Twin Cities Carry Forum Archive :: View topic - Hugget case dismissed: importance of "there's the evide

Quote:

This court is satisfied that Huggett did what he reasonably should have done to have the evidence preserved; namely, he told Detective Finch precisely where the voice mail was located, he summarized it to her immediately after the incident as best he could, and he even went so far as to suggest she listen to it.

MostlyHarmless wrote:

http://www.startribune.com/local/46672927.html

Quote:

1) I was afraid for my life
2) There's the evidence
3) Lawyer lawyer lawyer

Step 1 and 2 are important too and may be the only reason this case was dismissed without a jury trial.

Binky .357 wrote:

To beat the dead horse a little more, the lawyer could have said the same things after a brief wait.

pablobear wrote:

It doesn't say anything about it in the article, other than the guy "broke in" to the home, but that clearly sounds like the guy was hostile. He broke in to the home. Isn't that evidence enough that this clown wasn't supposed to be there and that he was acting violently?

Author:	MostlyHarmless [ Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:33 am ]
Post subject:	Hugget case dismissed: importance of "there's the evide
http://www.startribune.com/local/46672927.html Quote: This court is satisfied that Huggett did what he reasonably should have done to have the evidence preserved; namely, he told Detective Finch precisely where the voice mail was located, he summarized it to her immediately after the incident as best he could, and he even went so far as to suggest she listen to it. 1) I was afraid for my life 2) There's the evidence 3) Lawyer lawyer lawyer Step 1 and 2 are important too and may be the only reason this case was dismissed without a jury trial.

Author:	bstrawse [ Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:36 am ]
Post subject:
I'm confused as to why this guy was even charged? b

Author:	Jeremiah [ Tue Jun 02, 2009 7:04 am ]
Post subject:
Because he shot that poor fellow, who just turning his life around, and only wanted to talk to his ex and the kids... </snark>

Author:	Binky .357 [ Tue Jun 02, 2009 2:41 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Hugget case dismissed: importance of "there's the e
MostlyHarmless wrote: http://www.startribune.com/local/46672927.html Quote: This court is satisfied that Huggett did what he reasonably should have done to have the evidence preserved; namely, he told Detective Finch precisely where the voice mail was located, he summarized it to her immediately after the incident as best he could, and he even went so far as to suggest she listen to it. 1) I was afraid for my life 2) There's the evidence 3) Lawyer lawyer lawyer Step 1 and 2 are important too and may be the only reason this case was dismissed without a jury trial. To beat the dead horse a little more, the lawyer could have said the same things after a brief wait. I'm still of the school of "I need to speak to my attorney and I don't consent to any search" thought. Better that way-there are good LEOs out there, but taking your chances at finding a good one is like naively picking mushrooms in the wood and thinking they'll all make a good meal. Just because you ate one last week and nothing bad happened doesn't mean the next one won't really mess up your life (or kill you).

Author:	jdege [ Tue Jun 02, 2009 2:51 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Hugget case dismissed: importance of "there's the e
Binky .357 wrote: To beat the dead horse a little more, the lawyer could have said the same things after a brief wait. I'd love to cooperate, officer. I'll have my lawyer call the station to arrange a convenient time for an interview.

Twin Cities Carry Forum Archive http://ellegon.com/forum/

Hugget case dismissed: importance of "there's the evide http://ellegon.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=13083	Page 1 of 1

Author:	SultanOfBrunei [ Tue Jun 02, 2009 3:04 pm ]
Post subject:
My take: say as little as possible. If evidence is likely to be not preserved, then let the officer know. ie the attacker's weapon is laying in the street and a street sweeper is rumbling down the road towards it. It might be a good idea to point that out... otherwise shut up.

Author:	kecker [ Tue Jun 02, 2009 3:49 pm ]
Post subject:
There is nothing in this story that a lawyer couldn't have handled the next day...or even the next week. This is entirely due to the ineptitude of the responding police and investigators that the evidence was lost. Actually it probably would have been better if the lawyer had handled this. He could have documented it better. Otherwise in this situation you're depending on the officer's integrity and honesty to admit that yeah he told us about that evidence but golly gosh we just didn't do anything about it.

Author:	pablobear [ Tue Jun 02, 2009 4:12 pm ]
Post subject:
It doesn't say anything about it in the article, other than the guy "broke in" to the home, but that clearly sounds like the guy was hostile. He broke in to the home. Isn't that evidence enough that this clown wasn't supposed to be there and that he was acting violently?

Author:	ScottM [ Thu Jun 04, 2009 1:21 pm ]
Post subject:
pablobear wrote: It doesn't say anything about it in the article, other than the guy "broke in" to the home, but that clearly sounds like the guy was hostile. He broke in to the home. Isn't that evidence enough that this clown wasn't supposed to be there and that he was acting violently? You would think so but in Minnesota and Wisconsin sometimes government gets confused about who the victim is.

Page 1 of 1	All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/