Sunday, September 17, 2017
I'll never understand law or lawyers.
The DA and Judge both agreed/determined that "Van Houten cannot obtain evidence after her conviction, because she does not face a sentence of death or life without parole".
If that's "the law", then that's the law.
But what confuses me, is this:
Richard Pfeiffer is a lawyer.
It's safe to assume, that Pfeiffer knows the law (just like the DA and Judge).
Why would Pfeiffer even bother trying to get the tapes released, when he knows darn well, what the law states? He certainly must know, that Leslie is not entitled to the tapes (because she does not face a sentence of life or life without parole).
Restated another way:
If the law clearly states, "Van Houten cannot obtain evidence after her conviction because she does not face a sentence of death or life without parole", then WHY THE HELL did Pfeiffer even bother petitioning for the tapes (in the first place)???
Are lawyers like Pfeieffer just trying to "slip one by" the DA and Judge?
Was Pfeiffer just hoping that the DA and Judge wouldn't know, or look-up the applicable laws???
Dilligaf described Pfeiffer's petition (for the Tex Tapes), as a "Hail Mary".
Jeez. I guess so...
It seems to me, if "the Law" was against Pfeiffer from the very start (and he knew it), then it was more of a "complete waste of everyone's time", than a "Hail Mary". LOL
Am I missing something?
In retrospect, the whole thing seems like a stupid exercise in futility to me.
Saturday, August 19, 2017
Judge to Rule on Tex Tapes
Ohta heard arguments from Pfeiffer and Deputy District Attorney Donna Lebowitz at a motion hearing today at the Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center. The motion hearing was a prelude to the Franklin hearing originally slotted for next week but delayed until the 31st to allow more time for discovery briefs to be filed.
Attorneys for Van Houten have sought the Tex tapes for nearly four years and argue that tapes contain information relevant to the Franklin hearing.
Some former Manson family members are also expected to testify at the hearing.
In January, Van Houten filed a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to People v. Franklin, contending she was entitled an opportunity to create a record of mitigating evidence in support of youth offender parole. After a series of briefs from Pfeiffer and Lebowitz, Ohta ruled in Van Houten’s favor, granting her the hearing.