The motion- to be heard in the Surry GDC on May 17 at 9 am "or as soon thereafter.."
What Peter Nap filed for me today was a "motion in limine", Latin that basically means, "pretrial motion". The purpose of the motion was to dismiss the remaining charge, or at least to exclude evidence at trial.
The argument is that the Commonwealth, through its agents and employees, had possession of video evidence of what happened on the day of the incident and, having actual knowledge of its importance to the defense (because it would show that Skidmark never did anything that could be characterized as "brandishing"), used shenanigans and delay tactics to arrange for the video evidence to be destroyed "through routine normal processes". They claimed they couldn't even produce any documents relating to the nature of the recording equipment used, such that either I or the Court would be able to tell whether that's really what happened. They said it was a matter of "national security", at least until everyone was sure the evidence was really gone, then the argument became moot and went away.
So, if I have my way, the case will either be dismissed, or the judge will enter an order prohibiting the introduction of any evidence that relates to Skidmark' physical behavior at the terminal on Oct. 29, 2010 (i.e., what would have shown up on the video had it been properly preserved).