Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Jackie-O
Sounds likely to me that she did think of that.

Let's see if Scott ever wears one of their pins.
33 posted on 10/30/2003 8:42:32 AM PST by Devil_Anse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies ]


To: Devil_Anse
I don't think the defendant is allowed to wear anything symbolic other that a sign of his faith, wedding ring. I noticed a few pics of Snott with the ring on when he is arrested and when he was lead into the courtroom at his arreignment. No ring in the pics with Amber! That would bug me if I were a juror and I had noticed that fact, and he was sitting across the courtroom from me and he had it on.
39 posted on 10/30/2003 8:50:15 AM PST by Jackie-O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]

To: Devil_Anse
Here's a link to the minute order from yesterday's hearing. It clears up the confusion on the jurisdiction of the court regarding the tapes, etc. It basically says that the court has no jurisciction over the matter until there is a dispute and since the evidence has not been presented there is no problem. The court will have the jurisdiction to rule on the matter when and if it is necessary to rule, at least that's what I get out of it.

http://www.pressupdate.info/pdfs/peterson/102903/Minute_Order_102903.pdf
60 posted on 10/30/2003 9:46:41 AM PST by RGSpincich
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson