-
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.
Skidmark proceeding to trial - Sept 13th, 2011
- Thread starter Grapeshot
- Start date
riverrat10k
Regular Member
Managed to sneak down this morning before goin to a job....
Long story short, this matter was moved to a 12:30 time slot, not sure if at User's or Mr. Poindexter's request.
Had to leave for a job, so don't know the outcome yet. One thing I DID hear and see that was interesting. Judge was setting a court date for another case and and said (not verbatim) "Next date is June 21, but we had to cancel that date due to..." and sorta leaned or nodded toward the CA.
So, it appears the CA scheduled another case for June 21 after he had scheduled Skid's case. Remains to be seen how this will be rectified.
Long story short, this matter was moved to a 12:30 time slot, not sure if at User's or Mr. Poindexter's request.
Had to leave for a job, so don't know the outcome yet. One thing I DID hear and see that was interesting. Judge was setting a court date for another case and and said (not verbatim) "Next date is June 21, but we had to cancel that date due to..." and sorta leaned or nodded toward the CA.
So, it appears the CA scheduled another case for June 21 after he had scheduled Skid's case. Remains to be seen how this will be rectified.
So what's that mean? That the CA expects it'll never go to trial? Or is he just a poor planner/scheduler?
It is my decided opinion that the "conflict of dates" was an intentional maneuver on the part of the CA. Seems as though he is grasping at straws to postpone the day of reckoning.
TFred
Regular Member
If one were cynical, one might suspect that the CA is trying to overbook the court, in hopes of postponing the issue yet again. One so cynical might suspect that the CA has some demented belief that he can "outlast" the defendant and his vast array of resources on issue. How long until Mr. Poindexter is eligible for retirement? (According to a "Notable Poindexter" web page, he was 66 years old during the Vick trial... so that would be any time...)
TFred
MR Redenck
Regular Member
How about having a BIGsupport rally for skidmark before the day of the trial. Do it on the courthouse lawn! Let everybody know yall are tired of this crap! Hell, I might even fly up there for that.
That would be great if and when we knew with firm authority when that date might be. That would seem to be part of the CA's strategy. We never fail to have people there - think we are much more resilient/adaptable than the CA believes we are.
riverrat10k
Regular Member
They are done.
I will let someone who was there fill us in. In general, looks like it has been continued again and will NOT be over in June.
I will let someone who was there fill us in. In general, looks like it has been continued again and will NOT be over in June.
New dates set -
September 13 for hearing motions - no more motions will be accepted by the court.
If a determination is not made that date, the actual trial will be October 11th with no other cases to be scheduled for the same day.
Maybe we can all go for a drive along the James River to see the changing of the leaves. :lol:
September 13 for hearing motions - no more motions will be accepted by the court.
If a determination is not made that date, the actual trial will be October 11th with no other cases to be scheduled for the same day.
Maybe we can all go for a drive along the James River to see the changing of the leaves. :lol:
Last edited:
The Wolfhound
Regular Member
can we add failure to receive a speedy trial to the upcoming lawsuits?
Poindexter is probably hoping to retire out from under this and leave it for someone else to clean up his mess. There is no way he thinks he can win.
Poindexter is probably hoping to retire out from under this and leave it for someone else to clean up his mess. There is no way he thinks he can win.
Last edited:
TFred
Regular Member
I went back to find the date this happened... looks like these new dates are going to push this out to close to 10 months after the fact now. Right to a speedy trial... ya.
Reading through some of the early reports just made me angry all over again. Everyone should go back and read this stuff once in a while... just in case you need to keep motivated.
TFred
Reading through some of the early reports just made me angry all over again. Everyone should go back and read this stuff once in a while... just in case you need to keep motivated.
TFred
According to Skid the Oct 11th date is within 19 days of the original occurrence - I have not confirmed that.
TFred
Regular Member
I'll give a little better coverage this time. Since we're getting into the meat of this User has given me the go ahead to keep everyone better informed,.
I'm tired right now and have to gather my notes plus Novacop's starting the PM wars early....Hear that Novacop...no one's talking behind your back.
I'm tired right now and have to gather my notes plus Novacop's starting the PM wars early....Hear that Novacop...no one's talking behind your back.
OK... To start we were bumped down to the 12:30 docket which included an Attempted murder hearing with 3 defendants, three defense lawyers, a recovering addict who couldn't remember anything and was nearly beaten to death over a $30.00 drug deal.
That took some time and dragged.
There were two other brandishing charges heard, one included a hunter firing a warning shot at a family in a pickup because they were ruining the hunting.
(I can understand that:uhoh
Both brandishing charges were dismissed.
At 2:04 Paul's case was called.
There was a new amended motion which was absolutely brilliant.
User served it on the CA by setting it on his desk while Poindexter was at the bench.
Poindexter read it to about the midway mark, then skipped to the last page and then just thumbed through marking it like a School teacher.
The Judge had read the old Motion and had done a lot of research on Dan's Cites. He didn't agree 100% with them but announced that they would have to have a motion hearing to clear up the objections. Poindexter was already fussing that the Judge hadn't read his response thoroughly.
His objection about just who was the Commonwealth continued non stop until the hearing was over. The Judge sternly put him in his place a number of times.
Even though he questioned some of Dan's citations, he treated him like a professional and Dan behaved like one.
