Related news? Search Google News or set up an alert.
Originally Posted by TXagogo
(Post 15412779)
Will there be news media coverage of this?
http://www.google.com/search?tbs=nws...ek+albuquerque Or do it automatically: http://www.google.com/alerts?t=1&q=mocek+albuquerque |
Trial Postponed Indefinitely ...
TSA trial postponed indefinitely
Phil Mocek was arrested by local police after refusing to show his ID to Transportation Security Administration agents at the Sunport. He drove down from Seattle for the trial that was scheduled to begin Tuesday.... But the judge was slated to do military reserve duty for a couple of weeks starting Monday, |
Originally Posted by jkhuggins
(Post 15409833)
I'm not Phil, I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know New Mexico law. (Heck, I didn't even stay in a Holiday Express last night.) But this is the Internet, so I'll comment anyways.
The problem with the "right to a speedy trial" is that it cuts both ways. Sure, Phil could've insisted that the trial proceed on Thursday. But that probably would've required being reassigned to a new judge (recall, the judge was heading out of town for military reserve duty). Also, it might've meant getting a new legal team; I'm sure that Phil's lawyers have other clients, and his lawyers might have to appear in court for those clients in that time frame as well. Phil also mentioned that the defense plans to call two witnesses; not knowing who those witnesses are, they may have scheduling problems, too. Good, fast, cheap: choose any two. Speedy Trial Rights in New Mexico The trial of a criminal case must start within six months after whichever of the following events occurs latest:
A trial judge may extend the time for commencement of your trial for good cause but the total period of all extensions may not be more than three months. The Supreme Court may also extend your time for trial for good cause. If a trial in not commenced within the required time limits or within the period of any extension, the information or indictment filed against you will be dismissed. |
Pressure yields stent
Originally Posted by MikeMpls
(Post 15416091)
Sucks ... this is really looking like they're all just jerking Phil around until he gets fed up w/ it & caves in.
|
Originally Posted by pmocek
(Post 15417539)
Mike, it's unclear from your statement what you think sucks: your suspicion that I'm being jerked around or your suspicion that such is likely to occur to the point of me doing something that would be considered "caving in." If the former, I thank you for your concern. If the latter, please take heart in the fact that jerking me around tends to result in me tightening my grip.
|
Originally Posted by TWA884
(Post 15417038)
State v. Garza (NM 2009). The way I have read this thread so far. The defense provided the prosecution a video the day before the trial was to begin. Do you believe that any lawyer be it a defense lawyer or a prosecutor is going to not ask for more time to evaluate the relevance of a video that was held to the day before the trial. No lawyer likes to be blindsided. People here would be screaming bloody murder and conspiracy if the prosecutor did that. Hell, folks here are thinking conspiracy and it was the defense that did it but that part is being overlooked. The prosecution got two days to review it then the defense asked for a continuance. It doesn't sound like to me that the prosecution is playing games. It appears the defense had quite a bit to do with this. FB |
Originally Posted by Firebug4
(Post 15417813)
The way I have read this thread so far. The defense provided the prosecution a video the day before the trial was to begin. Do you believe that any lawyer be it a defense lawyer or a prosecutor is going to not ask for more time to evaluate the relevance of a video that was held to the day before the trial. No lawyer likes to be blindsided. People here would be screaming bloody murder and conspiracy if the prosecutor did that. Hell, folks here are thinking conspiracy and it was the defense that did it but that part is being overlooked.
The prosecution got two days to review it then the defense asked for a continuance. It doesn't sound like to me that the prosecution is playing games. It appears the defense had quite a bit to do with this. FB
Originally Posted by pmocek
(Post 15400226)
Around 10am, "State of New Mexico v. Phillip Mossack" was addressed. The prosecutor immediately requested a continuance, claiming that he needed time to review a video that was provided to him by the defense attorney yesterday. The defense attorney said the video is only three minutes long, and just shows what happened during the incident. The judge said it's been over a year and asked why this only came up yesterday. Defense attorney said she only received the video this weekend, and it wasn't known to be needed until after conducting interviews of the prosecution witnesses.
|
|
Originally Posted by Firebug4
(Post 15417813)
You must dig deeper than that. There was a NM State Supreme Court ruling that effectively changed that rule.
State v. Garza (NM 2009). The rule promulgated by the New Mexico Supreme Court is as follows: {48} Consistent with the 2007 amendment to Rule 5-604 and the consensus of our sister states and the federal Circuit Courts of Appeals, we adopt one year as a benchmark for determining when a simple case may become presumptively prejudicial. Accordingly, we also shift the guidelines for cases of greater complexity: Fifteen months may be presumptively prejudicial for intermediate cases and eighteen months may be presumptively prejudicial for complex cases. In addition the court held that "overcrowded courts should be weighted less heavily but nevertheless should be considered since the ultimate responsibility for such circumstances must rest with the government rather than with the defendant."{49} We emphasize that these guidelines should not be construed as bright-line tests. Rather, they are meant to guide the district courts determination of "presumptively prejudicial" delay. The situation may arise where a defendant alerts the district court to the possibility of prejudice to his defense and the need for increased speed in bringing the case to trial, i.e., the impending death of a key witness. Where that possibility is realized and the defendant suffers actual prejudice as a result of delay, these guidelines will not preclude the defendant from bringing a motion for a speedy trial violation though the delay may be less than one year. However, it will then be up to the district court to decide whether the delay was sufficient to require further inquiry into the speedy trial analysis. This is a rather simple case. It has been going on for longer than a year. The way I have read this thread so far. The defense provided the prosecution a video the day before the trial was to begin. Do you believe that any lawyer be it a defense lawyer or a prosecutor is going to not ask for more time to evaluate the relevance of a video that was held to the day before the trial. No lawyer likes to be blindsided. People here would be screaming bloody murder and conspiracy if the prosecutor did that. Hell, folks here are thinking conspiracy and it was the defense that did it but that part is being overlooked. The prosecution got two days to review it then the defense asked for a continuance. It doesn't sound like to me that the prosecution is playing games. It appears the defense had quite a bit to do with this. In the jurisdiction where I practice, the simple solution would have been denial of the request to continue and exclusion of that evidence because the reciprocal pre-trial discovery obligation was violated by the party asking to use it. |
Originally Posted by ND Sol
(Post 15417938)
How long to evaluate a three minute video that just shows the incident? Only after defense interviewed the prosecution witnesses was the video determined to be relevant. What did the prosecution witnesses say such that the video was necessary? Perhaps something that is in conflict with the tape? If so, then yes the prosecution certainly needed that continuance.
FB |
|
The TV story gives January 20 as the new trial date.
Bruce |
Originally Posted by VegasCableGuy
(Post 15418197)
1 min 15 seconds: Ouch, right in the sack.
|
Originally Posted by pmocek
(Post 15417539)
Mike, it's unclear from your statement what you think sucks: your suspicion that I'm being jerked around or your suspicion that such is likely to occur to the point of me doing something that would be considered "caving in." If the former, I thank you for your concern. If the latter, please take heart in the fact that jerking me around tends to result in me tightening my grip.
|
Originally Posted by Firebug4
(Post 15417813)
You must dig deeper than that. There was a NM State Supreme Court ruling that effectively changed that rule.
State v. Garza (NM 2009). The way I have read this thread so far. The defense provided the prosecution a video the day before the trial was to begin. Do you believe that any lawyer be it a defense lawyer or a prosecutor is going to not ask for more time to evaluate the relevance of a video that was held to the day before the trial. No lawyer likes to be blindsided. People here would be screaming bloody murder and conspiracy if the prosecutor did that. Hell, folks here are thinking conspiracy and it was the defense that did it but that part is being overlooked. The prosecution got two days to review it then the defense asked for a continuance. It doesn't sound like to me that the prosecution is playing games. It appears the defense had quite a bit to do with this. FB Took years to get the innocent man sprung, but hey, ya know if they charged him he musta done somthin' wrong. |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 2:28 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.