Replies

I have no doubt that Geragos really moved to have the case dismissed b/c of the FBI taping--that it was not hypothetical. But that doesn't mean the judge has to rule right away. Furthermore, the issue hadn't necessarily "ripened." I mean, okay, suppose the state HAD been remiss somehow. Suppose that under CA law, the state DID have an obligation to go over there, put a choke-hold on the FBI, and FORCE them to turn over those tapes.

Still, that doesn't mean that the state wouldn't be given some time to comply, some time to answer the complaint that the defense was making. Did you read where Distaso outlined all the attempts he'd made to GET these tapes? That counts for something.

The state is entitled to fairness, too. If one side complains of the other, the other is at least given a chance to remedy the situation--if that can be done.

These FBI tapes are not necessarily exculpatory evidence, and therefore they don't necessarily fall under the Brady v. Maryland case. If they are exculpatory, however, it's possible that in CA law the state has some further obligation regarding getting them.

But normally, the state is only required to give the defense those things which it HAS that the defendant is entitled to be given.

Every time Geragos makes a motion, doesn't automatically mean it's going to be granted, nor does it even mean that he necessarily expects it to be successful.