https://www.foxnews.com/politics/amy-coney-barrett-roe-v-wade-supreme-court
Pagan Canaanite gods from the 10th Century BC slam Amy Coney Barrett, claim she will turn back clock on “child sacrifice”
>>10823477 (Pb/Q)
Found a good article on reasons why prosecution might delay a trial:
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/continuances-criminal-cases.html
Here are the reasons I think are most likely..
Changes to the Indictment or Information
The addition of new facts or crimes to the indictment or information (the document that charges the defendant with crimes) will typically require additional time to prepare a defense. For example, the prosecution changing the alleged date of a crime might justify a continuance to allow the defendant to prepare an alibi for the date in question.
However, a continuance due to a change in a charging document is warranted only if the change (known as “variance”) compromises the defendant’s case. If the prosecution makes changes merely to correct technical defects and those defects don’t alter the case in any meaningful way, then a judge probably won’t grant a continuance.
Surprise Witnesses or Evidence
New events or information previously unknown to the defense—for example, a new witness revealed the day before trial or new physical evidence supporting the prosecution’s case—will likely warrant a continuance. Similarly, in some cases the absence of a witness that the defendant expected to be present may necessitate additional time so the defendant can try to get the witness to court.
A judge may deny a continuance when:
the new evidence is reasonably related to evidence the defendant already knows about
the defendant has enough time without the continuance to prepare for the new evidence
the defendant wasn’t diligent in anticipating the evidence (for example, defense counsel failed to read forensic reports turned over by the prosecution and was “surprised” when the prosecution’s forensic expert testified to test results contained in the reports), or
the defendant fails to promptly inform the court of the surprise evidence or witness.
Surprise Testimony
It’s not uncommon for the prosecution’s witnesses to say something at trial that they either never said before (for example, when interviewed by the police) or that contradicts statements they’ve made in the past. When this happens, continuances are proper if the defense can show that the defendant:
didn’t anticipate and can’t be expected to have anticipated the testimony
wants to present testimony or evidence to counter the surprise testimony, and
can present that contradictory evidence in a reasonable period of time.
As always, if the defendant’s negligence contributed to the surprise, the judge can reject the continuance request. Additionally, a court usually won’t grant a continuance where the surprise testimony comes from one of the defendant’s own witnesses.
>>10823477 (Pb/Q)
Found a good article on reasons why prosecution might delay a trial:
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/continuances-criminal-cases.html
Here are the reasons I think are most likely..
Changes to the Indictment or Information
The addition of new facts or crimes to the indictment or information (the document that charges the defendant with crimes) will typically require additional time to prepare a defense. For example, the prosecution changing the alleged date of a crime might justify a continuance to allow the defendant to prepare an alibi for the date in question.
However, a continuance due to a change in a charging document is warranted only if the change (known as “variance”) compromises the defendant’s case. If the prosecution makes changes merely to correct technical defects and those defects don’t alter the case in any meaningful way, then a judge probably won’t grant a continuance.
Surprise Witnesses or Evidence
New events or information previously unknown to the defense—for example, a new witness revealed the day before trial or new physical evidence supporting the prosecution’s case—will likely warrant a continuance. Similarly, in some cases the absence of a witness that the defendant expected to be present may necessitate additional time so the defendant can try to get the witness to court.
A judge may deny a continuance when:
the new evidence is reasonably related to evidence the defendant already knows about
the defendant has enough time without the continuance to prepare for the new evidence
the defendant wasn’t diligent in anticipating the evidence (for example, defense counsel failed to read forensic reports turned over by the prosecution and was “surprised” when the prosecution’s forensic expert testified to test results contained in the reports), or
the defendant fails to promptly inform the court of the surprise evidence or witness.
Surprise Testimony
It’s not uncommon for the prosecution’s witnesses to say something at trial that they either never said before (for example, when interviewed by the police) or that contradicts statements they’ve made in the past. When this happens, continuances are proper if the defense can show that the defendant:
didn’t anticipate and can’t be expected to have anticipated the testimony
wants to present testimony or evidence to counter the surprise testimony, and
can present that contradictory evidence in a reasonable period of time.
As always, if the defendant’s negligence contributed to the surprise, the judge can reject the continuance request. Additionally, a court usually won’t grant a continuance where the surprise testimony comes from one of the defendant’s own witnesses.
>>10823477 (Pb/Q)
Found a good article on reasons why prosecution might delay a trial:
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/continuances-criminal-cases.html
Here are the reasons I think are most likely..
Changes to the Indictment or Information
The addition of new facts or crimes to the indictment or information (the document that charges the defendant with crimes) will typically require additional time to prepare a defense. For example, the prosecution changing the alleged date of a crime might justify a continuance to allow the defendant to prepare an alibi for the date in question.
However, a continuance due to a change in a charging document is warranted only if the change (known as “variance”) compromises the defendant’s case. If the prosecution makes changes merely to correct technical defects and those defects don’t alter the case in any meaningful way, then a judge probably won’t grant a continuance.
Surprise Witnesses or Evidence
New events or information previously unknown to the defense—for example, a new witness revealed the day before trial or new physical evidence supporting the prosecution’s case—will likely warrant a continuance. Similarly, in some cases the absence of a witness that the defendant expected to be present may necessitate additional time so the defendant can try to get the witness to court.
A judge may deny a continuance when:
the new evidence is reasonably related to evidence the defendant already knows about
the defendant has enough time without the continuance to prepare for the new evidence
the defendant wasn’t diligent in anticipating the evidence (for example, defense counsel failed to read forensic reports turned over by the prosecution and was “surprised” when the prosecution’s forensic expert testified to test results contained in the reports), or
the defendant fails to promptly inform the court of the surprise evidence or witness.
Surprise Testimony
It’s not uncommon for the prosecution’s witnesses to say something at trial that they either never said before (for example, when interviewed by the police) or that contradicts statements they’ve made in the past. When this happens, continuances are proper if the defense can show that the defendant:
didn’t anticipate and can’t be expected to have anticipated the testimony
wants to present testimony or evidence to counter the surprise testimony, and
can present that contradictory evidence in a reasonable period of time.
As always, if the defendant’s negligence contributed to the surprise, the judge can reject the continuance request. Additionally, a court usually won’t grant a continuance where the surprise testimony comes from one of the defendant’s own witnesses.