I have a almost- 3 year old case (FATM) that was set to go to trial on July 22.
Suddenly yesterday the attorney withdrew and new counsel filed a Motion to Suppress entry to the home.
It's a weak motion because there was consent to enter, and I suspect that the new attorney is just trying to delay longer.
TO try to speed things up, I'd like to file two motions:
1. Response to Motion to Suppress (to raise that there's been consent)
2. Motion for a Preferential Setting- the case is very old, has about 20 witnesses (most civilian) and my witnesses are getting frustrated.
Thanks!
C Wilde
July 09, 2013, 09:05
Brody V. Burks
I have, in a handful of cases, filed an answer to a defendant's motion to suppress. A judge may dispositively deal with the MTS exclusively on the motions or upon affidavits under CCP 28.01(sec. 1)(6). see Bishop v. State 85 S.W.3d 819.
That being said, I've never had a judge actually *deal* with the motion without requiring live testimony. I have found it useful in a couple of instances to either get defense counsel to tell me what his actual grounds for objection were, rather than a boilerplate motion, or to get some helpful caselaw in front of the judge prior to actual testimony.
I've sent you an email with the most recent one that I've filed.This message has been edited. Last edited by: Brody V. Burks,
July 09, 2013, 09:17
C Wilde
Thank You!
quote:
Originally posted by Brody V. Burks: I have, in a handful of cases, filed an answer to a defendant's motion to suppress. A judge may dispositively deal with the MTS exclusively on the motions or upon affidavits under CCP 28.01(sec. 1)(6). see Bishop v. State 85 S.Q.3d 819.
That being said, I've never had a judge actually *deal* with the motion without requiring live testimony. I have found it useful in a couple of instances to either get defense counsel to tell me what his actual grounds for objection were, rather than a boilerplate motion, or to get some helpful caselaw in front of the judge prior to actual testimony.
I've sent you an email with the mot recent one that I've filed.
C Wilde
July 09, 2013, 10:59
John Greenwood
I have often filed a "request to deny pretrial suppression hearing" pointing out there is no right to have a separate hearing. The suppression issue can be taken up during trial. The downside for the state of course is that if the court suppresses, the State has no appellate remedy.
July 11, 2013, 11:39
S. Howards
I have a response that I use if you would like another. I have had several motions flat out denied based on the response.
SH
July 11, 2013, 15:30
C Wilde
Sure! I would appreciate it!
quote:
Originally posted by S. Howards: I have a response that I use if you would like another. I have had several motions flat out denied based on the response.
SH
C Wilde
July 11, 2013, 15:38
Gretchen
Did you know that if you want to you can add attachments to these forum replies so you don't get hit with 100 requests for your motions? Only if you don't mind the document being accessible, that is, but of course, it's already public. The "Add attachment" link is under the text box when you reply.
July 23, 2013, 16:24
MDK27
Thanks, Gretchen! I hope people with these wondrous documents will start attaching them. I love to collect everything that I could possibly use in the future.