Google cached the document before it was pulled, Skid.
You can read here if you missed it the first time posted.
WJLA also has a copy on their website.
http://www.wjla.com/articles/2012/06/daniel-harmon-wright-pleads-not-guilty-76777.html
Google cached the document before it was pulled, Skid.
You can read here if you missed it the first time posted.
Though I can't find the article, a friend just told me that they heard that the reason Patricia Cook was in the church parking lot was that she was meeting a 'friend'.
Consider that she had the sun shield in the window. What is the function of that? Privacy, for one thing, in addition to keeping the car interior cooler.
So if we imagine that she was there to meet up with a friend, and maybe something more, which isn't exactly uncommon, perhaps she didn't want to stick around and get ticketed and ID'd because she was worried her clandestine meeting would get back to her husband.
I'll try to get the link to the article that said she was meeting a friend if it indeed exists. (Google blocked the link in gmail)
Seems a lot more likely to me that she was {having an affair|in love|infatuated} with the minister, or some other church official who was (not/no longer) returning her affections, and put up the sunscreen so as to not be seen waiting.I got the idea that the "friend" she was waiting for was death.
Seems a lot more likely to me that she was {having an affair|in love|infatuated} with the minister, or some other church official who was (not/no longer) returning her affections, and put up the sunscreen so as to not be seen waiting.
The "suicide by cop" scenario fails the sniff test. My unsolicited advice is to abandon it before the jury hears it.
The "suicide by cop" scenario fails the sniff test. My unsolicited advice is to abandon it before the jury hears it.
I'd agree with that.
Although I don't think User has to convince the jury that the officers version is exactly what happened... only that its plausible the events occurred differently then what the prosecutor alleges. Whats that phase.... 'reasonable doubt'...??
As much as User dislikes pleas.... I'm thinking the officer eventually accepts a plea for a relatively minor charge (compared to the four felonies anyway).. and sentenced to 'time served' or something like that.
I doubt that we have seen all of the hole cards yet either.
Correct. For both sides, no doubt.
I believe under disclosure and discovery, the surprises of the prosecution will be held to a minimum.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_26
Is 'disclosure & discovery' completed at this point? Or is that still ongoing... and more can come out?
I sincerely doubt it is concluded.
And motions to be made - I'd ask for change of venue if to be a jury trial. Postponements considered. The dance has hardly begun.
Very premature for such a distant possibility. Too, such would have great potential impact on any civil litigation.
I doubt that we have seen all of the hole cards yet either.
My question to User (Dan), if he can say, is does he intend to put the officer on the witness stand, in order to give his account of what happened?
What might be hard to do is to show that for a trespassing (misdemeanor) charge:
1. Doesn't the person have to be told to leave -or- they will risk a trespassing charge? (Yes, I know we now know the lot is posted).
2. Does such a charge, being a misdemeanor require ID?
Virginia Code § 18.2-119 defines the crime of trespassing as follows:
If any person without authority of law goes upon or remains upon the lands, buildings or premises of another, or any portion or area thereof, after having been forbidden to do so, either orally or in writing, by the owner, lessee, custodian or other person lawfully in charge thereof, or after having been forbidden to do so by a sign or signs posted by such persons or by the holder of any easement or other right-of-way authorized by the instrument creating such interest to post such signs on such lands, structures, premises or portion or area thereof at a place or places where it or they may be reasonably seen, or if any person, whether he is the owner, tenant or otherwise entitled to the use of such land, building or premises, goes upon, or remains upon such land, building or premises after having been prohibited from doing so by a court of competent jurisdiction by an order issued pursuant to §§ 16.1-253, 16.1-253.1, 16.1-253.4, 16.1-278.2 through 16.1-278.6, 16.1-278.8, 16.1-278.14, 16.1-278.15, 16.1-279.1, 19.2-152.8, 19.2-152.9 or § 19.2-152.10 or an ex parte order issued pursuant to § 20-103, and after having been served with such order, he shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. This section shall not be construed to affect in any way the provisions of §§ 18.2-132 through 18.2-136.
I would imagine that writing a citation would require that the officer would need to know for whom it was being written...hmm?
Further, if one doesn't wish to ID themselves, when properly requested, for an infraction then they may be taken into custody.