
Regardless of whether the Morri are bad people, this case was weak from the start. The prosecution overreached with a complete lack of evidence. I think I said that from the start of this whole thing.

Moderators: bwgood77, Qwigglez, lilfishi22
plonden wrote:[tweet]https://twitter.com/paulcoro/status/628237703763472384[/tweet]
The motion that Coro is referring to is a motion to remand to the grand jury for a new finding of probable cause. I haven't read the motion. I've only reviewed the docket sheet, which references the motion by name. These types of motions generally allege some sort of defect in the grand jury proceedings that undermines the grand jury's basis for finding probable cause. The grand jury is responsible for determining whether the state has a sufficient evidentiary basis to proceed with charges against the defendants. If this motion were granted, it would be a major victory for the Morrii and would probably push the timeline back significantly. I believe the prosecutor would have to once again convince a grand jury that there was sufficient evidence to issue an indictment against the Morrii. It would essentially hit reset on the proceedings to date. It's understandable that the judge would want to take sufficient time to fully consider the motion.
Frank Lee wrote:LukasBMW wrote:Frank Lee wrote:I think a done deal is waiting on an acquittal/court.
I like that theory.
So much for that theory.
Most legal minds (Babby?) probably saw something like this coming or at least not surprised. This whole incident has been muddled with sketchy info, lack of or reluctant witnesses, denial, flat out lies, shady characters, including momma,.... and 5 guys fleeing in a phantom.
Seems like it could be drawn out for sometime. The State's case seemed flimsy from the beginning. society can be quick to judge, and things can appear quite clear... but in a court room, different deal.(see OJ) If evidence is suppressed, omitted, turned in late, monkeyed with, it can jeopardize the whole case. The letter of the law can be quite confusing to read but must be followed.
There.....my summary based on several yrs of Perry Mason, Law and Order, and multiple viewings of My Cuz Vinny![]()
I wonder if those ILWT 'room mate' witnesses have been subpoenaed.
Regardless of personal opinions of these mini thugs (see, mine slipped in), an acquittal is the best thing for the organization.
Stay tuned Suns fans...
bigfoot wrote:Wait a sec ... I didn't think a Grand Jury was a place to present all the evidence. Isn't it a meeting between the prosecutor and 12 people to decide if there is sufficient evidence to proceed with a real trial. No judge and no defense attorney are present and only 3/4 of the 12 need to agree to proceed with a trial. Is it a big deal if the prosecutor didn't present a witness who says they saw the Morri 100 yards away but presented 25 who said they saw them at the fight? Is that "withholding vital information to the case". I'd say no way. The defense lawyer can present this single witness at the real trial. My guess is the witness is a Morri buddy or took some cash under the table.
plonden wrote:bigfoot wrote:Wait a sec ... I didn't think a Grand Jury was a place to present all the evidence. Isn't it a meeting between the prosecutor and 12 people to decide if there is sufficient evidence to proceed with a real trial. No judge and no defense attorney are present and only 3/4 of the 12 need to agree to proceed with a trial. Is it a big deal if the prosecutor didn't present a witness who says they saw the Morri 100 yards away but presented 25 who said they saw them at the fight? Is that "withholding vital information to the case". I'd say no way. The defense lawyer can present this single witness at the real trial. My guess is the witness is a Morri buddy or took some cash under the table.
It actually does matter. A lot. The twins are being charged with assault. Not conspiracy to commit assault. As part of its case in chief at trial, the prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Morrii assaulted the victim. Not that they convinced one of their buddies to do it--that is conspiracy. Being at the fight is not assault. Being in the fight is assault. According to Coro's article, the defense motion states that no witness can put the twins within 15-20 feet of the fight. If that is true, that is material information that the grand jury should have been made aware of before deciding whether there is sufficient evidence to charge the Morrii with assault charges. Big difference, and could mean the difference between an indictment and no indictment.
bigfoot wrote:I would have assumed that the grand jury would have received testimony from multiple witnesses about the fight. Those jurors would have heard from the witnesses the twins were not within 15' of the fight. It's hard to believe that 12 reasonable people would vote to send the Morri to trial for assault if they didn't have some information that they participated in the fight. And in fact the defense motion is wrong because the assailant testified that the Morri attacked him. Therefore at least one person saw them within 15'.
plonden wrote:bigfoot wrote:I would have assumed that the grand jury would have received testimony from multiple witnesses about the fight. Those jurors would have heard from the witnesses the twins were not within 15' of the fight. It's hard to believe that 12 reasonable people would vote to send the Morri to trial for assault if they didn't have some information that they participated in the fight. And in fact the defense motion is wrong because the assailant testified that the Morri attacked him. Therefore at least one person saw them within 15'.
I recall the Coro article saying that the prosecutor failed to present evidence that the victim changed his story about whether the Morrii were actually involved in the beating. That's certainly relevant information that the grand jury should be permitted to consider if it is relying solely on his testimony to indict the Morrii for assault. I'd like to have as much faith in the grand jury's indictment as you do. But in reality the prosecutor holds immense sway over the grand jury in terms of whether the grand jury will choose to indict. A judge famously said that a prosecutor could convince a grand jury can indict a ham sandwich. This is largely a result of the grand jury system--it is not adversarial, there is no cross-examination, and the defense cannot present evidence. I have much more faith in a jury's verdict after an adversarial trial process, although it is by no means perfect.
ginobiliflops wrote:Well, well, well... Plenty of crow to go around.
bigfoot wrote:ginobiliflops wrote:Well, well, well... Plenty of crow to go around.
Not for me ... where there is smoke there is fire. These guys were involved at some level. Either straight up assault or conspiracy to commit assault. They were seen leaving the scene of the crime with three of the other accused. The lied to the police saying they didn't know the assailant. Crow will be eaten after they are sentenced.
ginobiliflops wrote:Well, well, well... Plenty of crow to go around.
saintEscaton wrote:ginobiliflops wrote:Well, well, well... Plenty of crow to go around.
And you were saying?![]()