Court Order in State v. Jason Talley

– Court order denying the motion to reconsider the “quashing” of Circut Court Administrative Judge Edwin Kelly and Superior Court Chief Judge Tina Nadeau’s subpoenas to appear as defense witnesses in State v. Jason Talley .PDF

Now you can subscribe to Free Keene via email!

Don't miss a single post!


6 Comments

  1. Mostly  the only complain I have about the  orders is  that the conferences;  when they “approach the bench”  ,that those don’t get recorded

  2. Mostly  the only complaint I have about the  orders is  that the conferences: when they “approach the bench” ,that those don’t get recorded .. I think the public shouldn’t be whispered in front of and kept secrets from.

  3. I agree with you David.

    I think the intent is to keep the jury from hearing the conversation though.  We wouldn’t want jurors to actually know everything about a case when the government is wrong, right?

  4. I agree with you David.

    I think the intent is to keep the jury from hearing the conversation though.  We wouldn’t want jurors to actually know everything about a case when the government is wrong, right?

  5.  It cuts both ways, though.  The defense may have gotten evidence excluded (eg, the results of an improperly-issued search warrant), and may not want to discuss that in front of the jury, either.

    I would suggest that the benefit to the defense in keeping certain things secret from the jury, outweighs the benefit to the prosecution in keeping certain things secret from the jury.

    One thing of note: typically, if the judge calls you up, it will be you, as the attorney.  If Talley wants to be part of any such conferences, you should make sure the judge knows that; if the judge calls you up but not him, the bailiff will likely prevent him from approaching the bench, since he was not invited to approach (yeah, because it’s clearly acceptable in any even-vaguely-democratic society if you have to be invited to approach the holy presence of your servants…).

  6.  It cuts both ways, though.  The defense may have gotten evidence excluded (eg, the results of an improperly-issued search warrant), and may not want to discuss that in front of the jury, either.

    I would suggest that the benefit to the defense in keeping certain things secret from the jury, outweighs the benefit to the prosecution in keeping certain things secret from the jury.

    One thing of note: typically, if the judge calls you up, it will be you, as the attorney.  If Talley wants to be part of any such conferences, you should make sure the judge knows that; if the judge calls you up but not him, the bailiff will likely prevent him from approaching the bench, since he was not invited to approach (yeah, because it’s clearly acceptable in any even-vaguely-democratic society if you have to be invited to approach the holy presence of your servants…).

Care to comment?