I wish you understood what you posted.
The DA is simply stating, publicly, in a court-recognized statement to the Defense, that there may be certain exculpatory evidence that the DA does not have access to, that the Feds have, that the Defense may want to explore, and the DA would give them time to explore that evidence.
Rather than the typical anti-LEO rant, anyone can understand that this is simply the DA ensuring the Defense has access to any and all exculpatory evidence, first in his legal responsibilities to do so, secondly, in doing so, he is preventing a possible post-conviction appeal based on the knowledge of the DA that such evidence may exist and did not disclose its possible existence to the Defense.
Understanding is usually considering a prerequisite t posting... which is simply an internet version of the old “Engage brain before moving mouth”
In addition, rants are very embarrassing when found to be complete BS, such as this one is.
The law trusts the prosecutor to forebear charging without having a reasonable chance of success, and in most of these Waco Twin Peaks cases, the prosecutor has not specified the charge, let alone described the particular evidence against the people he's charged.
But you knew all that, and still defend charging people, just because the prosecutor has the power and the judge is in cahoots.
Exculpatory evidence? Do you mean like the autopsy reports?
You must have been addressing that to the article itself.
If you can't see how this latest development could be further leveraged by Renya to seek yet more delays, perhaps you're not paying close attention. It seems painfully obvious to me that Renya is also hoping to induce defense attorneys to seek delays (you mentioned that) hoping to get away with doing that while attempting to indemnify himself and his prosecutorial office from charges of malfeasance (possibly also protect himself personally from charge of having denied 6th Amendment constitutional rights be afforded to defendants -- if he can get defense attorneys to take the bait!) and in hope of protecting any convictions he may eventually be able to win from potential grounds for appeal (this last, as you suggested, of course).
If you still can't see that Renya having just now pulled this at this late date is cynical manipulation of laws pertaining to discovery process, if you can't see this is more significant than the way you have presented apologia for that process, I suggest that could be due to how you having already --in your own mind-- convicted all ham sandwiches (all the indicted) of all being guilty of criminal conspiracy.
That is how they were charged, that and charged with murder (under charges of conspiracy)-- which could lead to life sentences for those convicted.
Where is the evidence establishing there was conspiracy?
In one of the preliminary hearings, a defense attorney, in court, asked a Waco PD officer if there was any evidence that individuals went to Waco that day having agreed upon committing crime. The answer was "no".
At that point, before it even got to the let's indict these ham sandwiches stage, if there was truly justice within our justice system -- the cases should have been thrown out until prosecution could come up with evidence for "conspiracy".
As alternative to pressing charges of conspiracy, McClennan County could have filed more specific charges along lines of "this guy criminally assaulted this other person" (or ANY "crime", for that matter) sans charges of criminal conspiracy, returning to refile charge of conspiracy at some later date against any individuals they may possibly have evidence for having engaged in that very thing.
What happened, instead? Along with those individuals who are likely to have been guilty of committing violent acts (some acts, such as self-protection potentially not unlawful) where persons quite possibly not directly involved in commission of unlawful acts at all, yet who were still jailed and held, held originally under million dollar bail amounts under charges of having engaged in criminal conspiracy - of which Law Enforcement admitted they had no evidence for (at that stage, anyway).
Were you OK with the process up to that point ---Yes, or No?
I raise the points that I have, and ask what I have in order to show the fatal flaw in your having turned towards arguing that grand jury indictments themselves provide justification for your own arguments, in face of challenges to those arguments. The initial indictments still have this initially ADMITTED TO lack of evidence aspect, looming over them.
I seriously doubt that if evidence can be found for some number ---actually went to Waco that day intent upon committing crime -- there was 'agreement' that would extend to all who were present. Being present there, on the day of the scheduled meeting, is not enough.
' Under the Texas criminal conspiracy codes ---- each person charged had to be aware there would was intent to commit some crime. See Texas Penal Code Sec. 15.02 (a).
The charges break down whenever turning to say "but crimes did occur" and "they are all guilty because they fit definition of being member of 'a gang' " in instances where there was no previously agreed upon plan (to commit crime at that particular time and place) or possibly even as furtherance of some prior pattern of "crime". It is that very last thing I mentioned (some prior pattern) --- being merely alluded towards by Renya that apparently is what he's betting most all his own marbles on.
Guilt by mere association alone -- IS NOT THE WAY the criminal code reads.
How in the hell could anyone defend themselves against the way Renya appears to be trying to apply the laws? He keeps stalling, too.
So-- answer the question. Were you all good with the process prior to it this being sent to grand jury proceedings? Another question could be; do you recall how it worked out, mathematically speaking, how much time was spent by the grand jury in their deliberations per defendant?
Your having said this;
rankles.
Just between ourselves here on this forum, let's get that out of the way. I'm not an attorney, but the other fellow you are talking to, I do believe just may be.
I see no problem with what he said in reply #19.
Pointing to grand jury indictment as defense against contemplating what CBolt had said there makes you look like a jackass.
Care to try again? Read what the man wrote. See if anything, as you go along -- is wrong with it. No more of the hand-waving b.s'ing like you just tried to get away with. Or maybe, just shut up. Mmm'kay?