Lawyers go head-to-head in Judge Simpson's Court
Vložit
- čas přidán 30. 06. 2024
- I think this is possibly a stalking case - if you find the first part of it, or any other info, please feel free to let me know :)
Copyright Disclaimer: - Under section 107 of the copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for FAIR USE for purpose such a as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statues that might otherwise be infringing. Non- Profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of FAIR USE.
The content being used in this video has been sourced online, which is publicly available. I do not claim ownership over any of the copyrighted material used in this video. My use of the copyrighted material is solely intended for education and commentary. The views expressed in this video are in my opinion and should not be taken as fact.
Streamlabs tip: streamlabs.com/vickimaccallum...
*Please DO NOT feel obligated to tip me at all. I’m doing this for fun, and I am working towards monetization on CZcams. I have only added the link because it was set up and available.
Interesting hearing. I like how the pros makes her position so clear and strong, but does it in a forceful, but respectful way. Kudos.
Not many of the Law-tube channels show pre-trial motions and I think showing them would be an excellent niche. In all the big trials I've followed, the big audiences come for the trial proper, then don't understand why evidence they've seen on the news etc. isn't presented to the jury - and this is where all that is decided. Bravo 👏👏
It's great to read this
I’m only about halfway through the vid, but I’ll explain the crux of it, as I see it anyway…
This is a pre trial motion filed by the defense. There is some sort of video/video statement of a very sensitive nature, of which the prosecution has possession.
Apparently, they filed an earlier motion for the video’s contents to be guarded by a protective order, and it was granted. For this reason, it is not subject to the rules of discovery.
The order only grants viewing by limited individuals. The defense attorneys and the defendant are allowed to view the video, but it must be done in the prosecutors’ office.
The defense is trying to get their own copy of the video, because they may or may not want an expert witness to view it.
The prosecution is not in favor of providing the defense with their own copy, because they feel they will lose control over who views it.
My opinion here…
I completely understand the defense wanting their own copy. It’s easier to build a defense with all the evidence being freely available as needed. That’s the point in discovery - so the defendant knows what evidence the prosecution plans to use against them.
However, generally speaking, prosecutors work for the victim(s) in a case. They were granted the protective order for the video. So, obviously, they feel it is their duty to be sure that order is upheld, and the content of the video is not seen by unauthorized parties nor disseminated in any way.
It seems obvious that a minor was likely the victim in this case. The prosecutor is just trying to protect the privacy and rights of that minor.
Ok, back to watching now… 😊
I'm wondering if this a sexual assault on a minor & that's why she's concerned about others seeing it?
I'm not sure. The bond condition precluding him from using the internet, and his attorney talking about particularly dating sites - tells us possibly not children.
In the case of the internet, judge is on the money. Internet has many avenues.
I really enjoyed this video, as we, the audience, got to see how various pre-trial arguments are made. Thank you for sharing!
I liked that too.
For some reason there is a protective order that somehow relates to the video. He wants an unknown expert to view the video. Sounds very open ended, I can see why the prosecuter is being very cautious.
Good grief! What the heck is on the recording???
Sounds like they might be protecting the victim, which is often why these things are sealed.
I enjoyed this! Thank you
Happy Canada Day… to and from your Canadian Friends…. 🇨🇦
Thanks Keith! And thanks for sticking around!
Thanks, and Happy 4th of July! 🇺🇸 💥
Judge Simpson is probably glad there is are out of normal arguments
Hogan!
Why is the 1st lawyer going over each piece of evidence with a fine tooth comb. Isn't a video part of the discovery package, i have never heard of a prosecuter that doesn't include a copy of a video recording of the statement.
The video is under a protective order for whatever reason so it's not covered under standard discovery. It seems to be involving a minor, given the latter discussion about Internet use.
Given it involves a minor and is probably disgusting, the people don't want just anyone viewing it. The defense attorney and the defendant can absolutely see it. They have the right to bring in experts, but the order doesnt list experts. They just want to hammer out how best to handle that.
This prosecutor is WAY off base IMHO.
I thought so too! But I also feel like they both spoke in circles so much that I was confused as to why it was such a big deal??
The people just nosy af and want to know/control everything they can, the defense doesn’t have to show an actual scenario where them knowing causes harm, there is such a thing as unforeseen consequences, it’s none of their damn business but they just HAVE to stick their nose anywhere they can get away with. And “but we never do it this way” carries exactly zero weight in court.
It's a shame they can't just say plainly why it's protected. Which I mean, obviously. What's the point of having it under a protective order when the defense can show it to any number of people though? It seems reasonable that the prosecution would want to know who's viewing the tape. At the same time the defense doesn't have to give up so much of their game plan.
I feel like they could issue a protective order that clarifies how the defense may use/disclose the expert. At the 30min mark I like what Simpson is putting down though.
That's what I understood, too. Sounds like the prosecution is used to getting information than they are actually entitled to by taking advantage of a protective order based upon poor/biased reading of the statute to - essentially- frighten defence attorneys with a misdemeanour unless they reveal that work product.
@@joenalaska
Who's to say the prosecutor won't improperly display it omg
The law. If the video gets out when only the da is gatekeeping it then we know almost exclusively whose fault it would be. If the defense gets a copy and a copy gets out they could blame da and then the da could blame them.
What did this do??
So the prosecutor can use this evidence but not the defense that's not fair
They can use it, but it has to be viewed in the prosecutor’s office, by limited, approved parties because of the protective order. Defense is trying to get their own copy and they may or may not hire an “expert” to view it.
But yes, I agree, not fair.
He got a LOT of paper in that accordian file folder. He seems prepared to argue in a supreme court, though. Sir Judge Simpson doesn't need all of this jibber jabber, tho. I wondered how long it was going to take Judge Simpson to say, "Cut to the chase." I hope he wins though
This attorney likes to hear himself speak, he hasn't answered any question without using alot of words.
I can't listen to the DA. She is not used to actually arguing a case (based on the limited scope of what I see on CZcams).
Issue is that da thinks their procedure works to protect the victim but it seems to possibly cause "hardship" to the defense.
I love judge Simpson get tired of him at times he always gotta prove or tell everyone he’s the smartest guy in the room it gets old
I don’t think the court should be involved. The prosecution has a process and defense should follow that process.
Not if the prosecutors process violates the rights of the defendant. The court is involved because that's the purpose of the judicial arm of the government.
@@HandmadeDarcypretty sure the defendant is being accused of violating the rights of who ever is on that video. The judge needs to put the video under strict lock and require those who view it to be logged with review by a judge.
This was as boring as watching paint dry
Why wouldn't the defense want to hire an expert for their client? it costs $ ..does the defendant have $. not so the taxpayer paid lawyer for the defense has to get the Judge's order to be able to hire an expert witness ~ cha ching at taxpayer$ expense and could win and the state be liable for a false arrest and prosecution and the Judge works for the state too ....
I don't think you understand what's being discussed here. The attorney isn't even a public defender.
Not exactly how that works. Nor is it relevant to the motion.