thanks. you beat me by a couple minutes. ;-)
-
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.
-
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.
Culpeper shooting
- Thread starter TFred
- Start date
thanks. you beat me by a couple minutes. ;-)
They're always marked at 9:30.
I've sat in on cases that were set for 9:30 and heard at 4:00.
I expect since this is a bond hearing, it will be heard right after motions.
Momma will probably be close by because I expect she will be evaluated for an attorney and bond set.
I've sat in on cases that were set for 9:30 and heard at 4:00.
I expect since this is a bond hearing, it will be heard right after motions.
Momma will probably be close by because I expect she will be evaluated for an attorney and bond set.
user
Accomplished Advocate
The bond motion and opposition filed by the Commonwealth pretty much lay out the case.
Indictments
Motion for release on Bond
Commonwealth's Memo in Opposition to Bond Motion - removed due to inclusion of statutorily prohibited information that should have been redacted out prior to filing
These are public documents and have been filed with the Court.
Indictments
Motion for release on Bond
Commonwealth's Memo in Opposition to Bond Motion - removed due to inclusion of statutorily prohibited information that should have been redacted out prior to filing
These are public documents and have been filed with the Court.
Last edited:
I've been on a shoot for an insurance company all afternoon. Was bail granted?
The hearing is tomorrow... not today. I wish I could make it, but I have a meeting at a customer site in DC... (unarmed of course...
)
user
Accomplished Advocate
Result: Defendant was admitted to bail, bond set at one hundred thousand dollars. Probably be lots of stuff on TV news this evening and print media this afternoon and tomorrow; a gaggle of newsfaces interrogated me after the hearing. It'll be interesting to see what little bits of what I said get used for the entertainment of the masses.
Regardless of his being able to come up with bail, that's a big first step considering the media coverage so far!
TFred
Regular Member
This news site has a short video interview/commentary with User
http://www.wjla.com/articles/2012/06/daniel-harmon-wright-pleads-not-guilty-76777.html
It also appears that Momma Sullivan's charges were "Continued Motion Of Defense" until 08/28/2012 9:30AM
http://www.wjla.com/articles/2012/06/daniel-harmon-wright-pleads-not-guilty-76777.html
It also appears that Momma Sullivan's charges were "Continued Motion Of Defense" until 08/28/2012 9:30AM
A very extensive interview (and other related videos):
http://wusa9.com/video/default.aspx?bctid=1680348143001&odyssey=mod|tvideo|endslate
http://wusa9.com/video/default.aspx?bctid=1680348143001&odyssey=mod|tvideo|endslate
After listening to Dan's comments, if you look at the case in a strict legal sense, not looking at the officer's previous behavior, not looking at his past, and just looking at the exigent circumstances, I'm leaning toward it being a lawful action. The presence of the sun shield makes a huge difference, imo.
Sometimes it's difficult for the layperson to understand the legal issues and that is why we have legal representation. It does not matter that the officer had his hand in the window against policy (if so), it matters that she started to roll up the window.
I don't know if they can prove all the facts that are presented as truth, such as her cutting the wheels, resisting giving up her license, but those parts are pretty crucial.
To me the only damning fact is the LEO saying 'I'm going to lose my f-ing job'. That seems to indicate he felt he did something wrong.
FWIW.
Sometimes it's difficult for the layperson to understand the legal issues and that is why we have legal representation. It does not matter that the officer had his hand in the window against policy (if so), it matters that she started to roll up the window.
I don't know if they can prove all the facts that are presented as truth, such as her cutting the wheels, resisting giving up her license, but those parts are pretty crucial.
To me the only damning fact is the LEO saying 'I'm going to lose my f-ing job'. That seems to indicate he felt he did something wrong.
FWIW.
Or that he had gut feelings about repercussions - he has been suspended W/O pay, not just taken off the street and put behind a desk.
I know that cops have a hard time with being second-guessed for doing what seemed prudent at the time, and though they are given some latitude, you can't know what it was like unless you were there. So you probably have a point.
Is that merely an "Oopsie" or is it indicative of other problems with the prosecution's case?
stay safe.
user
Accomplished Advocate
Yes.
I think that Mr. Fisher was compiling the documents he thought he had to include, and was a bit rushed in doing so. He's doing this "special prosecutor" thing in addition to the job he already had, running the office of the Commonwealth's Attorney for Fauquier County, the duties of which have not diminished. So I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt on stuff like that.
1911 Enthusiast
Regular Member
Google cached the document before it was pulled, Skid.
You can read here if you missed it the first time posted.