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=
|