|
Ugh -- so the judges even interpret a defense win as a defense loss.
Semper Fi,
Dwight
In a message dated 11/18/2010 9:05:52 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
haytham@puckettfaraj.com writes:
Thank you for the response. It is the Douglas case. Unfortunately judges
are reading the Douglas case as a means to ameliorate all UCI by simply having
the CA write a letter to the command. I've seen it in 3 case already. Problem
is when there's a defense win, there's no appeal. I'm frustrated by the the
failure of so many judges to understand the affirmative action Douglas
requires a court to take.
Thanks for the response. Happy Thanksgiving.
Haytham Faraj Sent from my iPhone
Whoops, I didn't mean to send that e-mail yet. I can't think of
any cases in which there has been a successful petition for extraordinary
relief on UCI grounds -- that's an issue that is normally addressed during
the ordinary course of appeals, as it was in Douglas. But in Douglas,
there was quite a discussion of waiver. Seeking a writ now could help
during the course of appeals in case of a conviction to demonstrate that the
issue was important to the defense and that the defense did everything
possible to address it.
So seeking a writ now would be unlikely to succeed but may be helpful
later. Whether that justifies the effort to prepare one is a
cost-benefit analysis for the trial defense team.
Hope that helps!
Semper Fi,
Dwight
Is
an interlocutory appeal appropriate when UCI results in a loss of a
witness who expresses fear about testifying in a motion, is assured by the
MJ that he will not be retaliated against, is then fired after testifying,
and retains counsel to sue for retaliatory termination among the loss of
several other witnesses. All the witnesses provide alibi defenses for the
accused.
Haytham Faraj
Sent from my
iPhone=
|