Commonwealth objected to inclusion of Confidential Witness stating:
In response, Defense stated:
OVERRULED.
Sentencing is a integral part of criminal defense and as such a witness shall not be disallowed on the basis that the CW believes he or she may have no relevance to the defense...
Granted, until 9pm EST.
Further, please don't feel compelled to share beyond just having an IRL situation. I, nor any other JO, will ever need to know your personal circumstance.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Order - On Reconsideration, Perjury
Movant's Position:
On motion from the Court's denial of Perjury, the Commonwealth moves for this Court's reconsideration. The Commonwealth identifies that there is a distinction between what the Plaintiff...
@AmityBlamity Present your questions to your witnesses within 24 Hours (lemme know if more time is needed).
@Savannah In this thread (without mentioning the name of the witness), please present questions to your witness. You also have 24 hrs under the same condition.
I'll rule on this motion later. At this point the Court will treat this as a ruling for perjury under the CCA; a ruling that can be made while the verdict is being written. The CW's arguments herein are noted as are those of Plaintiff.
I'll rule on this next week, thx.
(All from Post #8 from Plaintiff)
Objection #1 Perjury - > OVERRULED. FCR 127's statement on the Ownership is dicta while the factual findings of the inferior court are not binding on this Court, especially considering they didn't reach a verdict.
Objection #2 Perjury -> SUSTAINED, will be...
Denied. Lack of ownership is a defense to be made after fact-finding in discovery. I do note, that this Court is under no obligation to accept the DCR's findings nor the FCR's dicta regarding Anchor Watch's Ownership.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.