user
Accomplished Advocate
Glad to have been able to provide some entertainment!
Status:
As to the obstruction charge, the plea in abatement was granted and the case dismissed with prejudice. The problem was that the sworn statement filed in support of the issuance of the warrant failed to provide any facts supporting the charge of obstruction of justice. The Commonwealth's Attorney told me that he'd spoken to the Sheriff who basically confirmed that there was no factual basis for that charge, and to his credit, agreed to the order dismissing the charge on that basis.
As to the charge of brandishing a firearm, the Commonwealth's Attorney indicated that he wanted more time in which to file a bill of particulars and discovery response; I'd filed a motion to dismiss for failure to do so based on what Judge Palmer had ordered orally at our last hearing; unfortunately, however, he failed to provide any written indication of what he'd ordered, and in Virginia, "a court speaks only through its written orders". Generally, in the General District Courts, the judge will simply write, "granted" or "denied", on the front of whatever written motion they're ruling on, along with the date and signature. Judge Palmer apparently left no record whatsoever. So the compromise was that the Commonwealth gets another three weeks in which to file, but this time a written order (supplied by me) was entered.
I'd also had some problems getting subpoenas issued by the Clerk of Court and served by various sheriffs. The result is that three of the four subpoenas duces tecum (demands for documentary evidence) received no response at all. The continuance of the trial date allows the Commonwealth to produce pleadings and discovery, and for me to do another round of subpoenas, and to give me time to do some independent investigation of the facts that the Commonwealth will rely upon to prove that Skidmark actually engaged in some behavior justifying a charge of brandishing a firearm. (The Commonwealth's Attorney has told me some things informally, and I've read the original complaint to the magistrate, but thus far, I haven't heard or seen any factual basis that would support the elements of the crime alleged, much less anything amounting to evidence of each of the elements by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.) So the continuance of the trial date will be helpful.
Status:
As to the obstruction charge, the plea in abatement was granted and the case dismissed with prejudice. The problem was that the sworn statement filed in support of the issuance of the warrant failed to provide any facts supporting the charge of obstruction of justice. The Commonwealth's Attorney told me that he'd spoken to the Sheriff who basically confirmed that there was no factual basis for that charge, and to his credit, agreed to the order dismissing the charge on that basis.
As to the charge of brandishing a firearm, the Commonwealth's Attorney indicated that he wanted more time in which to file a bill of particulars and discovery response; I'd filed a motion to dismiss for failure to do so based on what Judge Palmer had ordered orally at our last hearing; unfortunately, however, he failed to provide any written indication of what he'd ordered, and in Virginia, "a court speaks only through its written orders". Generally, in the General District Courts, the judge will simply write, "granted" or "denied", on the front of whatever written motion they're ruling on, along with the date and signature. Judge Palmer apparently left no record whatsoever. So the compromise was that the Commonwealth gets another three weeks in which to file, but this time a written order (supplied by me) was entered.
I'd also had some problems getting subpoenas issued by the Clerk of Court and served by various sheriffs. The result is that three of the four subpoenas duces tecum (demands for documentary evidence) received no response at all. The continuance of the trial date allows the Commonwealth to produce pleadings and discovery, and for me to do another round of subpoenas, and to give me time to do some independent investigation of the facts that the Commonwealth will rely upon to prove that Skidmark actually engaged in some behavior justifying a charge of brandishing a firearm. (The Commonwealth's Attorney has told me some things informally, and I've read the original complaint to the magistrate, but thus far, I haven't heard or seen any factual basis that would support the elements of the crime alleged, much less anything amounting to evidence of each of the elements by proof beyond a reasonable doubt.) So the continuance of the trial date will be helpful.
Last edited:
