Replies

"How much connective evidence LE really has" is a concern for me, too, of course. I hate this "close to the vest" card playing. Hope they're not bluffing!!!

Just speculating now, but think about this scenario.

LE is certain Scott did it, but doesn't really have a lot of physical evidence. They follow Scott, plant a device in his car, etc. not because they think he will lead them to anyone, but because they want more time to develop evidence.

Then he goes to San Diego and withdraws a lot of money--suddenly they think he is going to flee to Mexico. So, they arrest him, but before they really wanted to.

Now they have a real problem. he has a number of constitutional rights, a speedy and public trial among them.

Does anyone know if he has "waived time" , i.e. given up his right to a speedy trial?

Part of Westerfield's strategy was that he did not waive this right and the prosecution was really under the gun to get all thier evidence together in 12 weeks, which is the limit. Came close to working for him also.

If Scott really did it, his case will get weaker over time, while the prosecution's will get stgronger as they analyze more evidence. It is to his advantage to demand a speedy trial.

"Does anyone know if he has "waived time" , i.e. given up his right to a speedy trial?"

Yes, at an earlier appearance in court the right to a speedy trial was waived. This occurred post Geragos.

Your post is thought-provoking and contains a lot of good ideas, IMO. However, there's one point I disagree with you on. I don't think rushing the case to trial would be to Scott's advantage.

It is only the prosecution which is obligated to produce any witnesses or evidence at all. Therefore, most of the witnesses are going to be theirs, and any witnesses called by Scott are going to be, essentially, reactive to whatever the prosecution witnesses say.

So if the time drags on, maybe it will dull the memories of the prosecution witnesses. That would be an extremely good thing for Scott. The state would find itself with a problem about its witnesses. If these witnesses then get up there and are uncertain about key facts and times, then Scott might not even have to call witnesses of his own. He could win the case just by neutralizing the prosecution witnesses one at a time.

IMO, the passage of time is almost always detrimental to the party who has the burden of proof. And IMO, the passage of time is correspondingly almost always to the advantage of the defending party. In this case, it is the prosecution, not Scott, who has the burden of proof.

"Part of Westerfield's strategy was that he did not waive this right and the prosecution was really under the gun to get all thier evidence together in 12 weeks, which is the limit. Came close to working for him also."

the way I see it, is that Feldman might have given Westerfield an ultimatum.....such as "I will represent you if this is a speedy trial and only then".....

I think Feldman knew what he was up against and didn't want a long, many years type court battle.....jmo of course...

If Scott really did it, his case will get weaker over time, while the prosecution's will get stgronger as they analyze more evidence.

Thanks, CD! I sure hope you're right and this turns out to be the case!