according to court papers that small filed in behalf of his client amanda gutweiler hypes, *tom walsh leaked grand jury testimony of hypes to expert witnesses without first obtaining the courts consent. and of course if he went to get the courts consent he would have to give notice to small and small would have opposed it. so the rapides parish district attorney took a shortcut. after a lot of legal wrangling thats been featured in the town talk small has filed a motion captioned "We call the bluff" in this motion small called out the rapides parish da for: "astonishingly unprofessional and inappropriate manner." apparantly the gist of it all is that the point of the leak was so dr john dehaan and bobby sandoval a rapides parish deputy sheriff would know which story to pitch at trial.
notice in this article rocky willson is now speaking for the da office he must have taken over the case because a fellow ada practically called judge donald johnson a dumbass. why didnt they just follow the law and go through the motions? what gives them the right to decide to just arbitrarily break one law to enforce another? the truth is ms hypes should have been tried ages ago. its ridiculous for her and her families and for us too that someone should be in jail so long. if the state is so sure of its evidence that they were once talking about the death penalty. why take so long to present it? it looks like you are trying to manufacture it. and that brings us back to the title of our post. will the public be so outraged at the actions of the da's office in screwing this up so bad, translate to change at the polls? sheriff hilton is retiring too. maybe this is time for sweeping change.
====
related posts:
related posts:
===
7:26 pm cdt friday 12 may 2006
* note: in the original post we transcribed tom searcy instead of tom walsh. actually we should have used "the rapides parish d.a." we regret the mistake. while we meant mr walsh as anyone could see who read the references we cited. we erred. forgive us please. hat tip to: crossed the fine line... for the heads up.
7:26 pm cdt friday 12 may 2006
* note: in the original post we transcribed tom searcy instead of tom walsh. actually we should have used "the rapides parish d.a." we regret the mistake. while we meant mr walsh as anyone could see who read the references we cited. we erred. forgive us please. hat tip to: crossed the fine line... for the heads up.
Very interesting commentary. I don't know much about the specifics of the allegations against Hypes, but I seem to recall that she was away from the house at the time of the fire. Is this correct?
ReplyDeleteI am interested to know the compelling evidence that the DA has that indicates this is a first degree murder case, not manslaughter or child endangerment.
well we feel for everyone involved. suppose on the other hand the question is did the da have such an airtight case and due to incompetance was bamboozled by superior lawyering? would that be even worse?
ReplyDeletewe've been reading a few recent rulings issued by the 3rd circuit. we feel like there is a good chance that judge johnson's decision will be affirmed. and they might remand it back to day 1. in the meantime ms hypes will be set free and the charges will be quietly dropped. because the da cant sustain them.