The names have been changed to protect the innocent (and the not-so-innocent)...
Defense Attorney: "A motion to suppress on a hospital blood draw."
Prosecutor: "This is the case I talked to you about yesterday."
WTF!?!?
Think she might have wanted to be on that Southwest flight out of town?
6 comments:
I am the Constitution's lack of surprise.
I guess the ADA thought "ex parte" was a something you'd find on the menu at Taco Bell.
Thank y'all for the comments. After the defense attorney made a comment about ex parte communications, the judge said he didn't remember anything about the conversation.
I guess that particular ex parte conversation got lost in all the other ex parte conversations the judge was having with the prosecutor.
I swear, I hear judges engage prosecutors on almost a daily basis about case - ex parte. "ADA - what kind of case do we have on the trial docket tomorrow?" "Judge, it is a really bad sexual assault where the defend refused a polygraph."
In 21 years, so many times I have walked into court ready for trial having never discussed the case with the judge (other than motions) & have the judge turn to the prosecutor & say something to the effect of "oh yeah. This is that case you told me XYZ about." On more than one occasion, I've said, "where was I when you guys were discussing the case". Of course, "oh - we weren't discussing the case. I was just trying to get a feel for how much time it was going to take & how many venirepersons to bring over."
Yeah, my Aunt Fannie.
Why do you assume they were talking about the facts of the case? I hear prosecutors in the court every day talking to the judge about what cases are set for trial and whether they are likely to go or not. That's not ex parte at all.
Post a Comment