Poindexter also argued to the end about what was said in an early phone call between Dan and himself. Dan had referenced that call heavily in both new motions.
Pouindexter said hearing evidence about that call was "A moot point and he was sick and tired of being accused of stepping on someone's civil rights. I'd never do such a thing".
At that point the Judge had had enough and said he was setting dates and both parties were to bring in witnesses. Poindexter almost screamed "Just who do I use as witnesses?"
The Judge gave each 5 witnesses to summon and told both attorneys to name their actors.
Poindexter again, nearly hysterical said "Just who is the Commonwealth, you need to take this up with Ken Cuccinell, not me !"".
The Judge was not impressed and started picking dates.
They came up with 7/12 for filing the final motion.
8/17 (possibly wrong) for Poindexters response
9/13 to hear the motion
10/11 for the trial date if it is not dismissed on motions.
The Judge clarified some points of law and what he intended to do if they were proven.
We went outside and discussed it for awhile and I made plans for the next steps in this Doc.
Then we went home. On the James River side I ran into a JCC Officer and if I haven't ever mentioned it before, they may be the most professional department in the state.
We talked about the case and the Judge had been in James City County before retiring. He said, when we left his court we were better Cops because either we dotted our I's and crossed our T's, or we didn't have a case.
That took some time and dragged.
There were two other brandishing charges heard, one included a hunter firing a warning shot at a family in a pickup because they were ruining the hunting.
(I can understand that:uhoh
Both brandishing charges were dismissed.
At 2:04 Paul's case was called.
There was a new amended motion which was absolutely brilliant.
User served it on the CA by setting it on his desk while Poindexter was at the bench.
Poindexter read it to about the midway mark, then skipped to the last page and then just thumbed through marking it like a School teacher.
The Judge had read the old Motion and had done a lot of research on Dan's Cites. He didn't agree 100% with them but announced that they would have to have a motion hearing to clear up the objections. Poindexter was already fussing that the Judge hadn't read his response thoroughly.
His objection about just who was the Commonwealth continued non stop until the hearing was over. The Judge sternly put him in his place a number of times.
Even though he questioned some of Dan's citations, he treated him like a professional and Dan behaved like one.
Poindexter also argued to the end about what was said in an early phone call between Dan and himself. Dan had referenced that call heavily in both new motions.
Pouindexter said hearing evidence about that call was "A moot point and he was sick and tired of being accused of stepping on someone's civil rights. I'd never do such a thing".
At that point the Judge had had enough and said he was setting dates and both parties were to bring in witnesses. Poindexter almost screamed "Just who do I use as witnesses?"
The Judge gave each 5 witnesses to summon and told both attorneys to name their actors.
Poindexter again, nearly hysterical said "Just who is the Commonwealth, you need to take this up with Ken Cuccinell, not me !"".
The Judge was not impressed and started picking dates.
They came up with 7/12 for filing the final motion.
8/17 (possibly wrong) for Poindexters response
9/13 to hear the motion
10/11 for the trial date if it is not dismissed on motions.
The Judge clarified some points of law and what he intended to do if they were proven.
We went outside and discussed it for awhile and I made plans for the next steps in this Doc.
Then we went home. On the James River side I ran into a JCC Officer and if I haven't ever mentioned it before, they may be the most professional department in the state.
We talked about the case and the Judge had been in James City County before retiring. He said, when we left his court we were better Cops because either we dotted our I's and crossed our T's, or we didn't have a case.
Last edited:
Tomorrow I'll start the next step in this.
I need to determine which agency is the watchdog agency that insures all departments in the state comply with written policy and the Administrative code.
Then I have a few things that I don't want to talk about just yet.
I should have the computer outage report I FOIA'ed VITA for, in a few days or less.
Sometime this week I need to get the files on the two Brandishing cases that were dismissed.
An interesting piece of trivia, the addicted Fellow who was nearly killed in the drug debt beating (up one post) is the uncle of one of the dismissed brandishing cases.:uhoh:
That case was interesting in itself because it was three years old and they just wrote the warrant today, and it was promptly dismissed.
I need to determine which agency is the watchdog agency that insures all departments in the state comply with written policy and the Administrative code.
Then I have a few things that I don't want to talk about just yet.
I should have the computer outage report I FOIA'ed VITA for, in a few days or less.
Sometime this week I need to get the files on the two Brandishing cases that were dismissed.
An interesting piece of trivia, the addicted Fellow who was nearly killed in the drug debt beating (up one post) is the uncle of one of the dismissed brandishing cases.:uhoh:
That case was interesting in itself because it was three years old and they just wrote the warrant today, and it was promptly dismissed.
Thundar
Regular Member
Is 'dexter trying to stretchhhhhh this out until after he retires? At that point Virginia Bar sanctions for his conduct really don't matter, do they?
ixtow
Founder's Club Member
A civilized society wouldn't let him retire....
TFred
Regular Member
I think he needs as much time as possible, because he has to figure out who he can get the blame to stick to for this horribly botched case.
I'm not a betting man, but if I were, I'd lay better than even odds that at some point after this case is over, Poindexter points fingers at "the Tea Party."
TFred
I'm not a betting man, but if I were, I'd lay better than even odds that at some point after this case is over, Poindexter points fingers at "the Tea Party."
TFred
