Today’s hearing was about the Defense’s motion to recuse all or some of the sheriff’s department and all or some of the District Attorney’s Office. The Attorney General’s representative argued for the District Attorney’s office and there was a county attorney to represent the LA County Sheriffs. There have been motions and responses, and responses to the responses – I lose track of the number some times. What does it all boil down to? It’s hard to get past the huge mountain of verbage sometimes to figure out any sensible meaning. (At least for the uninititated).
In last week’s episode,the judge ruled on the Defense’s motion to dismiss the charges or tell the DA’s office that they couldn’t ask for the death penalty …all because the sheriffs searched her jail cell and seized some handwritten documents (a time line and a narrative about her life.) The judge denied the motions, but did rule that the evidence would be suppressed, and that the prosecution could not make use of any information they learned or use it to rebutt or cross examine. Today’s motions were about the discovery of these same now sealed documents.
The reason the attorneys gave for asking that everyone and his brother be taken off this case, is that these individuals saw or were told about or may have learned of these documents. This is in their heads. It is bouncing around in their brains doing God knows what, and the “conflict of interest is so severe” and the “prejudice that has been suffered by Ms. Williams is so grave,” the “remedy of suppression” is not enough. Since we have no Dr. McCoy or Dr. Crusher who can delve inside everyone’s head to remove the memory with some cool little blinking gadget, the next best thing would be to remove all the people I guess. At least, that is my take on it. I am inferring things again. I confess that I am not completely fluent in Legalese, although I can make a good stab at Geekspeak and Technobabble. The subtleties sometimes escape me, but I just plunge right in anyhow. It’s the blogging addiction I suppose.
The Court was not persuaded that any police agency is subject to recusal. And the judge explained that the statue was meant to remove those who had a personal prejudice – something that would make them treat the defendant differently than they would treat any other defendant. Motions denied. So we move on. Change partners and start the next movement of the dance. There will be another hearing on Thursday to discuss dates for further hearings for other motions, etc. Tune in again, same monkey time, same monkey place.