His character will be dragged through the mud. It’s hard not to see the release of this information as an attempt to influence the jury pool.
The warrant for his apartment, and they did get a warrant to search his apartment, included a search for “narcotics.”
Ok. I’m not sure of the legality here, but go with this. What difference does it make?
Hey, jackpot, they found them. What difference does it make? It’s not their call on what to release and not release as far as I know. Finding pot in someone’s house is not exactly dragging someone through the mud. Who are you worried about being influenced here? The Grand Jury? Do you think they won’t indict?
As @doloop said, it can influence the jury. It’s one reason why the police and prosecutors often have little to say while an investigation is underway. Very often even family members are kept in the dark.
Unless she pleads guilty, this is going to trial. And it’s going to be very hard to find an impartial jury as it is. Things like this only inflame it.
It was in his home, that makes possession legally his.
Noshing that comes out about him can change the fact that everything she did from the moment she entered his apartment was unlawful.
The only thing that can help her case is if the police or prosecution hide evidence, or if they could prove a prior relationship between them to justify a charge of murder.
But at some point the jury has to know. You can’t hide any evidence from the jury.
Of course you can’t during the actual trial. That’s what trials are for. No need for it right now.
The room she went to, it has already been determined it was the same room just a different floor? I’m asking because I don’t know. That’s a pretty major detail.
LOL, Joanne, do either of us know for sure protocol in this situation? I really don’t know what they are at liberty to do and not do.
That’s what’s been reported. Apparently she was completely exhausted after a 15 h our day, parked on the wrong level, and walked to the room directly below her own.
They can’t legally withhold anything other than privileged information as has been pointed out to you repeatedly.
To do so jeopardizes the case against her.
Ok. That’s what I thought. That coincidence pretty much casts doubt as to whether or not they knew eachother. Looks to be a mistake, then she panicked and shot someone she thought was an intruder. I don’t know why people are trying to make it more than it is. I see second degree manslaughter here.
It’s the same people that always assert race being behind the shooting when the races are a white cop and a black victim.
There is no plausible explanation for it being anything other than a tragic accident but the facts be damned this has to be about race.
And as I have said repeatedly, there is no requirement for police and/or prosecutors to inform the public of any or all evidence obtained. That’s for the trial.
And you remain wrong. it’s a matter of public record subject to open records law. The only exception is privileged information which can be kept confidential up to the point of discovery.
How do the police decide which facts to withhold from the press?
They generally keep quiet about a few details that only the killer could know—anything from an object left at the scene to the way a garrote was tied around a victim’s neck. The chief detective on a case usually decides what evidence to make public and what to withhold, although his choices are sometimes influenced (or overruled) by the police chief. In a high-profile case, the police department will generally hold a press conference immediately after discovering a crime but release few details about the case. Later, once those assigned to the case have had a chance to sift through the evidence, police will decide which details to make public.
It’s not a “matter of public record” when police have to investigate a crime, especially murder.
The results of the search are a matter of public record. One last time, they can only legally conceal privileged information and only up to the point of discovery.
You are dug in so deep here you can’t even see daylight.
I read through your link. Where does it say police often withhold evidence that might tarnish a victim’s name? Everything in that link pointed to a reason certain details are withheld. None of which is remotely similar to the case we are arguing.
I’m not changing my mind. There was a lot of outrage on social media about this being publicized, and rightly so. But they modified their headline:
