Baylor Title IX lawsuit by sexual assault victim

#203
#203
#204
#204
Former Baylor University football player Tevin Elliott is not entitled to a new trial on his sexual assault conviction, a state district judge ruled Monday.

Judge Matt Johnson of Waco’s 54th State District Court, without explanation, overruled Elliott’s motion for new trial Monday.
Click to expand...
Wonder how long it will take the 10th Court of Appeals to overturn this conviction?
 
#206
#206
bamawriter said:
How many Baylor players will be arrested by then? They had two within 24 hours of the Ukwuachu new trial ruling.
Click to expand...

I know you have me on ignore, but I do appreciate your fine work in here. :lol:
 
#207
#207
bamawriter said:
How many Baylor players will be arrested by then? They had two within 24 hours of the Ukwuachu new trial ruling.
Click to expand...

There will be no new trial. The DA is appealing the 10th Court of Appeals ruling to the Texas Supreme Court because he knows he can't secure another conviction and his daddy in no longer a justice with the 10th Court to help CYA.
 
#208
#208
BUBear said:
There will be no new trial. The DA is appealing the 10th Court of Appeals ruling to the Texas Supreme Court because he knows he can't secure another conviction and his daddy in no longer a justice with the 10th Court to help CYA.
Click to expand...

That didn't answer my question. I'll put the over/under at 3.5 more arrests by then. Whatcha got?
 
#209
#209
I'm confused. The quoted said he wasn't "entitled to a new trial". How is that a victory for Elliott? And while I'm confused, why is our resident Baylor fan happy at the possibility? Do you really believe he's innocent or have you sunk to the level of the people that wanted OJ to get away with it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#210
#210
butchna said:
I'm confused. The quoted said he wasn't "entitled to a new trial". How is that a victory for Elliott?
Click to expand...

This is the kind of ruling that a DA expects when the judge is his former law partner. Amazing that everyone in the courthouse, excluding Elliott and his family, knew that the defense attorney (Jason Darling) was a former McLennan County ADA. The Elliott family found out only after the fact.

There's a reason I bolded the "without explanation".
 
Last edited:
#211
#211
BUBear said:
This is the kind of ruling that a DA expects when the judge is his former law partner. Amazing that everyone in the courthouse, excluding Elliott and his family, knew that the defense attorney (Jason Darling) was a former McLennan County ADA. The Elliott family found out only after the fact.

There's a reason I bolded the "without explanation".
Click to expand...

Prosecutors enter defense practice all the time. The money is much better. They tend to be valuable assests as they know how the State's attorneys operate. There is no conflict of interest unless the attorney actually worked on the case in question before entering private practice. If he had, he and the DA will both be disbarred as it's a serious ethical violation. Given that the motion was denied with no commentary, it is a safe bet that there is no conflict.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#213
#213
bamawriter said:
Prosecutors enter defense practice all the time. The money is much better. They tend to be valuable assests as they know how the State's attorneys operate. There is no conflict of interest unless the attorney actually worked on the case in question before entering private practice. If he had, he and the DA will both be disbarred as it's a serious ethical violation. Given that the motion was denied with no commentary, it is a safe bet that there is no conflict.
Click to expand...
Thank you Nancy Grace. Now explain Mike Nifong to us.

Have you met the Reynas ( Felipe and Able) or the Johnsons (Judges Joe and Matt...54th District Court) before? I have. Please explain them to us.
 
Last edited:
#214
#214
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#215
#215
#216
#216
BUBear said:
Except, now the Texas Rangers are snooping around Reyna's office and daddy Felipe is no longer on the 10th to protect baby boy.
Click to expand...

The panel that heard Elliott's appeal was composed of Gray, Davis, and Scoggins. Where is the conflict?

But back to my question: why are you quoting a 3 year old article? Did it pop up on a BU message board and you simply ran with it without checking the date?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#223
#223
Weirdest legal analysis since Charlie Manson represented himself. :blink:
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top