It was a pretty good motion, I wish: 1) they had stressed that the right to a fair trial under the Sixth Amendment goes to the defendant; and 2) they had specifically cited cases, if any, where Rule 3.6 had been reduced to an order and applied to non-lawyers. They did raise this issue that Rule 3.6 is only applicable to lawyers, but if no court has ever expanded the rule to cover nonlawyers, then this should have been stated. I question whether Titus had the authority to give Rule 3.6 such an expansive reading.
Loved all the Nifong quotes!
Margaret, that's an excellent point about Rule 3.6. So Titus's order deviated from the norm. That's very troubling.