Lead Jan. 6 Oath Keepers trial postponed amid evidence delays, ongoing investigation

The Washington Post ^ | 14 October 2021 | Spencer Hsu

[John 3_19-21]

I understand that a certain amount of delay is for thorough litigation.

Democrats never let a chance at free political power go to waste.

[John 3_19-21]

I understand that a certain amount of delay is for thorough litigation.

Democrats never let a chance at free political power go to waste.

[usnavy_cop_retired]

I’ve seen cases get dismissed, with prejudice, for violation of ROST. It takes a good lawyer to balance the speedy trial vs. delay. Lots of times the DA will file charges based solely on the initial investigation before they have chased down all the possible witnesses and thorough evaluation of the evidence.

I worked one case, (I was a PI working for the defense), that the DA charged the client with a felony brandishing of a handgun. The defendant had returned home with the gun in his car and upon getting out of his car his neighbor started an argument with him, (there was bad blood between them), and saw the gun, called the police and claimed the defendant was brandishing it in a manner that caused him fear.

He was arrested and initially assigned a Public Defender. My attorney was later hired and then I was hired to investigate.

When I went to the PD to examine the gun I was able to confirm what the client had told the attorney and me; that the gun was inoperable because the firing mechanism was broken. The client had just returned home from a gunsmith shop where he was told the repair cost was more than the gun was worth. The client had decided not to have it repaired.

Since the gun was not operable it was not a deadly weapon but the DA did not know that it was not operable because the gun was never inspected by the PD. The PD’s reason for not inspecting it was that there was no report that the client had fired the gun so there was no need to inspect it.

The next problem in the case was that another neighbor witnessed the client return home and saw him casually remove the gun from the car, holding it by the grip at his side and never observed him raise the gun. The PD never questioned this neighbor even though he was standing in his yard, which was next door to the client, all the time that the police were at the client’s house.

Needless to say, at the prelim hearing the attorney/client refused to waive the speedy trial forcing the DA to have to go to trial or dismiss the charges. Since the attorney was not required to provide my report to the DA because of the attorney work product exemption to discovery the DA did not know that we knew the gun was inoperable.

When the attorney, a few days before the trial was scheduled, provided the DA with the names of the gunsmith and neighbor that he would call for the defense and provided the proffer of what the testimony would be, the DA reluctantly dropped the charges.

The problem a lot of defendants have is that the attorney does not have an investigator on staff. Lots of attorneys think they can interview witnesses and determine what the facts really are. By the time that they realize that the story the DA/PD are not giving him the full story, (surprise), they at behind the curve and need extra time to do a proper investigation. Voila! they need to waive speedy trial.