So Giesen introduces a diagram that O'Connell hadn't seen yet; isn't
that unfair surprise? Or shouldn't that have come up in discovery?
And if the _absence_ of Maloney's testimony contributed to dismissing
the charges, why did O'Connell object to him testifying? Seems like kind
of a bonehead move on his part.
On 2016/01/28 12:46, Robert F. Nagel via Bikies wrote:
I don't know anything more about it than what was in the newspaper
article. You could get a transcript of the preliminary hearing or ask
the DA's office why probable cause was not found or what they plan to
do going forward. There is not a bar to refiling charges dismissed at
this stage.
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 12:06 PM via Bikies <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I am not a lawyer, but WTF?
How is it legal to run over bicyclists?
Quoting "Robert F. Nagel via Bikies" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>:
>
http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/crime-and-courts/charges-dismissed-against-driver-accused-of-hitting-cyclists/article_ec8a1049-620a-592c-b713-fba3d57465c2.html
--
darin burleigh
--
Paul T. O'Leary
Chronic Nuisance
Madison, WI USA
_______________________________________________
Bikies mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
