he's wrong and I'm right - jk Hugh)... When he talks about something I said, he can support it with something I actually said - he doesn't have to make up statements that I 'admitted' this or that, especially when it is most decidedly not something I said.

The Pharisee said...

Blues, it hardly bursts my bubble. I don't know how it will play out, but if they refuse, I'm actually all for it. They'll end up getting the evidence thrown out, in Arizona at least. That works for me.