The San Angelo Standard-Times - "The decision will allow jurors in the upcoming trials of 12 men from the polygamous Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints to see some of the documents.From this report, it would seem that Walther is overloading the defense, by making her decision at the last minute, thereby forcing the FLDS to sift through a document dump with less than a month to go, until the first trial. Hat tip to "Jam Inn."
The documents come from an April 2008 raid on the FLDS-owned Yearning for Zion Ranch.
The first sect member to face a criminal trial pleaded not guilty Friday to sexual assault of a child.
Raymond Jessop entered his plea Friday before Texas District Judge Barbara Walther in San Angelo. He's set for an Oct. 26 trial in Eldorado. Defense attorneys had asked Walther to exclude the documents because the search warrant was based on fake domestic abuse reports."
By saying it was not a "surprise," I mean it wasn't after recent developments. Walther would not have scheduled trials and waited this long, if she wasn't going to rule in favor of including the evidence.
The Houston Chronicle - "FLDS spokesman Willie Jessop said he was disappointed but not surprised by the ruling. The defendants will use the argument for the basis of an appeal if convicted, he said.And there might be more evidence, stacked against the evidence by then.
'I have no doubt this thing will be ruled illegal in the long run,' he said of the search."
Next move? Judge Conn in Arizona will probably now be asked to rule on the evidence separately.
Sphere: Related Content
3 comments:
I'll venture a prediction. I know this sounds absurd. But...
Judge Walther may actually be instrumental in rescuing the FLDS. But not until her master falls, and she's unable to find him.
Yep, that sounds absurd alright!
Conn has not resembled walther in the way he has ruled. With that in mind, I would attribute his delay hearing / ruling on suppressing evidence to it being an effort to reduce the burdensome task of reviewing every detail in the search that happened in a different state.
I find the general statement by walther, that the proof is "unsupported by credible evidence" to be rather weak on details. Am hoping to see more details, IF she provides any. It sounds like a 'cause I say so' ruling.
Walther is a political "Because I said so" judge.
I would have thought that she would realize after being rejected once in her dismissive summary way of "ruling the way I want" that she'd have more caution this time.
Maybe she did. The ruling is 24 pages long and I haven't had time to read it yet. I've suggested she might have had part of it "ghost written."
Post a Comment