seems to me that if the DA office doesn't have it/copy of it, it's because they don't want to have it... and if they do, don't they have to turn it over to the defense during discovery?
Posted on 07/02/2015 4:37:18 PM PDT by don-o
Probably aren’t hiding anything. They just know if they don’t do what the city wants, they (and their patrons) are going to be in for a hard time.
...wonder why the protest? Is it because their video is so valuable that they can’t risk it leaking to the public? Cash value? Get out of jail free value?
Btw, for newcomers to this situation: click on the Waco keyword above to view the posting history.
Their best argument is the only one they need to make. We don’t have the evidence, the government has it. Rock solid, no contempt possible. The “contempt or jail” language is boilerplate, not personal.
Well, this is odd. Broden said that the Twin Peaks management had their videos and were, in fact, willing to turn them over to him, before the City of Waco intervened.
Wonder why those were not seized as well. Maybe off site backups or something?
I agree with that.
I think this subpoena is to Don Carlos, not Twin Peaks.
I get subpoenaed from time to time, not as a party, and it’s unusual if the subpoena doesn’t demand production of evidence not in my possession. So, that’s part of my production, “I don’t have that.” Total non-issue. It’s weird that this response complains about difficulty, “hours of time to review, blah blah blah,” just give the requester everything, and make them review it. Automakers do similar, giving CD’s full of “everything they have,” and they don’t do so out of spite or to bury evidence, it’s just not fair to make them both produce and search against a specific request for evidence, across hundreds of lawsuits.
Theft of private property? Why couldnt the BATFE have just been given a copy of the HD?
Why shouldnt DC just have a stack of DVDs to hand out to interested cliential?
Somehow,Broden got something from Twin Peaks.
Yep. They will be getting a Health Department inspection every 10 minutes. And in between the 10 minutes, Code Enforcement, the Fire Marshall, and the gas company will be inspecting. They know what the City expects them to do.
I don’t understand what you are driving at with that question. Please elborate.
seems to me that if the DA office doesn't have it/copy of it, it's because they don't want to have it... and if they do, don't they have to turn it over to the defense during discovery?
All we are getting in this story is the response from Don Carlos. Defense puts out multiple demands for production, and it likely asked for the same thing (videos in possession) of the DA and the PD.
Welcome to the new matrix. I've just acquired various cams to monitor my property and as long as I'm not in view or hearing, I'll make it public in a heartbeat, as appropriate.
Don Carlos is working up a lawsuit against Twin Peaks. Don't know how that might play into this opposition to give the video over to this attorney.
They do own the evidence, but "voluntarily" surrendered it to law enforcement. If they don't have a copy, then that's that; meaning they can't produce what they don't have. At some point they get their property back.
As for having video available for the general public, certainly there is no duty to provide that, even if the requester is willing to pay for it, and there are good business reasons to keep your recordings as your (private) property, subject of course to judicial process as is all evidence.
Sure they do. But, we are not at discovery, if I understand it correctly. Broden is prepping for an Examining Trial and he’s trying to gather what evidence he can to challenge probable cause.
don-o guesses.
Criminal defendants have a right to pretty much all evidence. The fact that there is a separate civil suit using the same evidence can't be used to deny a criminal defendant access to evidence. Even if Don Carlos had an argument that giving the evidence to the criminal defendant would harm its chances in a civil suit (which seems a stretch), the criminal defendant has a right to the most vigorous defense.
Don Carlos asserts two reasons for withholding production. They don't have the evidence in their possession (which is the only argument they need); and production imposes an undue burden on them because they have to search hundreds of hours of video from multiple cameras in order to isolate material relevant to this defendant. That argument is specious if they had the evidence, as they can produce what they have easily, without searching, and argue burden if the court orders them to search it and isolate the relevant parts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.