• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

10/30/12 Zimm Defense Motion to Compel

Kal'Stang said:
But thats the thing, it hasn't been turned over..particularly in a "timely manner". Thats what the link in the OP is about. The fact that the original recording has not been turned over. And its been over half a year since the recording was taken.

And if this is "normal behavior" for prosecutors its no wonder court cases take months, some times over a year before a trial is held. Don't you think something should be done to stop this "normal behavior"?
Click to expand...
Actually it has been turned over in a timely fashion. It is way before the trial date, which gives the defense ample time to review.

And trial dates are set by the Court and their case load.
You want to change that, get more Judges, or convince people to stop committing crimes.
 
Excon said:
Actually it has been turned over in a timely fashion. It is way before the trial date, which gives the defense ample time to review.
Click to expand...

BS. The Prosecution gets a year to build thier case while the defense gets half that (less in some at least one instance as evidenced in the link in the OP)? Your definition of "timely" is awefully broad. Not that it matters. The Prosecution is suppose to give the defense all the evidence that they have when the Defense asks for it. Not when they feel like giving it so long as they think that the defense has enough time to look it over.

Excon said:
And trial dates are set by the Court and their case load.
You want to change that, get more Judges, or convince people to stop committing crimes.
Click to expand...

And trial dates can also be pushed back if either side requests it due to not being ready. From the OP's link...

The state's obfuscation and gamesmanship regarding this important evidence has delayed our discovery efforts considerably and has cost precious time and resources that threaten the current tiral schedule. The state does not seem to be willing to make reasonable efforts to facilitate discovery.
Click to expand...

Does the defendent not have the right to a speedy trial? Seems to me that if the trial date gets pushed back due to the prosecutors (at best) negligence then he/she is denying the defendent that right.
 
Kal'Stang said:
BS. The Prosecution gets a year to build thier case while the defense gets half that (less in some at least one instance as evidenced in the link in the OP)? Your definition of "timely" is awefully broad. Not that it matters. The Prosecution is suppose to give the defense all the evidence that they have when the Defense asks for it. Not when they feel like giving it so long as they think that the defense has enough time to look it over.



And trial dates can also be pushed back if either side requests it due to not being ready. From the OP's link...



Does the defendent not have the right to a speedy trial? Seems to me that if the trial date gets pushed back due to the prosecutors (at best) negligence then he/she is denying the defendent that right.
Click to expand...

Zimmerman waived that right bruh. Can't have it both ways.

George Zimmerman waives right to speedy trial, needs to prepare - Los Angeles Times
 
Kal'Stang said:
BS. The Prosecution gets a year to build thier case while the defense gets half that (less in some at least one instance as evidenced in the link in the OP)? Your definition of "timely" is awefully broad. Not that it matters. The Prosecution is suppose to give the defense all the evidence that they have when the Defense asks for it. Not when they feel like giving it so long as they think that the defense has enough time to look it over.



And trial dates can also be pushed back if either side requests it due to not being ready. From the OP's link...



Does the defendent not have the right to a speedy trial? Seems to me that if the trial date gets pushed back due to the prosecutors (at best) negligence then he/she is denying the defendent that right.
Click to expand...

I am sorry you do not like it, neither do I, but it is what it is.
It was in a timely fashion for the trial date.

It is exactly what a Judge would rule if the Defense tried to make an issue out of it for other purposes (besides pushing the trial date further away) such as exclusion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom