The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
LA Judge texts DA friend to tell Prosecutor to call witness who heard D confess
| hairraiser toaster | 11/13/25 |
| House-broken Pink Market | 11/13/25 |
| hairraiser toaster | 11/13/25 |
| hairraiser toaster | 11/13/25 |
| Excitant church halford | 11/13/25 |
| hairraiser toaster | 11/13/25 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: November 13th, 2025 11:50 AM Author: hairraiser toaster Murder conviction was reversed yesterday per the AG's concession that it's structural error: https://www4.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B335084.PDF
Apparently this judge was censured, but not removed from office - interesting stuff in the order: https://cjp.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/40/2024/05/Cole_DO_Censure_Stip_05-29-24.pdf |
Date: November 13th, 2025 12:28 PM Author: House-broken Pink Market Not a lawfag. So Rockhill's bombshell communication to bailiff was about how he didn't shoot anyone? Sounds like it was all Primo. Why are they all up Rockhill's ass (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5797224&forum_id=2Ã#49426630) |
 |
Date: November 13th, 2025 12:54 PM Author: hairraiser toaster This is explained later in the opinion:
According to Smalls, Rockhill told him that he was involved in a plan with “the ladies and Primo” (i.e., Louie) to “beat up and rob[]” Matthews. Rockhill further said that Primo departed from the plan and shot Matthews. These alleged statements are inconsistent with Rockhill’s testimony at trial. Rockhill testified that he was present at the scene of the shooting only because he planned to “retrieve the scooter and just leave.” He also testified that he did not know why Louie was present at the scene and that he had no prior communications with Louie. Consequently, had Smalls testified, his testimony would have impeached Rockhill’s testimony and substantially undermined both Rockhill’s credibility and his substantive defense. |
|
Date: November 13th, 2025 5:43 PM Author: hairraiser toaster (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5797224&forum_id=2Ã#49427889) |
|
Date: November 13th, 2025 6:05 PM Author: Excitant church halford Why didn't the prosecution just call the damn witness and not say anything about the judge's communication? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5797224&forum_id=2Ã#49427956) |
|
Date: November 13th, 2025 7:42 PM Author: hairraiser toaster Prox bro would have an ethical duty to disclose that to the defense. Not worth risking getting sanctioned / disciplined / disbarred trying to get a minor leg up in a murder trial where you think you've got the jury on your side and won the case anyway. And I assume the prox bro didn't call the damn witness -- even without the judge emailing her friend in the DA's office -- for the same reason, i.e., they thought they had the case won without this witness and didn't want to create a potential appellate issue for the defense. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5797224&forum_id=2Ã#49428367) |