• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

It's official, MKEGal charged with 941.23

protias

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
7,308
Location
SE, WI
Is there a dash cam video you have access to for your case? Obviously not one that we'd be able to see [yet]. Just curious if your incident was recorded and will be used in trial.

Ooops, forgot to make my biweekly donation. Paypal-ing you momentarily...

I have no doubt the video from that got "lost," the camera was "not functioning," or "the video didn't show anything."
 

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
protias said:
I have no doubt the video from that got "lost," the camera was "not functioning," or "the video didn't show anything."
Oh, there's video. At first they only gave us the last few minutes, from 1 of the cars.
Ask me at an event sometime what it shows. :mad:
If you've seen the Madison 5 video, envision almost the opposite.

ETA: we got the whole dashcam video, from them on the street to them rummaging through my car.
This is much more useful, & if the jury can understand what they're seeing (be made to understand) it's quite clear that she simply didn't look at me the first time she was at the car, so there's no way she can say what I looked like.
Her lack of attention is not something I have control over, nor does it provide proof of her (false) claim that I was concealing.
Combine these documented poor observational skills with her documented lies, & it would give even the most pro-cop juror reasonable doubt. :)
 
Last edited:

TyGuy

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
775
Location
, ,
There was video of the Madison 5? I only ever heard the recording.
 

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
Walls is out!

One of the things hashed, re-hashed, & hashed again at the hearing this afternoon was the ADA's desire to use the (idiotic) ruling from Walls in both his arguments & the jury instructions.

He didn't get it.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
One of the things hashed, re-hashed, & hashed again at the hearing this afternoon was the ADA's desire to use the (idiotic) ruling from Walls in both his arguments & the jury instructions.

He didn't get it.

icon14.png
..:D
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
One of the things hashed, re-hashed, & hashed again at the hearing this afternoon was the ADA's desire to use the (idiotic) ruling from Walls in both his arguments & the jury instructions.

He didn't get it.


So, the case is now down to "she said/she said" (LEO vs. you) as to whether or not the sidearm was covered by your coat on initial approach.
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
Remember people, a bag of contraband on the seat is considered in plain sight, yet a firearm in plain sight is not?

The prosecutor does not have a leg to stand on IMHO, Walls was crap to begin with, as is Alloy.

Why do we keep bringing this up? This judge, for this case is saying Walls is out. Unfortunately, this only has standing in this court for this case.

Some other case, some other judge, the lawyer could bring it up but it isn't binding like an appeals or Supreme court decision.
 

lockman

State Researcher
Joined
Aug 19, 2006
Messages
1,193
Location
Elgin, Illinois, USA
I would think the passage of act 35 would require the court to disregard or at least revisit Walls. The field has changed big time with Heller vs DC, McDonald vs Chicago, Ezell vs Chicago and Act 35.
 

paul@paul-fisher.com

Regular Member
Joined
May 24, 2009
Messages
4,049
Location
Chandler, AZ
I would think the passage of act 35 would require the court to disregard or at least revisit Walls. The field has changed big time with Heller vs DC, McDonald vs Chicago, Ezell vs Chicago and Act 35.

The legislature could of done that by fixing 941.23 or 167.31 but they didn't.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
 
H

Herr Heckler Koch

Guest
In the relentless pursuit of justice
Yes, but to what end, considering that the defense attorney requested the adjournment?
15 04-30-2012 Adjourned hearing Konkol-44, Daniel L. Zapf, Chris

Event Party Sutterfield, Krysta

Additional Text:

Attorney Rebecca M Coffee in court appears by telephone. Stephan E. Nolten appeared for the State of Wisconsin. Deputy Clerk;ds Attorney Coffee is ill and requesting an adjournment for the jury trial. State has no objection. Court grants motion. Case set for final pretrial on 7-20-12 at 8:30 a.m. and jury trial on 7-23-12 at 9:00 a.m., Br. 44. Jury trial scheduled for 07-23-2012 at 09:00 am.
 
M

McX

Guest
Can you say nullification? :D

no, i cant say that word, and i have learned to accept it, just as i cant say this word:pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis.

grape i shall have my marty feldman eye on you.
 
Last edited:
Top