lone protester

[lone protester]

In the past couple of months I have tried to get the legal and law enforcement community to discuss the non enforcement of our laws dealing with illegal immigrants, the criminals employing them and the landlords that are illegally renting to them. I came up with a grand total of zero responses to my questions.
Now, I have a few questions again from the same agencies regarding my case. Six weeks ago my lawyer submitted motions to the prosecutor (Overture Walker) and judge so as to prepare an adequate defense for me. As of last Thursday morning, none of the motions had been answered. The first one was to have my case dismissed because of the frivolousness of it. The second was a criminal background check on all of the prosecutios witnesses. The third was the 911 transcripts of the homeowners call to the police when I was arrested for cursing. The fourth was the video from the police car that was parked right in front of me when I was in handcuffs.
Thursday morning in court my attorney told me that the prosecutor had refused to turn over all of this information to him. Now, my question to the legal and law enforcement community is, isn't this illegal as hell? How can we prepare for my case before a jury of my peers if all of the information pertaining to it is kept hidden away? I am not a lawyer but I have read enough books to know that what the prosecutor has refused to divulge is a criminal act in itself. Can I bring him up on charges for it?
This is just more proof in my eyes that the ones that are supposed to be fair and impartial in meting out justice are aiding and abetting the criminals I protested. And got arrested for my efforts.
So is there someone out there, that is not corrupted with political correctness, that can answer my questions? Can anyone make a suggestion on what I am to do? Or am I going to continue to hit a wall of silence?

[Unregisteredß]

I don't think they know what to do with you.

[swampfox]

LP, Don't you have an attorney from ACLU or something? Surely he/she can answer these questions better than any of us could.

[anti-babble]

Read Rule 5 of the SC Rules of Court. You should be able to find the link on the Legislatures homepage.

[disclosure]

If this information is evidence I think it has to be brought out in disclosure.

[Paul on Cressfell]

After the request for Discovery is made in S.C., the prosecution is supposed to turn it over within 30 days following the request or else they cannot use it in Court. When I was facing my Harassment 2nd Degree charge in West Columbia, I kept getting stalled by the Clerk of Court when I asked that it be given to me. I was finally given the "evidence" on day #30.

Assuming you haven't had your Pre-Trial Conference yet, then your attorney needs to make a motion at the Pre-Trial Conference to exclude any evidence that the prosecution intends to use in its Case-In-Chief if they have not provided it to you within 30 days after the request was made.

[Voice as Guest]

The first one was to have my case dismissed because of the frivolousness of it.

The second was a criminal background check on all of the prosecutios witnesses.

The third was the 911 transcripts of the homeowners call to the police when I was arrested for cursing.

The fourth was the video from the police car that was parked right in front of me when I was in handcuffs.
Thursday morning in court my attorney told me that the prosecutor had refused to turn over all of this information to him. Now, my question to the legal and law enforcement community is, isn't this illegal as hell?


First: That one can be ignored by the prosecution.
Second: Those are not required by rules of evidence. Eay to dismiss as irrelavent
Third: They should provide those IF they plan on using them. City of Columbia rarely uses those, however.
Fourth: City of Columbia patrol cars do not have video. Yes, that's correct. There are only approx 5 cars in the entire fleet of more than 100 cars that have video, and those are strictly traffic units, not patrol units.

Therefore, this is not illegal or unethical.

[swampfox]

Prosecutors don't dismiss cases. They can drop charges, but only a judge (or somebody acting as a judge, like a magistrate) can dismiss a case.

Background checks on prosecution witnesses may not be required, but there is nothing to prevent a defense attorney from acquiring them. There are commercial sources for them.

There is nothing to prevent a defense attorney from issuing a subpoena for 911 transcripts. If the city refuses to give 'em up, you might have to explain to the judge why not having the transcript prevents you from being able to adequately be defended. Could therefore be grounds for mistrial, IF the judge agrees.

I don't know any different about the video cameras. Again, assuming you know how to identify the car in question the information could be supoenaed. Same mitigating circumstances as above could apply.

IF the judge agrees that you are entitled to the information he can issue a warrant for it to be released to you immediately. The prosecution has nothing to do with it. Again, IF the judge agrees, the city might be found in contempt. Instant mistrial, I would think.