Without revving up the conspiracy theory engines to much . . . Last Friday, when the 51st District Court electronically circulated Charles Childress’ Motion for Severance and Stay of Discovery to case attorneys, Exhibit A (which Childress pointed to — see Motion excerpt below — as “an example of a Discovery Control Plan Order”) was missing.
One source tells me that Vicki Vines, Court Clerk, said over the phone that she left off Judge Walther removed Exhibit A because Judge Walther told her to do so prior to its transmission. At this point, there is no indication why Judge Walther would have removed the Exhibit. I have e-mailed the question to Vines. Developing . . .
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
Jeny 07.29.08 at 1:57 pm
Interesting kettle of (smelly) fish this is.
Keep us posted!
kbp 07.29.08 at 2:44 pm
Maybe there is more to that Stay of Discovery than I have given it credit.
I had anticpated the motion was more centered on severing some very select cases so to allow the children in those specific suits to be held hostage, pressuring their mother’s in the next segment of the Grand Jury, coming soon!
Consider what we’ve seen so far (open to correction):
1. No discovery shared to date;
2. No challenge in a higher court of the delay in sharing;
3. Judge walther does not seem to worry heavily about following proper procedure in HER courtroom;
4. She will not even hear a single motion filed in the remaining cases (unless it is filed by those she ‘collaberates’ with!);
5. Enough cases will be dropped that the Discovery could be delayed further through just starting new suits, all the results of the indictments.
I am uncertain here what this example of a Discovery Control Plan Order would reveal, unless it was to lock up all discovery not directly associated with the suits it may involve, thereby denying access to all other discovery tied to the suits that I anticipate she’ll drop.
Considering they have not showed much in the type of evidence that proves any children were in danger, maybe it’s tied to the problems with the search warrants somehow.
What is to be hidden?
This is a mystery I need help on!
kbp 07.29.08 at 2:45 pm
oops!
‘collaborates’
Shari 07.29.08 at 3:03 pm
Only a little “off topic” but here’s a juicy headline and link…
Arizona judge may remand charges against polygamous leader
The Associated Press
Article Last Updated: 07/29/2008 01:40:29 PM MDT
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_10033842
Doran Williams 07.29.08 at 4:37 pm
kbp
Discovery in Texas criminal cases is not as extensive nor as easy as it is in civil cases.
Discovery in civil cases can be very wide ranging, going into all sorts of issues that may not on the surface appear to have anything at all to do with the case. Discovery is both written and by deposition. Parties are easily deposed, as are non-party witnesses. Generally, a court order is not required to depose a party or a witness in civil cases.
In criminal cases, the State has almost no discovery of the defendant. There are a few exceptions, but the discovery is severely limited. Defendants have a bit more discovery of the State. But the Defendant in most serious felony cases, and in some counties, in all felony and misdemeanor cases, will probably have to go to the judge with a motion for discovery, and get an order directing the State to produce certain items and information. There is nothing in the criminal system which is comprable to the written requests for discovery from one party to another. While depositions of witnesses in criminal cases is provided for, a judge has to order it.
Judge Walther’s order indicates that she will not issue a discovery order until after August 18. I suspect there may be one or more preliminary hearings in the criminal cases before she gets the order drafted and signed. Since CPS acquired so much of the info that I expect will be used in the criminal cases, the Judge has effectively shut out the defendants in the criminal cases from acquiring that information. If the Judge can continue to delay discovery in the civil cases, while moving the criminal cases along a fast track and denying defendants discovery in the criminal cases, she can cripple the defendants’ abilities to defend themselves.
I don’t know if that is what is going on. But I would not be surprised if it is. At some point, one or more of the parties or attorneys in the civil cases will just have to bite the bullet and get a mandamus action filed against the judge, for discovery.
kbp 07.29.08 at 5:00 pm
Thanks Doran
Certainly looks open to being a part of the move made in the stay.