To: AmishDude; A.Hun
It's my understanding that getting a dismissal of charges is VERY difficult, so I think it is a small victory for Delay and a huge defeat for Earle. Priest took one of Earle's indictments and said "nope" before any hearings started. There was no change of venue, so that might not be good, but if Priest is intending the full smackdown of Earle, including prosecutorial misconduct, we are on that road now. It seems to me that he looked at the charges and found them ridiculous, but there must be something to the money laundering charges that needs to be explored.
However, I think that the "something" has to do with Ronnie Earle, IMHO.
246 posted on
12/05/2005 2:14:47 PM PST by
scott7278
(Before I give you the benefit of my reply, I'd like to know what we're talking about.)
To: scott7278
A mixed bag on the surface, but I think the dismissal of a charge -- any charge -- indicates that the judge is not happy with the prosecutor.Do you agree? I'm not a lawyer.
250 posted on
12/05/2005 2:16:14 PM PST by
AmishDude
(Your corporate slogan could be here! FReepmail me for my confiscatory rates.)
To: scott7278
Thanks for the take on it. It seems the conspiracy charge was DOA on arrival anyway.
252 posted on
12/05/2005 2:16:32 PM PST by
A.Hun
To: scott7278
I think the Judge was simply afraid of the consequences if he threw out all the charges at once.
After all, he does want to eat lunch in that town again.
254 posted on
12/05/2005 2:16:39 PM PST by
OldFriend
(The Dems enABLEd DANGER and 3,000 Americans died.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson