00:04 - >>MY NAME IS STEVE FINN SAYS

00:05 - YOU KNOW, I'M AN ATTORNEY IN

00:07 - EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA. WITH ME

00:09 - IS ROSE AND JOSEPH AN ATTORNEY

00:10 - FROM EASTERN

00:11 - PENNSYLVANIA WHERE PROUDLY FROM

00:13 - NORTHAMPTON COUNTY AND WE'RE

00:14 - HERE TO PROVIDE YOU THE

00:16 - INTRODUCTION AND TO PROVIDE

00:18 - INFORMATION REGARDING THE

00:19 - PENNSYLVANIA

00:19 - SUPERIOR COURT. TODAY WE'RE

00:22 - GOING TO HEAR ARGUMENT ON A

00:24 - SERIES OF CASES THAT THE

00:25 - SUPERIOR COURT IS GOING TO

00:26 - HEAR. IT'S OF NOTE FOR BOTH OF

00:28 - US BOTH ATTORNEY JOSEPH NYE WHO

00:30 - COME FROM NORTHAMPTON COUNTY

00:31 - THAT THIS IS THE FIRST TIME

00:33 - THAT PRESIDENT JUDGE JACKIE

00:34 - PANELLA FROM NORTHAMPTON COUNTY

00:36 - WILL BE SITTING AS PRESIDENT

00:37 - JUDGE. I THIS IS AN AND BANKED

00:39 - PANEL ME THE ENTIRE.

00:42 - COURT WILL BE SITTING IN

00:43 - HEARING

00:43 - THESE ARGUMENTS THE

00:45 - PENNSYLVANIA SUPERIOR COURT

00:46 - HEARS A SERIOUS OF APPELLATE

00:48 - ISSUES MEANING THAT CASES THAT

00:49 - HAVE GONE FROM THE TRIAL COURT.

00:51 - OUR THEN APPEALED. AND

00:52 - IT HEARS THE CASE IS CRIMINAL

00:54 - MATTERS, CIVIL MATTERS AND

00:56 - OTHER TYPES OF MATTERS.

00:58 - WILL PROVIDE SOME INFORMATION

01:00 - WITH REGARD TO EACH OF THE

01:01 - CASES WITH REGARD TO THE FIRST

01:02 - CASE A TURN IT OVER TO ATTORNEY

01:04 - JOSEPH FIRST CASE IS

01:05 - COMMONWEALTH VERSUS PEREZ THIS

01:07 - COMES OUT OF THE COURT OF

01:08 - COMMON PLEAS OF

01:09 - PHILADELPHIA COUNTY. AND IT'S

01:10 - NOTEWORTHY BECAUSE THE ARGUMENT

01:12 - IS MADE BY THE COMMONWEALTH.

01:14 - >>THAT THERE IS A LOCAL

01:15 - CRIMINAL RULE IN PHILADELPHIA

01:17 - COUNTY WHICH IS 5.20 H

01:19 - WHICH IS UNIQUE IN WHEN IT

01:20 - DEALS WITH 3 RESTING OF A

01:22 - SUSPECT AND IN SUPPORT OF THE

01:24 - ARGUMENT THAT IT'S A FINAL

01:25 - ORDER. THE FACTS OF THE CASE

01:27 - ARE AS FOLLOWS IN AUGUST OF

01:29 - 2016 UP HELLY WAS INVOLVED IN A

01:32 - BAR FIGHT

01:33 - THERE ARE SEVERAL FIGHTS THAT

01:34 - NIGHT AND DURING ONE OF THE

01:35 - FIGHTS. THE VICTIM WAS STABBED

01:36 - IN THE NECK AND

01:37 - SUBSEQUENTLY DIED. UP HELLY WAS

01:40 - SEEN DURING ONE OF THE FIGHTS

01:43 - AS MAKING OUR MOVEMENT TOWARD

01:44 - THE AREA WHERE THE VICTIM'S

01:46 - WOUNDS WAS FOUND SUBSEQUENTLY

01:48 - THE UP HELLY WAS FOUND WITH

01:50 - BLOOD ON HIS SHIRT AND HE

01:51 - DISCARDED THAT IN THE BATHROOM.

01:53 - HE ALSO GAVE UP FALSE

01:55 - INFORMATION TO THE POLICE

01:56 - INITIALLY AND HE ALSO TRIED TO

01:58 - LEAVE THE BAR WITHOUT PAYING

01:59 - THE TAB. HE WAS CHARGED IN

02:01 - FEBRUARY OF 2017

02:03 - WITH FIRST-DEGREE MURDER AND

02:05 - POSSESSION OF AN INSTRUMENT OF

02:06 - CRIME. SUBSEQUENTLY, THERE WAS

02:09 - THE FIRST PRELIMINARY HEARING

02:10 - AND THE CHARGES WERE DISMISSED

02:12 - AGAINST HIM BECAUSE OF THE LACK

02:13 - OF EVIDENCE THE CALM OF FREE

02:15 - FILED THE CHARGES THERE WAS A

02:16 - SECOND PRIMARY HEARING AND

02:18 - AGAIN THE CHARGES WERE

02:19 - DISMISSED FOR LACK OF EVIDENCE

02:21 - THE COMMONWEALTH THEM FILED A

02:22 - MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION THE

02:25 - LOWER COURT DENIED THAT MOTION.

02:27 - THE CALM OF THEM FILED A TIMELY

02:28 - APPEAL TO THE

02:30 - SUPERIOR COURT AND THAT IS THE

02:31 - CASE AT THE SUPERIOR COURT WILL

02:32 - CONSIDER TODAY.

02:34 - THE PRIMARY ISSUE ON THE

02:36 - ARGUMENT IS WEATHER

02:38 - THE ORDER THAT THE COMET THE

02:40 - PEEL FROM HIS FINAL ORANGE LOCK

02:42 - A TORY THAT IS THE TRIAL COURT

02:44 - DECIDED TWICE

02:45 - THAT THEY'VE FAILED TO

02:47 - ESTABLISH OF PRIME FACIA CASE

02:49 - AGAINST THE PELLEY AND

02:50 - DISMISSED THE CHARGES

02:51 - THAT ONLY FINAL ORDERS CAN BE

02:53 - APPEALED TO SUPERIOR COURT

02:55 - ATTORNEY CONFUSING HAD GIVEN

02:56 - YOU SOME INFORMATION ABOUT THE

02:57 - TYPES OF CASES

02:58 - THAT ARE APPEAL TO THE SUPERIOR

03:00 - COURT BUT THE ORDER HAS TO BE

03:01 - FINAL AND NOT INTERLOCK A TORY,

03:03 - A FINAL ORDER IS ONE WHERE IT

03:05 - DISPOSES OF ALL THE PARTIES OF

03:07 - THE CLAIMS OR IS DEFINED IN THE

03:09 - STATUE TO BE A FINAL ORDER

03:11 - OR IS ENTERED AS A FINAL ORDER

03:13 - IN TRIAL COURT PROCEEDINGS.

03:15 - USUALLY WHEN CASES WHERE

03:17 - CHARGES ARE DISMISSED AND

03:19 - THE PELLEY IN THIS CASE THE

03:21 - UP HELLY THEY REFILE THE

03:23 - CHARGES AND THE

03:24 - COMMONWEALTH ARGUES THAT THIS

03:26 - IS A FINAL ORDER THAT THEY WERE

03:27 - NOT ABLE TO REFILE THE CHARGES

03:29 - BECAUSE OF THIS PECULIAR RULE

03:32 - THAT HE SAYS IS A PECULIAR ROLE

03:34 - IN PHILADELPHIA, WHICH IS RULE

03:36 - 5.20 H WHICH DEALS WITH THE

03:39 - CRIMINAL COURT AND

03:40 - HOW YOU DEAL WITH THE CASE ONCE

03:41 - A DEFENDANT IS REARRESTED THE.

03:45 - UP HELLY ARGUES THAT THE COURT

03:47 - WAS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT IN MIND

03:49 - TWICE

03:49 - THE PLUMBING ARE HEARING INTO 9

03:52 - AND DISMISSING THE CHARGES

03:53 - BECAUSE OF A LACK OF EVIDENCE

03:55 - THEY SAY THIS IS NO DIFFERENT

03:56 - THAN ANY OTHER TRADITIONAL

03:57 - CASE. THE COMET HAD THE RIGHT

03:59 - TO REFILE THE CHARGES AND TRY

04:01 - AGAIN TO PRESENT EVIDENCE TO

04:03 - THE COURT IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH

04:05 - A PRIMA FACIA CASE

04:06 - THE PRIME FACIA CASE IS

04:09 - SOMETHING WHERE ALL THE COMET

04:11 - DOESN'T HAVE TO PROVE

04:12 - THE CASE BEYOND A REASONABLE

04:13 - DOUBT THEY ONLY HAVE TO PROVE

04:15 - EACH ELEMENT OF THE CASE AND

04:17 - THE CHARGES AND THEY HAVE TO

04:19 - PROVE. AND HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE

04:21 - THAT THE ACCUSE PROBABLY WAS

04:22 - THE PERSON THAT COMMITTED IT.

04:24 - SO THAT WHEN IT GOES TO TRIAL

04:25 - IF THAT EVIDENCE IS BELIEVED

04:26 - THE JUDGE WOULD BE WARRANTED IN

04:28 - SUBMITTING THE CASE TO A JURY

04:29 - FOR DETERMINATION. THE COURT

04:32 - ALSO IN ISSUING THE ORDER FOR

04:34 - THE ARGUMENT

04:34 - ALLOWED THE PARTIES TO ALSO

04:37 - ARGUE ANY CASES ARE

04:38 - ANY ISSUES THAT WERE APPEAL

04:40 - BILL AND PRESERVED SO I THINK

04:41 - WE'RE GOING TO HEAR SOME

04:42 - ARGUMENTS ABOUT WHETHER THE

04:44 - COMMONWEALTH DID IN FACT

04:45 - PRESENT A PRIVATE FACIA CASE

04:47 - THAT ANY EITHER THE PLAN MARY

04:49 - HEARINGS TO JUSTIFY CHARGES.

04:52 - IT'S BEEN UPHELD AND NOT

04:54 - DISMISSED.

05:00 - >>ARE IT THEIR ALL OF THE YEAR.

05:06 - WORLD.

05:18 - >>GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE.

05:20 - IT'S SUCH A PLEASURE TO BE IN

05:21 - PHILADELPHIA TODAY, IT'S NOT

05:23 - RAINING AT LEAST IT WASN'T WHEN

05:24 - I

05:24 - WALKED IN AND ALWAYS NICE TO BE

05:27 - HERE AND IN A

05:28 - BIG CITY. IT'S REALLY QUITE A

05:30 - PRIVILEGE FOR ME TO BE SITTING

05:32 - UP HERE WITH MY FELLOW JUDGES

05:34 - FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT.

05:36 - STARTING AT MY IMMEDIATE

05:38 - RIGHT YOUR LEFT IS PRESIDENT

05:39 - JUDGE EMERITUS

05:40 - JOHN BENDER A JUDGE AND LAZARUS

05:43 - JUDGE DEBBIE COUNCILMAN AND

05:46 - JUDGE MARY MURRAY SITTING TO MY

05:48 - LEFT TO YOUR RIGHT

05:49 - IS PRESIDENT EMERITUS SUSAN

05:52 - GANTMAN JUDGE JUDITH OLSON.

05:56 - WAS THERE JUST TO BE A NICHOLS,

05:58 - I'M SORRY WE CAROLYN NICHOLS A

06:01 - JUDGE MARIA MCLAUGHLIN MORNING.

06:05 - IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT JUST

06:06 - A FEW DAYS AGO

06:07 - WE CELEBRATED MEMORIAL DAY HERE

06:10 - IN THE UNITED STATES. I'D LIKE

06:12 - TO ASK ALL OF YOU. JOIN US IN A

06:14 - MOMENT OF SILENCE

06:15 - IN HONOR OF ALL OF THOSE WHO

06:17 - REALLY GAVE US

06:18 - THE FREEDOM TO HAVE JUDICIARY

06:20 - IN PENNSYLVANIA THAT WE WE HAVE

06:22 - TODAY.

06:30 - WELL THANK YOU VERY

06:32 - WE HAVE A PRETTY LONG THIS

06:34 - TODAY, THIS IS OUR AND BACK

06:36 - LIST FOR A BY THE WAY WE ALSO

06:38 - THANK PNC FOR A SHOWING ALL

06:43 - IT'S OUR OBLIGATION AND REALLY

06:45 - OUR DUTY TO INFORM THE PUBLIC

06:48 - OF THE OPERATION OF THE

06:49 - JUDICIAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT

06:50 - STATISTICS USUALLY SHOW THAT

06:53 - THE LEAST UNDERSTOOD BRANCH OF

06:54 - GOVERNMENT IS THE JUDICIAL

06:56 - BRANCH AND WE'RE GOING TO DO

06:57 - OUR BEST TO GET INFORMATION OUT

06:59 - THERE AND ONE OF THE WAYS WE

07:01 - CAN DO THAT IS BY TELEVISING

07:03 - THESE IN BUNK SESSIONS,

07:04 - NOT TYPICALLY, THE SUPERIOR

07:06 - COURT SITS IN 3 JUDGE PANTS

07:09 - AND OF COURSE WE HEAR APPEALS

07:11 - FROM THE TRIAL COURTS AROUND

07:13 - THE STATE THERE A 60

07:15 - JUDICIAL DISTRICTS AROUND THE

07:17 - STATE EVEN THOUGH THERE ARE 67

07:18 - COUNTIES THERE ARE 60 JUDICIAL

07:21 - DISTRICTS AND

07:21 - WE HEAR APPEALS FROM THOSE

07:24 - JUDICIAL DISTRICTS. WE HEAR

07:26 - CASES IN CRIMINAL CASES WE HEAR

07:29 - CIVIL CASES AND WE ALSO HEAR

07:31 - FAMILY LAW CASES

07:33 - ONCE IN A WHILE A CASE GETS

07:35 - CERTIFIED FOR IN BONN 3 THING

07:37 - THAT'S WHEN 9 OF US

07:38 - SICK. THERE ARE MANY DIFFERENT

07:40 - REASONS WHY CASES GET LISTED

07:42 - AND ACTUALLY CERTIFIED BY THE

07:44 - JUDGES AT THE SUPERIOR COURT

07:45 - YOUR INBOX SOMETIMES

07:47 - IT'S ON OUR OWN MOTION. WE SEE

07:49 - AN ISSUE THAT WE FEEL HAS

07:50 - STATEWIDE IMPORTANCE AND WE

07:53 - WANT A LARGER NUMBER OF JUDGES

07:55 - RULING ON

07:56 - SOMETIMES IT'S UP ON A REQUEST

07:57 - BY ONE OF THE LITIGANTS WHO HAS

07:59 - HAD A DECISION MADE MY PANEL

08:01 - BUT WISHES FOR THE ENTIRE COURT

08:03 - TO REVISIT

08:04 - THAT ISSUE AND THEN THERE ARE

08:06 - OTHER WAYS THE CASE CAN GET

08:08 - CERTIFIED ALSO SO WE HAVE 6

08:10 - CASES LISTED FOR TODAY,

08:12 - WE'RE GOING TO BE TELEVISING 5

08:14 - OF THEM THE LAST CASE

08:15 - COMES OUT OF THE JUVENILE COURT

08:17 - DIVISION IN LIGHT OF THE

08:18 - CONFIDENTIALITY OF THE

08:19 - INFORMATION IN THAT FILE.

08:21 - WE WILL NOT BE

08:22 - TELEVISING IT. BUT THE FIRST

08:24 - CASE ON OUR LIST THIS

08:25 - COMMONWEALTH VERSUS

08:26 - UP ARRESTS THE FOR THE CHINESE

08:28 - APPROACH THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY

08:30 - COME UP NOW.

08:32 - WE HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO

08:33 - REVIEW THE BRIEFS IN ARE

08:35 - FAMILIAR. WITH THE PROCEDURAL

08:37 - HISTORY OF THE CASE SO WE DO

08:39 - ASK THAT YOU KEEP YOUR ARGUMENT

08:41 - TO THE TO TO THE LEGAL ASPECTS

08:45 - OF THE ARGUMENTS.

08:46 - WE WOULD RESPECTFULLY REQUEST

08:48 - EVERYONE IN THE COURTROOM T THE

08:49 - SILENCER SHUT OFF YOUR CELL

08:51 - PHONES WHEN THEY GO OFF SAID

08:53 - THEY SOMETIMES DO INTERRUPT THE

08:55 - CHAIN OF THOUGHT OF THE PERSON

08:56 - WHO SPEAKING AT THE TIME.

08:58 - SO WITH THAT WE ARE READY TO

09:00 - HERE FROM THE APPELLANT IN

09:02 - COMMONWEALTH VERSUS PROGRESS.

09:16 - WHEN IT BEFORE

09:17 - I BEGIN AMERIQUEST 3 MINUTES OF

09:19 - REBUTTAL IS FINE. THANK YOU.

09:23 - MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT READ

09:24 - POWERS ACT FOR THE COMMON LAW.

09:26 - THE FIRST QUESTION IN THIS CASE

09:27 - IS WHETHER IN ORDER DISCHARGING

09:29 - A DEFENDANT FOLLOWING A

09:31 - REARREST PRELIMINARY HEARING.

09:33 - >>IN PHILADELPHIA COUNTY

09:34 - CONSTITUTES IN FINAL

09:36 - APPEAL BORDER. OUR SUPREME

09:38 - COURT FIRST HELD THAT

09:40 - IT DID IN COMMONWEALTH VERSUS

09:42 - PRADO WHICH IS ON ALL FOURS

09:44 - WITH THIS CASE. MOST RECENTLY

09:47 - THE

09:47 - WEICHEL PORT RECOGNIZE THE

09:49 - CONTINUING VITALITY OF THE

09:52 - LOCAL PROCEDURAL REGIME AND

09:54 - REAFFIRMED THE COMMONWEALTH

09:56 - RIGHT TO APPEAL. AN ADVERSE

09:59 - DETERMINATION. THE KIND OF

10:00 - ISSUE HERE. THOSE 2 DECISIONS

10:03 - CONTROL THE RESOLUTION OF THIS

10:05 - CASE.

10:08 - NOW THAT IS TURNING IF I MAY TO

10:10 - THE SECOND ISSUE.

10:16 - >>I WANT TO DRAW THIS

10:17 - COURT'S ATTENTION. 2 FOR

10:19 - CRITICAL PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT

10:20 - I BELIEVE

10:21 - DEMONSTRATE THE DEFENDANTS LIKE

10:23 - THE CULPABILITY AND HIS

10:25 - CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT. FIRST

10:26 - AND FOREMOST THE TRIAL COURT

10:29 - AIRED IN OVERLOOKING

10:30 - THE DIRECT. EYEWITNESS

10:32 - TESTIMONY OFFERED BY MARK HE'S

10:34 - NOT THERE. THE BOUNCER AT BLUE

10:36 - MARTINI WHO HAD BROKEN UP THE

10:38 - ALTERCATION BETWEEN THE

10:40 - DEFENDANT AND THE VICTIM

10:41 - APPROXIMATELY 5 MINUTES BEFORE

10:43 - THE FATAL STABBING,

10:44 - SPECIFICALLY MISTER MCNAIR

10:45 - TESTIFIED THAT HE SAW AS HE

10:48 - STEPPED BETWEEN THE 2 MEN TO

10:49 - PRY THEM APART. HE SAW

10:51 - THE DEFENDANT. THEY CAN OUR

10:52 - MOVEMENT TOWARDS THE VICTIM'S

10:54 - NECK. A SPLIT SECOND LATER, THE

10:56 - BLOOD BEGIN SPURTING FROM

10:58 - THAT LOCATION. THE

11:00 - COUNCIL WOULD.

11:01 - >>THAT THERE WAS EVERY LEAVE A

11:02 - WITNESS, A WOMAN CRYING OUT

11:04 - THEY CUT HIM THAT'S CORRECT.

11:06 - AH SO NO ONE,

11:07 - NO ONE, NOT ONE OF THE

11:09 - WITNESSES COME WITH BROUGHT

11:10 - FORTH SAW THE DEFENDANT STAMP

11:13 - THE THE THE THE SCENE THAT'S

11:15 - CORRECT AND EVEN OFFICER STONE

11:17 - WHO CAME LATER IN SEE BLOOD ON

11:20 - THE HANDS OF OF

11:21 - THE DEFENDANT. EVEN THOUGH A

11:24 - BLOODIED SHIRT WAS RICHIE FROM

11:25 - THE BATHROOM, TURN

11:26 - IT OVER. BUT OFF THE STOLEN GO.

11:29 - >>THAT'S CORRECT YOUR HONOR SO

11:32 - MR. MCQUIRE BUT IT DIDN'T THE

11:35 - HE WAS THERE.

11:36 - HE GAVE THE LEAST THE BLOOD IS

11:38 - SURE TO KEEP NO ONE SAW HIM

11:40 - WITH A KNIFE AT ALL. AND THERE

11:42 - WAS BLOOD ON SOMEONE ELSE'S

11:44 - WELL IN THAT'S IN THE AREA

11:46 - BECAUSE CLEARLY AN ARTERY GOT

11:50 - IF THE NEWEST A SPRAY OF BLOOD

11:52 - THAT THOUGH THEY HAD

11:54 - THE YOU

11:55 - HAVE 2 JUDGES IN BOTH THE

11:56 - MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE ANY

11:58 - PROJECTS THAT SAID BASED ON THE

11:59 - CREDIBLE EVIDENCE THAT BASE SAW

12:02 - THEY DID NOT FIND THAT KIND OF

12:04 - FISHY KATYN. NOW JUDGE KEVIN

12:06 - ALWAYS LIKES REMIND ME THAT

12:07 - WEARING ERIC CORRECT IN COURT.

12:09 - WHY SHOULD WE FIND THAT THAT

12:11 - WAS AN ERROR

12:13 - AND WHY SHOULD WE OVER TURN

12:14 - THAT BASED JUST ON THE FACTS

12:16 - BUT WHAT WE SUPPORT THE

12:19 - >>TO ADDRESS BOTH BOTH THIS

12:21 - THAT A TRIAL COURT SAID THAT

12:23 - THE ONLY EVIDENCE CONNECTING

12:26 - THE DEFENDANT TO THE CRIME

12:28 - WAS THAT HE WAS INVOLVED IN A

12:29 - SINGLE PUSHING MATCH WITH THE

12:31 - VICTIM AND THAT HE HAD HE

12:33 - PASSIVELY HAD BLOOD ON HIS

12:35 - SHIRT THAT. BUT THE COURT

12:37 - OVERLOOKED. THE EYEWITNESS

12:38 - TESTIMONY, MISTER MCNAIR SAID

12:40 - THAT THE

12:41 - ONLY PERSON WHO WENT AFTER THE

12:43 - VICTIM IN ANY WAY WHO PROVOKED

12:45 - THE TO ALTER CAISSONS

12:46 - WAS THE DEFENDANT WHAT DOES

12:47 - THAT HAVE TO DO WITH HAVING A

12:49 - NIGHT.

12:50 - WE'RE HONORED THAT THIS COURT

12:51 - CAN RECENTLY AND FOR THAT THE

12:52 - TEMPORAL PROXIMITY OF THE

12:54 - PUSHING MATCHED TO THE

12:55 - IMMEDIACY OF THE WHAT THE GOOD

12:57 - AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT ANOTHER

12:59 - JUDGE LISTENING TO THAT MIGHT

13:01 - NOT HAVE DRAWN A DIFFERENT

13:02 - CONCLUSION.

13:03 - >>WHAT IF THE TRIAL JUDGE AND

13:04 - THIS COURT DID NOT DRAW THAT

13:06 - CONCLUSION.

13:07 - AND THE RECORD SUPPORTS WHAT

13:09 - THE TRIAL COURT DID WHY SHOULD

13:11 - WE OVERTURNED.

13:14 - THE TRAPPERS AFFORDED NO

13:15 - DISCRETION IN HOW IT VIEWS THE

13:18 - EVIDENCE IT MUST BE VIEWED IN

13:20 - LATE MOST REASONABLE TO THE

13:21 - COMMONWEALTH WITH ALL

13:22 - REASONABLE INFERENCE IS.

13:23 - >>AND I BELIEVE IT IS A

13:24 - REASONABLE INFERENCE THAT THE

13:25 - THE VIOLENT OUR MOVEMENT TOWARD

13:27 - THE VICTIM'S NECK AREA WHICH

13:28 - IMMEDIATELY PRECEDED THE BLOOD

13:31 - BURT

13:32 - I'M KEEPING REASONABLY CAN SUE

13:34 - THAT THAT MOVE BEEN CAUSED THE

13:37 - FATAL WOUND.

13:38 - >>AT THE PRELIMINARY HEARING

13:39 - STAGE WHAT'S THE BURDEN

13:41 - OF PROOF. THE COLTS BURDEN IS

13:43 - TO ESTABLISH A PRIMA

13:44 - FACIE EVIDENCE THEY MUST

13:46 - ESTABLISH THAT EACH ELEMENT OF

13:47 - THE CRIME IS SUPPORTED BY AT

13:50 - LEAST SOME EVIDENCE

13:51 - INCLUDING PURELY CIRCUMSTANTIAL

13:52 - EVIDENCE SO YOU DON'T NEED TO

13:54 - PROVE THIS BEYOND A REASONABLE

13:55 - DOUBT

13:56 - AND YOUR BURDEN IS ONLY TO SHOW

13:58 - THAT THERE IS SOME EVIDENCE

14:00 - THAT A FACT FINDER COULD

14:01 - BELIEVE

14:03 - TO SUPPORT THE CRIME CHARGED

14:05 - THAT'S CORRECT OR SO IN

14:06 - ADDITION TO THE

14:07 - EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY. THE

14:09 - DEFENDANT IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING

14:11 - THE STABBING ATTEMPTED TO FLEE

14:12 - THE CLUB HE ACTUALLY STEPPED

14:13 - OUTSIDE HE WENT OUTSIDE ONLY

14:15 - AFTER BEING CONFRONTED WEARING.

14:17 - HIS NOW BLOODSTAINED SHIRT.

14:19 - HE RAN BACK INSIDE THE CLUB

14:20 - TO A REAR BATHROOM WHERE HE

14:22 - DISCARDED THE SHERIFF WASN'T A

14:23 - CROWD OF ABOUT 30 PEOPLE.

14:26 - AROUND THIS UNFORTUNATE

14:27 - INCIDENT AND IT WASN'T LIKE A

14:28 - NICELY WAS JUST THE 2 OF THEM.

14:31 - SO THE EPIDEMIC FIGHTING IT OUT

14:33 - IT WAS IT IS A LARGE GROUP OF

14:34 - PEOPLE. IT WAS IN IRAN ACTUALLY

14:37 - THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THERE

14:38 - WERE ABOUT 30 PEOPLE IN THE

14:39 - CLUB AS A WHOLE BUT THE SMALLER

14:41 - CONFINED WOUND ONLY HAD AT

14:42 - MAXIMUM 15 PEOPLE DIVIDED

14:45 - PEOPLE DIVIDED ROUGHLY EVENLY

14:46 - BETWEEN THE 2 GROUPS

14:48 - AND MISTER VICK TO TESTIFY THAT

14:49 - THE ONLY PERSON THAT HE SAW GO

14:51 - AFTER THE VICTIM IN BOTH

14:53 - PHYSICAL ALTERCATIONS WAS THE

14:54 - DEFENDANT. SO AFTER THE

14:56 - DEFENDANT DISCARDED HIS BUT HE

14:57 - CERTAINLY WAS FORCED TO

14:58 - RETRIEVE IT. HE CAN TRY TO

15:00 - CONCEAL THE EVIDENCE TUCKING

15:02 - INTO A BOOTH WHERE HE SET

15:03 - SO IT'S CONCEAL IT FROM THE

15:05 - INVESTIGATING OFFICERS VIEW AND

15:08 - THEN PHOENIX BECAUSE HE LIED TO

15:10 - THE OFFICER. REPEATEDLY

15:12 - WHEN ASKED WAS HE INVOLVED IN A

15:14 - PHYSICAL ALTERCATION WITH THE

15:15 - VICTIM HE SAID NO. AND WHAT

15:17 - WAS THE SOURCE OF THE BLOOD ON

15:18 - HIS SHIRT,

15:19 - HE SAID. IT WAS THE RESULT OF

15:21 - HIM BEING PUNCHED IN THE FACE

15:23 - OF COURSE THE OFFICERS THAT HE

15:24 - DID NOT SEE ANY BLOOD HE WASN'T

15:25 - THE ONLY WITNESS THAT HAD SOME

15:27 - TROUBLE WITH LYING.

15:28 - MARTINE US THAT'S RIGHT WELL, I

15:30 - MEAN SO

15:31 - MISTER MARTINEZ WAS ON FEDERAL

15:33 - SUPERVISION OF CRIME AND THE

15:34 - FEAR CHANGE THAT IS A STATEMENT

15:36 - BUT HE DID NOT ALTER HIS

15:37 - STATEMENT IN ANY WAY IN TERMS

15:38 - OF WHAT HE SAW WHILE HE WAS

15:40 - INSIDE THE CLUB

15:41 - OR WILL HE WAS OUT HE

15:42 - DIDN'T SEE THIS ENDING STAB

15:44 - ANYONE, YOU KNOW YOU'RE AND NO

15:45 - WEAPON WAS EVER RECOVERED,

15:46 - CORRECT THAT'S CORRECT THE IN

15:48 - THE ENSUING CHAOS, THE

15:49 - DEFENDANT WOULD HAVE HAD AMPLE

15:51 - TIME TO RETRIEVE THE WEAPON.

15:53 - HANNAH TO AN ASSOCIATE TO START

15:55 - IN

15:55 - THE BATHROOM. AS HE DID AS HE

15:58 - ATTEMPTED TO WITH HIS BLOODIED

15:59 - SHIRT. AND SO IN THIS CASE

16:01 - THOUGH NOT BE FOR ONE JUDGE

16:03 - TO 2. IT WAS IN

16:05 - PHILADELPHIA, SO TO THERE

16:06 - WASN'T JUST ONE JUDGE THAT

16:08 - THOUGHT THERE WASN'T ENOUGH

16:08 - EVIDENCE THERE WAS TOO.

16:10 - >>THAT'S CORRECT AND THAT

16:11 - THAT'S DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE

16:12 - PRODUCT CASE.

16:13 - >>NO YOU'RE ACTUALLY A PART OF

16:15 - THIS AND ALSO INVOLVED

16:16 - 2 A PRELIMINARY HEARINGS WHERE

16:19 - THE EVIDENCE WAS THERE WAS ONLY

16:20 - ONE HOMICIDE JUDGE IN THAT

16:21 - COUNTY. THAT'S THAT'S CORRECT

16:23 - AND

16:24 - THAT PRADO WAS THE FIRST CASE

16:26 - TO ACTUALLY.

16:28 - A DEAL WITH THE NEWLY ADOPTED

16:31 - SEASONAL REGIME. THAT LOCAL

16:33 - RULE, 5.28 NOW PROVIDES.

16:36 - AND THERE'S THE TOTALITY OF THE

16:38 - EVIDENCE.

16:40 - VIEWED IN THE LIGHT MOST

16:41 - FAVORABLE TO THE COMMONWEALTH

16:42 - DEMONSTRATES

16:44 - THAT AND TO HAZLETON WAS

16:46 - UNLAWFULLY KILLED. AND THAT THE

16:49 - DEFENDANT WAS LIKELY THE

16:50 - PERPETRATOR OF THIS CRIME.

16:52 - FOR THESE REASONS THE

16:53 - COMMONWEALTH RESPECTFULLY ASKED

16:54 - THAT THE ORDER OF THE LOWER

16:56 - COURT BE REVERSED IN THE CASE

16:57 - REMANDED FOR FURTHER

16:58 - PROCEEDINGS COUNCIL IN ORDER TO

17:00 - PROVE EVEN THE LOW THE LOW

17:01 - STANDARD THE FACIA CASE.

17:04 - >>IN A CASE LIKE THIS IN LIGHT

17:06 - OF THE INJURY WHICH LED TO THE

17:07 - VICTIMS DEATHS.

17:09 - DO YOU HAVE TO HAVE SOME

17:10 - EVIDENCE WHICH PUTS THE WEAPON

17:11 - IN THE HANDS OF THE DEFENDANT.

17:15 - >>THE EVIDENCE CAN BE

17:16 - ESTABLISHED CIRCUMSTANTIAL

17:17 - LEON.

17:18 - SO THAT BE VIOLENT

17:20 - ARMED MOVEMENT IN THE MEDIA USE

17:22 - A VIOLENT ON MOVEMENT VIOLENT

17:23 - IS YOUR WORD RIGHT THAT WE'RE

17:24 - DOESN'T APPEAR IN THE TRANSFER

17:25 - THIS MCNAIR ACTUALLY SAYS THERE

17:27 - WAS A VIA SECOND VIOLENT

17:29 - ALTERCATION BETWEEN THE

17:30 - DEFENDANT THE VICTIM WAS

17:31 - PROVOKED BY THE DEFENDANT AND

17:33 - HE SAYS IMMEDIATELY AS HE'S

17:35 - AFTER HE SAW THAT OUR MOVEMENT.

17:36 - THE VICTIM GRABBED HIS NECK AND

17:38 - WAS THERE WAS PUSHING THAT

17:40 - THERE WAS

17:40 - A STIGMA. MOVEMENT IS PUSHING

17:43 - NET BUSINESS AND YOU KNOW

17:43 - THE KNIFE, THE DOZENS, THE

17:45 - VIOLENCE AND LOOKING THROUGH

17:46 - THE 7677 TO BE A FULL

17:48 - TRANSCRIPT.

17:49 - >>WHEN THEY WERE COMING

17:50 - THE OTHER THAT SECOND TIME WAS

17:52 - THE SPANISH BILL COMING UP THIS

17:53 - EVENING, THE AREA WHERE HIS

17:54 - NECK WAS YES AND THIS IS THE

17:56 - MOVEMENT OF THE SHOWS IN THE

17:57 - BOAT TRIAL JUDGES SAW THE

17:59 - MOVEMENT ON THE VIDEO BECAUSE

18:00 - IT WAS ON THE VIDEO THAT YOU

18:02 - PRESENTED I DON'T BELIEVE THERE

18:03 - WAS VIDEO PRESENTED IN THE

18:05 - SKIES AROUND ON.

18:06 - >>THE KEY HE THOUGHT HE SAW

18:08 - THAT GESTURE FEELS THE PRESENCE

18:10 - OF JUST EXCUSE ME THAT THAT

18:12 - HE WAS THE MCNAIR MADE TO GET

18:13 - MISSED IN COURT THAT'S CORRECT.

18:14 - MISTER MCNAIR DID ATTEMPT TO

18:15 - MAKE GESTURES BUT THAT IS THIS

18:17 - NOT A FIRST DILEMMA, YOUR HONOR

18:18 - WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT GESTURE

18:19 - ACTUALLY WORKING BEEN ABLE TO

18:21 - SEE IF THERE WAS ANYTHING IN

18:22 - THEIR HAND AND HE SAYS HE

18:23 - DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING IN THERE.

18:24 - HE SAID HE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN

18:25 - ABLE TO SEE BECAUSE THEY WERE

18:27 - MOVING SO QUICKLY AND THE LIGHT

18:28 - WAS DIM BUT HE IS DEAF AND

18:29 - SOLVE THE.

18:30 - >>THESE THEY ARE MOVING AT ALL

18:32 - THAT'S CORRECT AND THEN THEN

18:34 - THE THE VIOLENT WOUND.

18:36 - THAT RESULTED FROM I THINK THAT

18:37 - MOVEMENT YOU LET'S FOLLOW UP

18:39 - WITH JUDGE LAZARUS JUST SAYS TO

18:41 - YOU THAT THIS IS WHAT THE

18:42 - TRANSCRIPT SAYS. OKAY WHEN THEY

18:44 - WERE COMING AT EACH OTHER THE

18:45 - SECOND TIME BOB UP A LOT.

18:48 - ANSWER YEAR. IT WAS LIKE THIS

18:51 - WITH

18:51 - DR. MOVEMENT. THE QUESTION OK

18:54 - AT THAT POINT IN TIME WHEN THE

18:55 - SPANISH MAIL WAS COMING AT

18:57 - THE BLACK THE MALES

18:59 - NECK AREA WOULD YOU HAVE BEEN

19:01 - ABLE TO SEE IF THERE WAS

19:02 - ANYTHING IN HIS HAND IF THERE

19:03 - WAS ANSWER NO ON THE

19:06 - NEXT PAGE QUESTION ALL RIGHT SO

19:09 - AT THAT POINT IN TIME THE

19:10 - SECOND MATCH NOW THEY'RE COMING

19:12 - IT'S A LITTLE

19:13 - MORE AGGRESSIVE. THE SPANISH

19:14 - MEAL IS COMING AT THE BLACK

19:16 - MALES NECK AREA AS YOU

19:17 - DESCRIBE, AND THEN YOU SEPARATE

19:19 - THEM RIGHT, YES,

19:20 - AND THEN HOW SOON THEREAFTER

19:22 - DOES THE FEMALE SHOWER SAY THEY

19:24 - STAMPED HIM WHATEVER THE WORDS

19:26 - YOU USED. ANSWER THEY CAUGHT

19:28 - HIM BASICALLY SHE SAID THEY

19:30 - CAUGHT HIM NOT HE

19:31 - CUT HIM. HOW SOON THEREAFTER

19:34 - HAD SHE SAID THAT

19:35 - LIKE I WANT TO SAY PROBABLY

19:37 - LIKE A COUPLE OF SECONDS THE

19:39 - SPREADING YOU AGREE WITH WHAT

19:40 - JUDGE LAZARUS SAID

19:42 - BOTH THE MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE

19:44 - AND THE TRIAL JUDGE SAW THE

19:47 - GESTURE WHICH THE

19:48 - WITNESS MADE DESCRIBING THE ARM

19:51 - AS FOR ECONOMIC WHAT'S OUR

19:52 - STANDARD OF REVIEW OF OF THE

19:54 - TRIAL

19:54 - JUDGE'S DECISION THAT THIS

19:56 - INTERVIEW IS TO KNOW ABOUT THE

19:57 - TRIAL JUDGE IS NOT AFFORDED ANY

20:00 - IN TERMS OF.

20:01 - >>OF CERTAINLY ANY CREDIBILITY

20:03 - DETERMINATIONS BUT ANY FINDINGS

20:04 - OF FACT.

20:05 - >>CAN YOU WANT HOUSE WITHOUT

20:07 - HAVING VIEWED THE OUR MOVEMENT

20:08 - THAT THE WITNESS MADE

20:10 - TO THE BASICALLY DISAGREE WITH

20:12 - THE TRIAL JUDGE IN THE

20:13 - MUNICIPAL COURT JIM'S WELL AS

20:15 - THE TRIAL JUDGE NEVER DISCUSSES

20:17 - THE ARMED MOVEMENT IN ITS

20:18 - OPINION WAS GOING TO GET TO

20:19 - THAT ASLEEP DON'T THINK IT'S

20:21 - SERIOUS THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE

20:22 - DIDN'T EVEN DEEMED THAT

20:23 - TESTIMONY IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO

20:25 - MENTION IN THE TRIAL COURT

20:27 - DECISION THE TRIAL JUDGE DOES

20:29 - NOT HAVE THE DISCRETION TO

20:30 - DISREGARD ANY PIECE OF EVIDENCE

20:32 - YOUR HONOR I SUBMIT THAT

20:34 - THAT DIRECT. EYEWITNESS

20:36 - TESTIMONY

20:37 - COUPLED WITH THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL

20:39 - EVIDENCE OF THE DEFENDANT'S

20:40 - CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT

20:41 - COLLECTIVELY WAS SUFFICIENT TO

20:43 - ESTABLISH THAT THE CAR WAS

20:44 - TRYING TO FISH A CAVE-IN OK

20:46 - HAVE 30 MORE SECONDS IF YOU

20:47 - WANT YOUR 3 MINUTES

20:48 - OF ABOUT.

20:49 - >>I HAVE A YOU SAID SO WE'VE

20:51 - HAD 2 DIFFERENT JUDGES LOOK AT

20:52 - THIS CASE. HOW MANY TIMES HAS

20:54 - THE COMMONWEALTH GET A BITE AT

20:56 - THE APPLE TO GET SOMEBODY TO

20:57 - AGREE WITH THE PART OF PORT

20:59 - TALKS ABOUT 2 BITES AT THE AND

21:01 - I THINK THE 4 CASES ILLUSTRATE

21:03 - OF OF PERHAPS THE.

21:04 - >>THE UPPER LIP UPPER BOUNDS OF

21:06 - THE COMMONWEALTH'S AUTHORITY

21:07 - FOR SAID THAT 3 BITES AT

21:10 - THE APPLE ANYTHING BEYOND THAT

21:12 - WAS ESSENTIALLY HARASSMENT AS A

21:14 - MATTER OF LAW. SO FOR THOSE

21:16 - REASONS THE COMMONWEALTH

21:18 - IN ORDER TO VINDICATE ITS

21:19 - AUTHORITY TO PROSECUTE THE

21:20 - DEFENDANT PURSUE THE ONLY

21:22 - AVENUE AVAILABLE TO IT WHICH

21:24 - WAS AN APPEALING TO THIS COURT

21:26 - SO WOULD YOU ASK US TO FIND

21:28 - THAT THERE IS SUFFICIENT

21:30 - EVIDENCE AND SEND IT BACK

21:31 - FOR TRIAL. YOU'RE NOT ASKING US

21:33 - TO SEND IT BACK FOR A 3RD BITE

21:35 - OF THE APPLE THAT'S CORRECT I.

21:45 - >>NY RESERVE 5 MINUTES

21:46 - FOR REBUTTAL. YOU DON'T GET

21:48 - TO GETTING ITS I GET MORE AFTER

21:53 - MA'AM PLEASE

21:54 - THE COURT TO START WITH THE

21:56 - FIRST ISSUE THAT WE'RE HERE

21:58 - ABOUT IS WHETHER OR NOT

21:59 - THE COMMONWEALTH HAS

22:01 - THE RIGHT TO THIS APPEAL OR

22:03 - WHETHER IT IS AN INTERLOCUTOR A

22:05 - FINAL APPEAL

22:06 - AND I THINK THAT THE ISSUE OF 5

22:09 - 20 H THE

22:10 - LOCAL RULE. I'M REALLY IS

22:12 - CONSISTENT TO AGREE WITH SOME

22:14 - OF THE OTHER CASE LAW WHEN THIS

22:15 - WHAT READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH

22:17 - THE OTHER CASE LAW.

22:19 - 5.20 H WAS

22:21 - PROMULGATED IN 1972 BACK WHEN

22:23 - THE RULES WERE STILL IN THEIR

22:24 - INFANCY AND WAS ADOPTED TO

22:26 - PROTECT THE ACCUSED

22:29 - FROM JUST THE TYPE OF

22:30 - OVERREACHING AND ABUSE

22:33 - OF POWER AND JUDGE SHOPPING

22:34 - THAT I THINK IS GOING ON HERE.

22:36 - THE COMMONWEALTH IS ASKING THIS

22:38 - COURT

22:39 - TO RULE THAT ESSENTIALLY ALL

22:41 - SECOND DISMISSALS FOR LACK OF

22:43 - PRIMA FACIA CASE OR FILE ORDERS

22:45 - AND THEY AUTOMATICALLY THE GO

22:47 - OR APPEAL DOUBLE TO THE

22:48 - SUPERIOR COURT. AND THE

22:50 - COMMONWEALTH AND MAKING THIS

22:51 - ARGUMENT THEY IGNORE THE FACT

22:53 - THAT EVEN THE CASE LAW THAT WAS

22:55 - PROMULGATED DURING THE TIME

22:57 - WHEN THIS RULE WAS

22:58 - WAS ADOPTED. AND I'M REFERRING

23:01 - TO COMMONWEALTH EX

23:02 - REL FITZPATRICK VERSUS MY OUR A

23:06 - R CH I

23:08 - AT 3.92 A SECOND 1346

23:11 - WHICH IS A 1978 SPIRIT

23:13 - COURT CASE. IS ARGUE TALKS

23:16 - ABOUT THE FACT THAT THIS RULE

23:18 - ONLY APPLIES TO A CATEGORY OF

23:20 - CASES TO SERVING

23:21 - SPECIAL SCRUTINY. AND THE

23:24 - SPECIAL SCRUTINY IS CONSISTENT

23:26 - WITH THE RULINGS IN

23:29 - COMMONWEALTH VERSUS AND I HOPE

23:31 - I'M PRONOUNCING

23:31 - THIS RIGHT. CORRECT ME KR ETN

23:35 - WHY AT 88 ATLANTIC SECOND

23:37 - 5.12. AND WITH COMMONWEALTH

23:39 - VERSUS HASS AT 49 PENNSYLVANIA,

23:43 - 5.80. WHICH IS A

23:44 - 1980 CASE. BOTH OF THOSE

23:46 - REQUIRE MORE THAN SIMPLY

23:49 - IT JUST BE A SECOND DISMISSAL

23:51 - IN ORDER TO GET A COUNCIL YOU

23:52 - USE EVEN IF THAT LET'S SAY

23:54 - SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE SAYING

23:55 - APPEAL SHOULD BE QUASHED IT

23:57 - FEELS QUAST THE COMMONWEALTH

23:59 - COULD

23:59 - THEN REFILE.

24:01 - >>IF THEY ARREST AND GO THROUGH

24:03 - THE PROCESS A 3RD TIME SO THAT

24:05 - IS YOUR RIGHT BACK IN LOU.

24:07 - IF IN FACT THEY'RE ABLE TO COME

24:09 - UP WITH

24:09 - SOME ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND

24:12 - THEY CAN DO IT IN GOOD FAITH,

24:13 - THE EVIDENCE THAT THEY

24:14 - INADVERTENTLY DIDN'T PRESENT

24:16 - EVIDENCE THAT THEY DID

24:17 - NOT HAVE THEN THEY ARE ALLOWED

24:19 - UNDER THE RULES AND THERE IS

24:20 - HOW DO WE GET AROUND THAT IF

24:22 - YOU'RE EXCITING TO US OLD

24:24 - PENNSYLVANIA SUPERIOR COURT

24:25 - CASES HOW DO WE

24:26 - GET AROUND. THE MORE RECENT

24:28 - PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT

24:30 - CASES WHICH WE ARE BOUND TO

24:31 - FOLLOW WEICHEL IN PRADO

24:33 - WHAT I THINK THAT THIS IS IS IS

24:35 - CONSISTENT WITH THAT

24:36 - AND THAT IS NOT AN AUTOMATIC

24:38 - WITH SHORT SHOWING OF

24:39 - EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES YOU

24:40 - HAVE TO BUILD A SHOW THAT'S WHY

24:41 - CORRECT THE TALKS ABOUT THE

24:42 - NEED TO PUT A NOTICE

24:44 - HOW THAT IN THE NOTICE OF

24:45 - APPEAL THAT THERE ARE

24:46 - EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND

24:48 - THEY HAVE TO CERTIFY THAT THE

24:50 - ORDER WILL TERMINATE OR

24:51 - SUBSTANTIALLY HAVE TO CAP

24:52 - THE PROSECUTION WILKERSON'S

24:54 - WEIGEL IS VERY CLEAR THAT THIS

24:56 - WOULD BE A FINAL ORDER AND I

24:57 - DON'T KNOW HOW YOU GET AROUND

24:58 - THAT. I WILL ALL

25:00 - MOVE ON.

25:03 - >>WITH REGARD TO THE

25:06 - SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE

25:08 - CLAIM THIS IN AND USE OF

25:10 - DISCRETION. THE ISSUE IS IS

25:12 - THIS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION YOU

25:13 - HAVE NOT JUST ONE JUDGE, BUT TO

25:16 - JUDGE YOU HEARD THIS THEY HEARD

25:17 - IT 3 TIMES BECAUSE JUDGE LEWIS

25:18 - ACTUALLY HER TO THE RE ARGUMENT

25:21 - ON IT A

25:21 - SECOND TIME AND DISMISSED IT

25:23 - AGAINST WAS ACTUALLY 3 TIMES

25:25 - THAT THIS CASE HAS BEEN HEARD

25:26 - THERE'S NO ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE

25:28 - THAT'S

25:28 - BEEN PRESENTED THERE'S NO NEW

25:30 - EVIDENCE MIGHT BE AND I'M NOT

25:33 - GOING TO TO GO OVER ALL OF THE

25:34 - TEST BECAUSE IT'S VERY CLEAR

25:36 - THAT THIS COURT HAS REVIEWED

25:37 - ALL OF THE NOTES THERE WAS

25:38 - ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AT THE

25:39 - SECOND PRELIMINARY HEARING

25:40 - WASN'T THERE THAT WASN'T.

25:42 - IT WAS A SLIGHT MINUTE AND THAT

25:44 - IS OUR STUDENTS THAT WE HAVE

25:45 - ADDITIONAL WITNESS WHO

25:46 - BASICALLY SAID THE SAME SORT OF

25:47 - THING, BUT THE ONE PIECE OF

25:49 - EVIDENCE THAT WAS MISSING FROM

25:50 - BOTH WAS ANYTHING THAT ACTUALLY

25:52 - IDENTIFIED. MISTER PERES AS A

25:55 - PERSON WITH A WEAPON IN A

25:57 - POSITION TO HAVE TO NEED THAT

25:59 - YOU DO NEED THAT IF YOU HAVE A

26:02 - WITNESS SAY.

26:03 - >>THAT THE DEFENDANT AND THE

26:06 - VICTIM WERE IN AN ALTERCATION

26:08 - HE SAW NO ONE ELSE PHYSICALLY.

26:10 - ATTACKING EACH OTHER.

26:12 - AND WITHIN SECONDS OF HIM

26:14 - SPREADING THEM APART. A WOMAN

26:16 - YELLED HE'S CUT ANY GRABBED HIS

26:18 - NECK. HE HIT HIS SHIRT, HE LIED

26:21 - TO

26:21 - THE POLICE ISN'T THAT ENOUGH AT

26:24 - THIS STAGE

26:25 - TO PRESENT TO A FACT FINDER

26:27 - BECAUSE WE'RE NOT HERE TO

26:28 - DECIDE IT BEYOND A REASONABLE

26:30 - DOUBT WE'RE HERE TO SAY THERE

26:31 - SAID

26:31 - IN AAF EVIDENCE FOR A FACT

26:34 - FINDER TO CONSIDER.

26:36 - I THINK THAT THAT FIRST OF ALL

26:37 - HE HE DID NOT.

26:40 - THERE'S NO EVIDENCE NO

26:41 - EVIDENCE FROM EITHER MISTER

26:42 - MARTINEZ OR MISTER MCNAIR.

26:45 - THAT THEY SAW TO IT THAT THEY

26:47 - SAW MISTER PERES

26:50 - IN ANYWHERE IN A POSITION TO

26:51 - HAVE DONE THIS HE WAS IN A

26:53 - GROUP OF PEOPLE ANY OF THE BLUE

26:55 - MARTINI IS A VERY SMALL CLUB IN

26:57 - THE AREA THAT THEY WERE IN IN

26:58 - THE FRONT VESTIBULE AREA IS

27:00 - EVEN SMALLER HAVING 15 PEOPLE

27:03 - AND ALSO THE LIGHTING IS ISSUE

27:05 - THE LIVES OF DEEP BLUE DARK

27:07 - LIGHTING. ALL THERE WITH LOUD

27:09 - MUSIC EVERYTHING GOING ON.

27:11 - THE FEMALE SAYS THEY BECAUSE

27:13 - HIM AND THEY CUFFED HIM.

27:15 - SHE CLEARLY DIDN'T SEE OR THE

27:17 - DEN A FIGHT A HE OR SHE THE CUT

27:19 - THEM AS THEY CUT THEM AS A COW

27:21 - IS GOING TO IT IS IS PERCENT

27:23 - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE EVEN

27:25 - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EARLY AS OR

27:26 - SOMETHING TO USE TO ESTABLISH A

27:28 - PRIMA FACIA CASE EVEN

27:29 - CIRCUMSTANTIAL OR THE FACT THAT

27:31 - THERE WAS ESSENTIALLY A FIST

27:33 - OUT OF BLOOD SPATTER ON MISTER

27:35 - PRESIDENT SHIRT.

27:36 - >>DOESN'T SHOW THAT HE WAS THE

27:38 - PERSON,

27:38 - A FACT WHO DID THE STABBING

27:40 - THERE WAS BLOOD ON THE BOUNCERS

27:42 - ACTUALLY MORE BLOOD ON ONE OF

27:43 - THE

27:43 - BOUNCERS CLOSE AND OTHERS BUT

27:45 - FOUND LITTLE TO HIDE THEIR

27:46 - SHIRT NOW THE BOUNCER DIDN'T

27:48 - LIE ABOUT WHAT HE SAW ARE WARY

27:50 - WAS THE BOUNCER WASN'T INTO

27:52 - ALTERCATIONS WITH THE VICTIM.

27:55 - THESE ARE ALL THE FACTS AND

27:56 - CIRCUMSTANCES THAT I BELIEVE A

28:00 - FACT FINDER MAY NOT.

28:02 - >>GIVE CREDENCE TO BUT

28:03 - SHOULDN'T THE COMMONWEALTH BE

28:04 - GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO

28:06 - PRESENT THAT.

28:06 - >>I THINK IT'S THE FACTS CAN

28:08 - EASILY JUST DISEASE A SHOW THAT

28:09 - HE DID

28:10 - NOT LIE THAT HE WENT OUT OF THE

28:12 - BUILDING BECAUSE THE BOUNCERS

28:14 - WERE CLEARING THE RECORD SHOWS

28:15 - THAT THE BALANCE OF ARE

28:16 - CLEARING THE CLUB.

28:17 - THEY MOVED EVERYBODY OUT TO THE

28:19 - FRONT HE STUCK AROUND

28:20 - THE FRONT. HE DID RUN OFF HE

28:22 - COULD HAVE EASILY OF SCOTT

28:23 - DIDN'T OLD CITY AND RUN OFF.

28:25 - INSTEAD HE SAT THERE BECAUSE HE

28:26 - KNEW HE HAD A $600 HAVE YET TO

28:28 - TO TO PAY. SO HE SAT THERE AND

28:30 - WAITED TO STOOD OUTSIDE UNTIL

28:32 - MISTER BELIEVES MARTINEZ CAME

28:34 - UP TO HIM AND

28:35 - TOUCHED HIM AND THERE'S ONLY

28:37 - AFTER MISTER MARTINEZ PUNCHED

28:38 - HIM THAT HE WENT BACK INSIDE.

28:41 - AND HE SAT DOWN HE SAT DOWN YOU

28:42 - TAKING THE SHIRT OFF IT WAS

28:44 - BLOOD E HE CAME IN THE

28:45 - BATHROOM, HE SAT DOWN HE WAITED

28:47 - WHEN HE WAS ASKED

28:48 - BY A THE BOUNCER, WHERE'S YOUR

28:50 - SHIRT, YOU CAN'T BE IN HERE

28:52 - WITHOUT A SHIRT.

28:53 - HE TOOK THE BOUNCER TO THE

28:54 - BATHROOM TOOK PULLED IT FROM

28:56 - THE TRASH SAID HERE

28:58 - IT IS PUT IT OVER HIS SHOULDERS

29:00 - WENT BACK SAT BACK DOWN NOT

29:02 - WANTING TO WEAR A BLOODIED

29:03 - SHIRT AS MUCH AS IT COULD BE

29:05 - PUT IT ON THE SEAT NEXT TO YOU

29:06 - ARE GIVING US A WONDERFUL

29:08 - CLOSING ARGUMENT IF WITH

29:11 - SPINNING THE FACTS IN LIGHT

29:13 - MOST FAVORABLE TO YOUR CLIENT

29:14 - AS A BRILLIANT DEFENSE LAWYER

29:16 - SHOULD DO. BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT

29:18 - THIS A PART OF THE DAY THE

29:21 - TRIAL OR THE CASE.

29:23 - >>REQUIRES WHAT WE NEED TO DO

29:25 - IS LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE IN THE

29:26 - LIGHT MOST FAVORABLE TO

29:27 - THE COMMONWEALTH AND SEE

29:29 - WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS

29:30 - SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO

29:32 - ESTABLISH EACH ELEMENT OF THE

29:33 - CRIME JUDGE CARE OR NOTICE,

29:35 - SPECIFICALLY QUOTE ANYONE NEAR

29:37 - THE DEFENDANT IF IT'S SQUIRTING

29:38 - OUT OF HIS NET WOULD HAVE

29:39 - GOTTEN BLOOD ON THEM. AND

29:41 - THAT'S AT MARCH 22TH PAGE 40.

29:43 - >>THERE'S ONLY A SMALL AMOUNT

29:45 - OF BLOOD THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL

29:46 - EVIDENCE IS NOT SUFFICIENT IN

29:47 - THIS CASE TO TO MAKE THE BURDEN

29:51 - THAT THE COMET DOES HAVE TO

29:52 - SHOW THAT IT WAS MISTER PRESS.

29:54 - IT'S NOT JUST THAT THEY HAVE TO

29:56 - SHOW THAT EACH OF THE ELEMENTS

29:57 - OF THE OFFENSE BUT

29:58 - THAT MISTER PERES WAS THE ONE

30:00 - WHO COMMITTED IT MASS THE KEY

30:01 - PIECE OF EVIDENCE. THIS MISSING

30:03 - HERE WE DON'T HAVE A SINGLE

30:04 - PERSON WHO CAN YOU DEFINITIVELY

30:06 - SAY. YES I SAW THAT WHEN THE

30:09 - PUSHING MATCHED BY

30:10 - THE WAY BY THE OWNED A MEAN AIR

30:13 - SAID THERE WAS LIKE A LITTLE

30:14 - PUSH MASH A LITTLE DISAGREEMENT

30:16 - THING IT WAS NOT THIS SORT OF

30:19 - VIOLENCE ALSO PATIENTS THAT

30:21 - THE COMMONWEALTH, WHAT HAVE YOU

30:23 - BELIEVE AND JUDGE GARY HART AND

30:25 - JUDGE LEWIS BOTH HEARD BOTH OF

30:27 - THESE WITNESSES DESCRIBE

30:28 - THE NATURE OF THESE LITTLE PUSH

30:30 - IT MATCHES AND THE FACT THAT

30:32 - THAT THERE. ANYONE WHO WAS

30:35 - STANDING

30:36 - CLOSE BY WHEN SOMEONE GETS CUT

30:37 - IN THE SAR IS GOING TO GET

30:39 - BLOOD ON THEM. SO IT'S NOT

30:40 - POSITION THAT THE

30:41 - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE BY

30:42 - ITSELF IS INSUFFICIENT AND

30:44 - WITHOUT A SOME SORT OF

30:45 - IDENTIFICATION WITNESS WHO CAN

30:47 - DEFINITIVELY THE PLACE THE

30:48 - WEAPON IN HIS HAND OR SAID I

30:50 - SAW HIS HAND NEXT TO THE

30:52 - VICTIM SNACK. WE CAN'T MAKE

30:53 - THAT INVITATION FOR THAT JUST

30:55 - FOR A MOMENT THAT WE PUT THE

30:56 - ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY AN

30:58 - ON THE SPOT. SO I THINK IT'S

31:00 - TIME TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT A

31:01 - LITTLE BIT.

31:02 - >>TO THE WITNESS THAT

31:04 - MCNAIR WAS WAS NOT AN EASY

31:06 - WITNESS. HE WAS VERY PARTICULAR

31:07 - WITH THE QUESTIONS AND

31:09 - WOULD REALLY RAISE AN OBJECTION

31:11 - HIMSELF. THE QUESTION WAS

31:12 - PARAPHRASING HIS TESTIMONY

31:14 - INCORRECTLY WHEN

31:16 - HE'S ASKED WAS THE SPANISH MEAL

31:18 - COMING AT THAT THIS EVENT IN

31:20 - THE AREA WHERE HIS NECK WOULD

31:21 - HAVE BEEN YEAH.

31:22 - IT WAS LIKE THIS WITH THE ARMED

31:23 - MOVEMENT, BUT THE NEXT QUESTION

31:25 - OK AT THAT POINT IN TIME WHEN

31:27 - THE SPANISH MALE WAS COMING AT

31:29 - THE BLACK MALES

31:31 - NECK AREA. AND HE DOESN'T

31:33 - OBJECT TO THAT HE MERELY

31:34 - ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS, WE'RE NOT

31:37 - ABLE TO SEE THE OUR MOVEMENT

31:39 - THAT THE

31:39 - WITNESS MADE. BUT LOOK AT THE

31:41 - QUESTION THAT IS ASKED COMING

31:43 - AT THE BLACK MALES

31:45 - NECK AREA. HE DOESN'T SAY I

31:47 - NEVER SAID THAT INSTEAD HE JUST

31:50 - GOES WITH THE QUESTION ISN'T

31:52 - THAT SUFFICIENT TO PUT THE

31:54 - DEFENDANT IN CLOSE PROXIMITY.

31:56 - TO

31:56 - THE VICTIM. THE WOMAN SCREAMING

31:59 - MOMENTS LATER ABOUT THAT HE'S

32:01 - BEEN CAUGHT THE BLOOD ON HIS

32:03 - SHIRT.

32:05 - DOESN'T THAT SATISFY THE PRIME

32:07 - OF FACIA EVIDENCE STANDARD.

32:09 - I THINK THE

32:10 - NON-ANSWER DOESN'T. HEAVY BEEN

32:12 - QUESTIONS SAID YES OR NO THAT

32:15 - OFFICER WOULD HAVE A DEFINITIVE

32:16 - THAT THIS IS A NON ANSWER.

32:17 - >>AND THEN WE LOOK AT SOME OF

32:18 - HIS OTHER ANSWERS.

32:20 - HE SAYS HE DIDN'T SEE ANY

32:22 - WEAPON IMPRESSES HANDS

32:23 - THAT'S OUT. APRIL PAGE 40 TO

32:27 - 5064 AND AGAIN 82 3 V 3.

32:30 - HE SAYS TO BUY THE DIDN'T HEAR

32:33 - OR SEE ANY BROKEN GLASS OR

32:34 - BOTTLES WHICH COULD BE USED AS

32:35 - A WEAPON AND HE DIDN'T EVEN

32:37 - KNOW WHERE THE SPANISH MALE WAS

32:39 - WHEN HE HEARD THE FEMALE SAY

32:41 - THEY CUT HIM.

32:43 - SO HE COULDN'T EVEN PLACE THE

32:45 - SPANISH MAIL IN THE CLOSE

32:47 - PROXIMITY WITH THE DECEIVING AT

32:48 - THE

32:49 - SAME TIME THAT THE FEMALE MAJOR

32:51 - ESCALATION, BUT HE DOES SAY THE

32:52 - INCIDENT HAPPENED VERY QUICKLY

32:54 - BUDDY. HE DOES SAY IT AGAIN ON

32:55 - THE VERY NEXT PAGE OF THE

32:56 - TRANSCRIPT THE QUESTION.

32:58 - >>AMONG OTHER THINGS IS THE

32:59 - SPANISH MAIL IS COMING AT THE

33:01 - BLACK MALES AND NECK AREA.

33:03 - AS

33:03 - YOU DESCRIBED THE WITNESS DOES

33:06 - NOT SAY THAT'S NOT CORRECT OR

33:07 - YOUR YOUR INCORRECTLY

33:09 - PARAPHRASING MY TESTIMONY, THE

33:12 - CROWD, HE DOES NOT CORRECT THE

33:15 - TRIAL JUDGE DOES

33:16 - NOT ADDRESS EITHER POINT THERE.

33:19 - I DON'T THINK THAT THAT ALONE

33:21 - IS SUFFICIENT GIVEN HIS

33:22 - REMAINING TESTIMONY THAT

33:24 - INDICATES CLEARLY THAT HE DID

33:25 - NOT SEE.

33:26 - >>ANYTHING THAT WOULD INDICATE

33:28 - THAT THERE WAS A WEAPON

33:29 - AND THAT THERE COULD BE IN OUR

33:31 - MOVEMENT BY HALF A DOZEN

33:32 - DIFFERENT PEOPLE DURING A

33:33 - PUSHING MATCH, ESPECIALLY IN A

33:35 - SMALL AREA WHERE THERE ARE

33:36 - ABOUT 15 PEOPLE

33:38 - AND IT'S THE CONFUSION

33:40 - AND SHOUTING AND ALSO PEOPLE

33:42 - MAKE ALL SORTS THE HAND

33:43 - MOVEMENTS BUT WITHOUT SAYING

33:44 - SOMETHING IN THAT PERSON'S HAND

33:46 - OR THE HAND IN CLOSE PROXIMITY

33:48 - TO THE NECK. THIS SIMPLY

33:50 - INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO PROVE

33:52 - THAT IT WAS MISTER PREZ IS

33:53 - OPPOSED TO ANY ONE OF THE OTHER

33:54 - 15 POSSIBLY 30 PEOPLE WHO ARE

33:57 - IN THERE.

33:58 - COUNCIL WANTED TO GET BACK TO

33:59 - THE BEGINNING OF YEAR YOU VE

34:00 - STARTED OFF BY SAYING SOMETHING

34:01 - ABOUT ABUSE

34:02 - OF DISCRETION.

34:03 - >>THE COMMONWEALTH HAS US OUR

34:04 - STANDARD OF REVIEW IS DE NOVO

34:06 - CAN YOU JUST ELABORATE ON THAT.

34:09 - IT'S OUR POSITION THAT DECISION

34:11 - TO QUASH A CRIMINAL INFORMATION

34:12 - OR DIAMOND IS WITHIN THE SOUND

34:14 - DISCRETION OF THE LOWER COURT.

34:17 - THERE HAS

34:18 - TO BE.

34:19 - WELL THAT'S THEIR STANDARD OF

34:20 - REVIEW, BUT WHAT OUR STANDARD

34:21 - OF

34:24 - YOURS IS A NOBLE OF THEIRS BUT

34:26 - UNDERSTAND THAT WHEN MY POINT

34:27 - WAS THAT MY THE POINT WAS

34:31 - BOTH EXTENT THAT.

34:35 - THERE WAS NO CLEAR LOSE NO

34:37 - SHOWING OF THAT THEIR

34:39 - DETERMINATION IS TOUCHED YOUR

34:40 - HEART AND JUST LEWIS'S

34:41 - DETERMINATIONS HAVE ANY SORT OF

34:43 - ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN THEY

34:44 - REVIEWED THE INFORMATION.

34:47 - THEY LOOKED AT IT THEY REVIEWED

34:48 - IT THEY CONSISTENTLY BOTH

34:50 - CONSISTENTLY FOUND THAT THERE

34:52 - WAS INSUFFICIENT PRIMA

34:53 - FACIA CASE. SO THAT THAT'S THAT

34:55 - WAS MY POINT AND BY THAT IN OUR

34:56 - LIVES AND OUR TICKET LEE ARE

34:58 - YOU.

34:59 - >>YOU CAN SEE THAT WE'RE

35:01 - LOOKING AT THIS THAN OH YES OF

35:02 - COURSE ANDERSON IS IF WE'RE

35:04 - SITTING HERE AT THE PLUM AN

35:06 - AREA HERE OF COURSE, BUT MY

35:08 - POINT IS IS THAT WHEN THE

35:09 - JUDGES WHEN THE JUDGE LEWIS

35:11 - REVIEW, THIS IS WHAT HE WAS

35:13 - SITTING AS AND HIS WHAT WAS IN

35:14 - HIS BRAIN.

35:15 - >>AS HE'S REVIEWING THE

35:16 - MATERIAL.

35:18 - >>AND HOLD UP JUST ONE MOMENT

35:19 - AS SHE OKAY WITH THE MICROPHONE

35:21 - DO WE NEED TO FIX THE

35:22 - MICROPHONE FOR GOOD.

35:24 - >>WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S A

35:25 - PROPER OFFICIAL QUITE CASE IS A

35:27 - QUESTION OF LAW.

35:30 - IT'S NOT SO MUCH AN ABUSE OF

35:32 - DISCRETION ARE MISREADING THE

35:33 - FACTS QUESTION OF LAW WHETHER

35:35 - OR NOT THERE WAS A LEGAL ERROR

35:37 - AS WE HAVE TO DETERMINE WHETHER

35:39 - JUDGE STREET SHEILA WAS MADE IN

35:41 - A LEGAL ERROR HEARD IT. IT WAS

35:43 - NO PRIMAL

35:44 - FACIA CASE. JUDGE LEWIS MADE

35:46 - DETERMINATIONS OF CREDIBILITY

35:48 - JUST LIKE JUST THEY'RE HARDY

35:49 - DETERMINATIONS OF CARE

35:50 - CREDIBILITY BASED ON WHAT THEY

35:52 - SOUGHT ITS LOUIS.

35:53 - >>SAW THE SAME PLUS MORE THAN

35:56 - JUDGE THEY'RE HAR SAW. AND THEN

35:59 - WE HEARD THE ARGUMENT ON IT.

36:01 - AND BASED ON BOTH OF THOSE

36:03 - BOTH JUST ARE HURT AND JUST

36:04 - LOSE TWICE SAID THERE WAS NOT

36:06 - SUFFICIENT EVIDENT, NOT KNOW WE

36:08 - WE GET THAT, BUT IT'S OUR

36:09 - POSITION WE LOOKING AT IS

36:11 - WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A LEGAL

36:12 - ERROR IN DETERMINATION THAT

36:14 - THERE WAS NO PROBLEM RATHER

36:15 - THAN THE OVERTURNING A FACTUAL

36:17 - DETERMINATION THAT SHE MADE

36:18 - WHAT LEGAL AIR COULD THE JUDGE

36:20 - HAVE COMMITTED IN DETERMINING

36:22 - THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE

36:24 - WILL BE LEGAL HERE IN

36:26 - FIRST PLACE. YOU SAID THEY MADE

36:28 - CREDIBILITY TERMINATION IS THEY

36:30 - DON'T MAKE CREDIBILITY TERM AND

36:31 - THIS IS NOT A LOT OF ABILITY

36:32 - DAY EXCEPT.

36:34 - >>RIGHT

36:34 - THE EVIDENCE IN THE LIGHT MOST

36:36 - FAVORABLE TO THE SO THERE'S WHO

36:39 - CARES WITH THEIR CREDIBILITY

36:40 - DETERMINATIONS ARE IT'S AS IF

36:42 - WE'RE SITTING IN THEIR SEAT.

36:44 - >>HOWEVER THEY VIEWED THE

36:45 - WITNESSES SPEAKING AS THE

36:47 - WITNESSES WERE SPEAKING SO

36:48 - THEY'RE IN A BETTER POSITION IS

36:49 - ALWAYS BETTER THIS IS A BETTER

36:51 - POSITION TO HELP AND THE

36:53 - CREDIBILITY AND IF

36:54 - THESE INDIVIDUALS OUR A DEEP

36:55 - RED ANY A GOOD TIME IS UP TO 3

36:57 - MONTHS. YOU HAVE 3 MINUTE

36:59 - SUBORBITAL.

37:03 - UNLESS THERE ARE ANY MORE

37:04 - QUESTIONS FROM THE COURT I'M

37:05 - PREPARED TO SMITH AND THE

37:06 - BRIEF. ANYONE THANK YOU VERY

37:09 - MUCH. THANK YOU.

37:13 - THE NEXT CASE THE COURT IS

37:14 - GOING TO CONSIDER IS THE

37:15 - COMMONWEALTH VERSUS

37:16 - LOOK ON THIS ALSO CRIMINAL CASE

37:18 - AND IT ALSO COMES OUT OF THE

37:19 - COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF

37:20 - PHILADELPHIA.

37:22 - >>ON 9/11/2011 THE UP

37:24 - HELLY LOG-ON AND HIS

37:26 - CO-CONSPIRATOR WERE MASK OVER

37:27 - THEIR FACE WHICH PARTIALLY

37:29 - COVER THEIR FACE THEY FORCED

37:31 - ONE OF THE VICTIMS WHO IS IN

37:32 - A WHEELCHAIR WITH A GUN INTO

37:34 - THE HOME HE SHARED WITH HIS

37:35 - ELDERLY GRANDMOTHER. ONCE THEY

37:37 - GOT THE INDIVIDUAL INTO THE

37:40 - HOME WITH HIS GRANDMOTHER.

37:42 - THEY KATE TIM AND BOUND HIM

37:44 - TOO. HIS CHAIR AND THEY ALSO

37:46 - BOUND HIS GRANDMOTHER TO

37:48 - A CHAIR. THEY'VE ROBBED THEM

37:50 - AND THEY TOOK MONEY CELL

37:52 - PHONES, LICENSED CAR KEYS AND

37:54 - HOUSE KEYS. THEY THEY THEN LEFT

37:57 - THE HOUSE ONLY AFTER USING

37:59 - THE GUN TO REPEATEDLY HIT THE

38:02 - GENTLEMAN IN THE WHEELCHAIR.

38:03 - ON THE HEAD.

38:05 - THE MIGHT OF THE VICTIMS WAS

38:06 - ABLE TO ESCAPE AND CALL SOMEONE

38:08 - FOR ASSISTANCE AFTER THEY LEFT.

38:10 - ON

38:12 - 3/10/2012

38:13 - UP HELLY WAS ARRESTED AND

38:14 - CHARGED WITH 24 FENCES. THE

38:15 - MOST NOTABLE ONES BEING 2

38:17 - COUNTS OF ROBBERY. ONE COUNT OF

38:19 - ROUTE ONE COUNT OF BURGLARY.

38:20 - ONE COUNT OF AGGRAVATED ASSAULT

38:22 - AND 2 VIOLATIONS OF THE UNIFORM

38:24 - FIREARMS ACT. ON

38:26 - DECEMBER 5TH

38:28 - 2012 THE MATTER PROCEEDED TO

38:29 - TRIAL AND THE TRIAL READY

38:31 - CONFERENCE AND JURY SELECTION.

38:33 - ON 12/6/2012.

38:35 - PRIOR TO THE SAY 2016. BOTH OF

38:39 - THOSE DATES FOR 2016. PRIOR TO

38:41 - THE OPENING ARGUMENTS

38:42 - THE COMMONWEALTH INDICATED THAT

38:44 - IT WAS NOT READY TO PROCEED

38:45 - BECAUSE THE CLAIM COMPLAINING

38:47 - WITNESSES WERE

38:47 - NOT PRESENT THE CALMEST

38:49 - ATTORNEY INDICATED SHE HAD MADE

38:50 - ARRANGEMENTS FOR THEM TO BE

38:52 - TRANSPORTED TO THE COURTHOUSE

38:54 - BECAUSE ONE VICTIM WAS

38:55 - DISABLED. HOWEVER WHEN SOMEONE

38:57 - MUCH PICK THEM UP THEY WERE

38:59 - NOT PRESENT. SHE ASKED THE

39:00 - COURT FOR ADDITIONAL TIMES THAT

39:02 - SHE COULD LOCATE THE

39:03 - COMPLAINING WITNESSES. THE

39:04 - COURT GRANT THAT REQUEST AT

39:07 - 11:45AM THE COMMONWEALTH

39:09 - REPRESENTED TO THE COURT THAT

39:10 - THEY HAD FOUND THE

39:11 - COMPLAINING WITNESSES THAT THEY

39:13 - WERE ON THE WAY TO

39:14 - THE COURTHOUSE AND SOMEONE WAS

39:16 - TAKING BRINGING THEM TO THE

39:17 - COURTHOUSE THAT HAVE BEEN SENT

39:19 - BY THE COMMONWEALTH TO PICK

39:20 - THEM UP.

39:22 - THE JUDGE ASKED IF SHE WAS

39:24 - READY TO PROCEED MEANING THE

39:25 - COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY AT THAT

39:26 - TIME. THE COMMONWEALTH ATTORNEY

39:28 - SAID THAT SHE WAS READY TO

39:29 - PROCEED TO CUT BEGIN WITH HER

39:31 - OPENING ARGUMENTS SHED ONE

39:33 - WITNESS AND AFTER THE OPENING

39:35 - ARGUMENT AMONG WITNESS YOU

39:36 - ANTICIPATE IT OR WITNESS WOULD

39:37 - BE THERE AND THE

39:38 - COMPLAINING WITNESSES THE JUDGE

39:40 - TO US PONTE A NOT AT THE

39:41 - REQUEST OF THE DEFENSE.

39:43 - BUT ON HER OWN THE JUDGE

39:44 - DISMISSED THE CHARGES WITHOUT

39:46 - PREJUDICE. THE ISSUE IN THIS

39:47 - CASE AND HENRI ARGUMENT IS THE

39:50 - FINAL ORDER. WHAT HAPPENED WAS

39:52 - THE COMMONWEALTH ATTEMPTED TO

39:54 - AMEND THEIR BELOVED

39:55 - INFORMATION. SO THAT THEY COULD

39:57 - REFILE THE CHARGES THEY WERE

39:58 - NOT GRANTED THE RIGHT TO DO SO

40:00 - THEY FILED A MOTION TO AMEND

40:02 - THAT WAS DENIED. THEY FILED AN

40:04 - APPEAL TO THE SUPERIOR COURT ON

40:06 - THE BASIS THAT THE COURT HAD

40:07 - DISMISSED THE CHARGES AGAINST

40:09 - THE UP HELLY

40:11 - AGAIN THIS IS AN ISSUE ABOUT

40:12 - FINAL ORDER AND WHETHER THIS IS

40:14 - A FINAL ORDER AND TO THE

40:15 - COMMONWEALTH CORRECTLY APPEAL

40:17 - THE ORDER WAS AN INTERIM WALK A

40:18 - TORY, THE COMMONWEALTH ARGUES

40:20 - THAT IT IS A FINAL ORDER

40:22 - BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO

40:24 - REFILE THE CHARGES AT THE TIME

40:26 - THE CHARGE WAS DISMISSED THE

40:27 - STATUE OF LIMITATIONS HAD

40:28 - ALREADY EXPIRED. THE

40:30 - COMMONWEALTH ALSO ARGUED THAT

40:33 - HE WAS 8. UNFAIR SANCTIONS AND

40:36 - EXTREME SANCTION

40:37 - TO IMPOSE ON THE COMMONWEALTH

40:40 - DISMISSING THE CASE BECAUSE THE

40:41 - COMPLAINING WITNESS'S RELATE.

40:43 - THEY ARGUE IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE

40:45 - THAT THEY DISMISS THE CHARGES

40:47 - AND NOT THE APPROPRIATE REMEDY.

40:48 - THE. PELLEY ARGUES THAT IT WAS

40:51 - APPROPRIATE THE COURT WAITED

40:53 - FOR THE COMPLAINING WITNESSES

40:55 - THEY WERE NOT PRESENT THEY WERE

40:56 - TO BE PRESENT MY 30TH IN THE

40:58 - MORNING AND THEY WERE NOT

40:59 - IT WAS INTO THIS QUESTION OF

41:00 - THE COURT TO DISMISS THE

41:01 - CHARGES AND THEY DID NOT ABUSE

41:03 - THAT DISCRETION.

41:04 - THEY ALSO ARGUED THAT IT

41:06 - WAS NOT AN ARGUMENT THAT HAD

41:09 - COULD BE MADE BY THE

41:09 - COMMONWEALTH ABOUT

41:12 - THE STATUE OF LIMITATIONS HAVE

41:13 - AN EXPIRED THERE FOR

41:15 - IT WAS UNFAIR AND TOO STRONG A

41:17 - SANCTION TO IMPOSE AGAINST THE

41:18 - COMMONWEALTH. THE UP HELLY

41:20 - ARGUES

41:20 - THAT THAT ARGUMENT WAS WAIT

41:23 - BECAUSE THE COMMONWEALTH TO NOT

41:24 - RAISE THAT ARGUMENT IN THE

41:25 - LOWER COURT AND DID NOT RISE

41:27 - RAISE ARGUMENT ON THE NOTICE OF

41:28 - APPEAL.

41:30 - LET'S GO TO THE COURTROOM AND

41:31 - LISTEN TO THE ARGUMENTS ON

41:32 - THESE ISSUES.

41:33 - WE ARE READY AGAIN IN HERE

41:35 - FIRST FROM THE DISTRICT

41:36 - ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IN

41:37 - PHILADELPHIA.

41:38 - >>THE MORNING WHEN BOURKE WE

41:41 - HAVE TO COME

41:44 - RESPECT TO IRAN AS I'D LIKE TO

41:45 - REQUEST A 3 MINUTES FOR VITAL

41:46 - THE FINANCE FIND.

41:48 - THE OWNERS IN THIS CASE, THE

41:49 - TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS

41:50 - DISCRETION BY DISMISSING

41:52 - SERIOUS CHARGES AGAINST THIS

41:53 - DEFENDANT.

41:54 - >>AFTER THE PROSECUTOR

41:55 - UNEQUIVOCALLY INFORM THE COURT

41:57 - THAT SHE WAS READY TO BEGIN TO

41:58 - PRESENT THE COME

41:59 - WAS EVIDENCE OUR CONTENTION

42:01 - HERE IS NOT THE

42:02 - TRIAL COURT LAX DISCRETION TO

42:04 - OVERSEE THE NORMAL OPERATIONS

42:05 - OF HIS OR HER COURTROOM.

42:07 - IN FACT IN THIS CASE, THE TRIAL

42:09 - COURT GRACIOUSLY PERMITTED THE

42:10 - COMMONWEALTH, THE COUPLE OF

42:11 - HOURS TO SEEK OUT THESE

42:13 - WITNESSES WHEN THEY HAD NOT

42:14 - ARRIVED AT THEIR

42:14 - SCHEDULE TIME.

42:15 - >>COULD WE JUST REVIEWED THE

42:16 - FACTS ON JANUARY 20TH 2012 THE

42:19 - CRIMINAL COMPLAINT WAS FILED

42:20 - AGAINST THE DEFENDANT. ON

42:23 - DECEMBER FIT.

42:26 - 2017 THE

42:27 - 2016. THE CASE PROCEEDED TO

42:29 - TRIAL IF THE JURY WANT HERE IN

42:32 - THE SELECTION WAS COMPLETED

42:33 - DECEMBER 5TH, THE NEXT DAY

42:36 - ON DECEMBER 6 PRIOR TO THE

42:38 - START OF OPENING ARGUMENTS

42:39 - THE COMMONWEALTH INDICATED THAT

42:41 - THE COMPLAINING WITNESSES HAD

42:42 - NOT YET APPEARED IN COURT

42:44 - TO TESTIFY. DESPITE EFFORTS BY

42:46 - PERSONEL A DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S

42:48 - OFFICE AND THE POLICE OFFICER,

42:49 - THE COMPLAINANTS WERE NOT

42:51 - RESPOND TO

42:51 - THEIR WHEREABOUTS AFTER

42:53 - ALLOWING THE COMMONWEALTH

42:54 - SEVERAL HOURS TO RECTIFY THE

42:55 - MATTER WHILE THE SELECT A JURY

42:58 - PANEL WE DID THE COURT

42:59 - DISMISSED

43:00 - CRIMINAL COMPLAINT, CORRECT YOU

43:01 - KNOW IT WAS YOU HAD THE DAY

43:03 - BEFORE TO FIGURE OUT WHERE

43:04 - THESE WITNESSES WERE THEN THEY

43:06 - STARTED DECEMBER 6 AND THE

43:07 - JUDGE WAITED FOR A COUPLE

43:09 - OF HOURS. AND THEN SHE

43:10 - DISMISSED THE CASE THE CORRECT

43:12 - YOUR HONOR I'M I WILL NOTE THAT

43:13 - THE PROSECUTOR STATED ON THE

43:15 - RECORD THAT SHE WAS IN CONSTANT

43:17 - CONTACT WITH THE VICTIM

43:18 - WITNESSES AND ALSO TO ADD TO

43:20 - THE FACTS IN THE COMMONWEALTH

43:21 - INDICATE AT THE TOP OF THE

43:22 - MORNING.

43:23 - >>THAT MOST WAS READY TO GO

43:25 - READY TO TRY

43:26 - THE CASE AND IT WASN'T UNTIL I

43:28 - DON'T KNOW WHEN THE COMET

43:29 - BECAME AWARE BEFORE 1145.

43:33 - THAT THESE WITNESSES COULDN'T

43:34 - BE

43:35 - LOCATED, BUT WHERE READ THE

43:37 - OPINION AT 9.30 WITH THAT AT

43:39 - THE TOP OF THE

43:40 - MORNING, COUPLE INDICATED IT

43:42 - WAS READY TO GO

43:44 - TO MY RECOLLECTION IRAN OR THE

43:45 - FIRST THING THAT APPEARS ON THE

43:46 - RECORD IS COME OFF RESPONDING

43:48 - TO THE.

43:49 - >>UM I GUESS SUGGESTION OR

43:51 - NOTIFICATIONS TO THE COURT THAT

43:52 - THE VICTIM WITNESSES HAD NOT

43:53 - APPEARED WHAT HAPPENED

43:56 - AND ALL THE PROSECUTORS SAY

43:58 - THAT SHE WAS IN CONSTANT

43:59 - CONTACT WITH THE VICTIMS IN THE

44:00 - WEEK LEADING UP TO TRIAL.

44:01 - AND SHE FULLY EXPECTED THEM TO

44:03 - APPEAR AND WAS IT PRETTY CLEAR

44:04 - THAT THESE WITNESSES DID NOT

44:06 - WANT TO TESTIFY.

44:07 - >>HERE ARE SCARED. I MEAN

44:09 - THAT'S WHAT I GOT FROM READING

44:10 - THESE NOTES

44:11 - I MEAN JUST THEIR TESTIMONY

44:13 - ALONE AT THE PRELIMINARY

44:14 - HEARING SHOW THAT THEY WERE

44:15 - SCARED WHEN THEY WERE ROBBED

44:16 - THEY TOOK THEIR DRIVER'S

44:17 - LICENSE, THEY ROBBED THEM OUT

44:19 - FRONT OF THEIR HOUSE.

44:21 - YES SIR I WILL I WILL NOTE THAT

44:22 - AND SO ALL THESE THINGS THAT'S

44:24 - WHY THEY WEREN'T THERE.

44:25 - AND THEY INDICATED THE WITNESS

44:27 - AND I THINK THAT THE CALL THE

44:29 - LIST THAT THE PROSECUTOR SAID.

44:31 - WE ARE

44:32 - NOT READY. BUT WE HAVE BEEN IN

44:33 - CONSTANT CONTACT WE TALKED TO

44:35 - THEM LAST NIGHT LATE

44:36 - AT NIGHT THAT THEN THE JUDGE

44:39 - GAVE THEM SOME TIME I

44:41 - THINK THIS CASE WOULD TURN OUT

44:42 - DIFFERENTLY HAD THE JUDGE FROM

44:44 - THE VERY BEGINNING SAID, LET'S

44:45 - GO WE'RE READY TO TRY THE CASE

44:47 - NOW BUT SHE GAVE THEM THE

44:48 - OPPORTUNITY.

44:50 - I DON'T KNOW FOR 2 HOURS TO GET

44:52 - THEM AND THEN WHEN THE

44:53 - TRIAL BEGAN AS THE COMMONWEALTH

44:56 - ARE THEY READY AND THEY SAID

44:57 - YES, THEY ARE. AND

44:59 - WE HAVE A WITNESS TO PUT ON AND

45:00 - THE JUDGE DID NOT ALLOW.

45:02 - CORRECT.

45:03 - >>AGAIN AS OF THE DAY BEFORE

45:04 - THE PROSECUTOR FULLY EXPECTED

45:06 - THESE WITNESSES TO COME TO

45:07 - COURT TO ARRANGE FOR

45:08 - TRANSPORTATION AND SHE EXPECTED

45:10 - THEM TO

45:10 - BE READY. I I THINK IT OR NOT

45:12 - MOST INDICATED WHAT ONE PERSON

45:14 - IS IN THIS CA MOST WORDS

45:15 - ELDERLY IN A PARAPLEGIC SO

45:17 - THOSE ISSUES WITH MOBILITY.

45:19 - >>YEAH IT WOULD MAKE SENSE TO

45:20 - MAKE THOSE ARRANGEMENTS THE DAY

45:21 - BEFORE SAID AWAITING THAT

45:23 - MORNING TO FIGURE OUT. I DON'T

45:25 - THINK THAT THE WITNESSES START

45:26 - AREN'T AVAILABLE. I DON'T

45:28 - THINK THE RECORD REFLECTS THAT

45:29 - THEY MADE THE ARRANGEMENTS THE

45:30 - DAY BEFORE JUST THAT THE

45:31 - PROSECUTOR WAS IN CONTACT WITH

45:33 - NO THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING THE

45:34 - THE ARRANGEMENTS SHOULD THEY

45:35 - HAVE BEEN MADE THE DAY BEFORE I

45:36 - THINK THE THE COURT'S OPINION

45:38 - IN THE CASE OF RICHMOND'S WE'RE

45:40 - IN A MAID MADE UNTIL LATER THAT

45:42 - MORNING. WHEN IT APPEARED THAT

45:44 - THEY WERE COMING. I'M NOT SURE

45:45 - WE'RE NOT ABLE TO COME.

45:47 - I'M NOT SURE THE RECORD BEARS

45:48 - THAT OUT THE PROSECUTOR HAD A

45:49 - RANGE FOR THEIR TRANSPORT

45:50 - THERE'S A TRANSPORT AT THEIR

45:51 - HOME AT 8.30 AND THEY DID NOT

45:53 - RESPOND TO A KNOCK AT THE DOOR

45:54 - AT 11 45 ON THE DAY I'M AT.

45:59 - WHEN THE ASSISTANT DISTRICT

46:00 - ATTORNEY

46:01 - CAME BACK. WORD THE 2 PRIMARY

46:04 - WITNESSES ON

46:05 - THEIR WAY. YES, THEY WERE IN

46:07 - THEY WERE

46:07 - IN TRANSPORT AND DID THE

46:10 - ASSISTANT DA INDICATE THAT SHE

46:12 - COULD DO HER OPENING AND PUT A

46:14 - ANOTHER WITNESS ON THE STAND.

46:16 - YES, YOUR HONOR SO BY THE TIME,

46:19 - THE 2 VICTIMS APPEARED.

46:22 - THE CASE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN

46:24 - DELAYED, THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN

46:25 - ABLE TO START AT 1145.

46:28 - AND JUST REARRANGE HER

46:30 - WITNESS SCHEDULE. YES, AND SO

46:32 - THERE WOULD THEN WE WOULDN'T BE

46:33 - HOLDING THE JURY UP ANY LONGER.

46:35 - YES,

46:36 - THE IMPORTANT FACT IS THAT AT

46:37 - THE TIME OF DISMISSAL, THE

46:39 - COMMONWEALTH INDICATED THAT IT

46:40 - WAS READY.

46:40 - THE WITNESSES WERE ON THEIR WAY

46:42 - THERE WAS A 5 YEAR DELAY,

46:43 - ALTHOUGH I THINK THE TRIAL

46:44 - COURT'S REFERENCE TO THE 5 YEAR

46:45 - DELAY.

46:46 - >>WITHOUT ANY THERE WERE

46:47 - DEFENSE CONTINUANCE IS OF

46:48 - EXCITING BILL AND GAYLE DEFENSE

46:50 - GET YOU IN SAYS 8 DEFENSE

46:52 - CONTINUANCE IS TO FROM THE

46:53 - COURT.

46:54 - >>AND MOST TO HEAR FROM

46:55 - PROSECUTOR BRETT THE LAST THING

46:57 - THAT THE PROSECUTOR SAID BEFORE

46:58 - DISMISSAL

46:59 - IS ESSENTIALLY. I'M READY TO

47:00 - BEGIN I WILL MAKE UP AN OPENING

47:02 - ARGUMENTS AND I CAN PUT ON A

47:04 - WITNESS AND AT THAT POINT.

47:07 - IF THE COURT ALLOWED THE COUPLE

47:08 - TO PROCEED.

47:09 - AND THE WITNESSES HAD NOT

47:10 - ARRIVED BY THE TIME THEY NEEDED

47:12 - TO BE CALLED HER SHE RAN OUT OF

47:13 - OTHER WITNESSES

47:14 - WE WERE TAKING THE RISK THAT

47:16 - JEOPARDY WOULD ATTACH AND THEN

47:17 - WE WOULD HAVE BEEN COMPLETELY

47:18 - OUT OF COURT WITHOUT AN APPEAL

47:19 - HERE. THAT JUST A

47:21 - COUPLE QUESTIONS. JUST TO

47:23 - BACKTRACK AND I KNOW I SAID

47:25 - BEFORE DON'T GO OVER THE

47:26 - PROCEDURAL HISTORY, BUT JUST A

47:27 - LITTLE BIT HERE.

47:28 - >>THE JURY HAD BEEN SELECTED

47:29 - THE DAY BEFORE.

47:31 - YES KAYE HAS TO COME BACK THE

47:32 - NEXT MORNING. AND OF COURSE THE

47:34 - 2 PRIMARY WITNESSES, WE'RE NOT

47:36 - THERE YET IN THIS ROOM AT THAT

47:38 - POINT THE TRIAL COURT DISMISSES

47:40 - THE CHARGES. CAPE AT WHAT POINT

47:43 - IN TIME DOES DOUBLE JEOPARDY

47:45 - ATTACH IN A CASE LIKE THIS.

47:49 - I I WOULD I BELIEVE THAT WHEN

47:50 - THE JURY IS SWORN TO COME OF

47:52 - THAT CALLED ITS FIRST

47:53 - WITNESS IS I DON'T THINK

47:55 - DISCORD NECESSARILY EASY

47:56 - ANSWER. THE QUESTION

47:57 - OF WELL. OK BUT I'M

48:01 - AT SO IF YOU I THINK WILL EARL

48:03 - WE ARE ALL IN AGREEMENT AT A

48:04 - POINT IN TIME WHEN

48:06 - THE COURT.

48:08 - >>DISMISSES THE CHARGES I THINK

48:09 - YOU PUT IN YOUR BRIEF THE TRIAL

48:11 - COUNSEL FOR THE DISTRICT

48:12 - ATTORNEY'S OFFICE DID NOT KNOW

48:14 - THAT STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD

48:15 - EXPIRED CORRECT.

48:17 - CAPE WHEN YOU DID LEARN THAT

48:19 - THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD

48:20 - EXPIRED.

48:22 - DID YOU SEEK A MOTION FOR

48:23 - RECONSIDERATION IN FRONT OF THE

48:24 - TRIAL COURT.

48:27 - THEY'RE ASKING THE TRIAL COURT

48:28 - TO RECONSIDER.

48:30 - >>I BELIEVE THAT WE DID AND WE

48:31 - ALSO ATTEMPTED TO REFILE THE

48:32 - CHARGES WITH THE CLERK OF

48:33 - COURTS WHICH IS ULTIMATELY

48:35 - TONIGHT WHICH IS WHY THIS CASE

48:36 - ORIGINALLY WAS A CONSOLIDATED

48:38 - APPEAL. PANEL MAJORITY RULED

48:40 - THAT BECAUSE ESSENTIALLY THE

48:42 - DISMISSAL EVEN THOUGH THE COURT

48:43 - NOTED IT WAS WITHOUT PREJUDICE

48:45 - WAS INCURABLE THAT IT WAS A

48:47 - FINAL BORDER, WHICH IS WHY THE

48:48 - ONLY QUESTION THAT I BELIEVE

48:50 - WAS PRESENTED IN THE FOREFRONT

48:51 - BACH IS WHETHER THE COURT

48:52 - ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN

48:53 - DISMISSING THE CHARGES

48:55 - AT THE TIME IT IS A

48:55 - COMMONWEALTH

48:56 - CAN'T REFILE.

48:57 - >>BECAUSE THE STATUTE OF

48:59 - LIMITATIONS FOR THE DEATHS.

49:01 - SO AGAIN THE AIR HERE IS JUST

49:03 - IN REFUSING TO ACCEPT THE

49:04 - COMMENTS SECTION THAT WAS READY

49:05 - TO GO AT THE TIME THAT IT SAID

49:07 - IT WAS THAT IN THE

49:08 - COMMONWEALTH.

49:08 - >>A SEARCH AT 00:30AM IN THE

49:10 - MORNING THAT IT WAS READY TO

49:11 - GO.

49:12 - >>WHAT I SAW

49:13 - I DIDN'T I DIDN'T I DIDN'T READ

49:15 - THAT YOU HAD ALL I'D SITES ARE

49:17 - AT THE CALL THE LIST THE

49:18 - COMMONWEALTH SAID WE'RE NOT

49:19 - READY TO PROCEED ARE WITNESSES

49:20 - ARE IN HERE. BUT I'VE BEEN IN

49:21 - CONSTANT CONTACT WITH THEM.

49:23 - I WAS JUST IN CONTACT WITH THEM

49:24 - LAST NIGHT AT 8 O'CLOCK AT

49:26 - NIGHT. AND IN FACT THEY HAD

49:27 - ARRANGED FOR A VAN TO GO UP

49:29 - BECAUSE THE MAN WAS AND

49:31 - WHEELCHAIR QUADRIPLEGIC AND AN

49:33 - ELDERLY LADY AND THEN.

49:36 - THEY SAY

49:37 - THE VICTIM SAID WE WANT TO GET

49:39 - THERE ON OUR OWN AND THE COMMON

49:40 - LAW SAID THAT SILLY. WE CAN TO

49:42 - PROVIDE A VAN AND THERE'S

49:44 - PARKING ISSUES AT THE C J C

49:47 - AND SO LET US DO THIS IT WAS

49:48 - CLEAR TO ME READING IT THAT THE

49:50 - WITNESSES DIDN'T WANT TO

49:51 - TESTIFY. THEY WERE FREE.

49:53 - AND THEN FINALLY WHAT HAPPENED

49:54 - WAS THE COMMONWEALTH DID SEND

49:57 - THEY LIVED IN AN ASSISTED

49:58 - LIVING. SO YOU COULDN'T EVEN

50:00 - GET IN. SO THEY HAD TO GET THE

50:02 - PROBATION OFFICER OF THE

50:04 - GENTLEMAN WHO WAS IN

50:04 - THE WHEELCHAIR. SO THAT THEY

50:06 - COULD GO INTO THE ASSISTANT

50:08 - LIVING IN THE COMMONWEALTH

50:09 - DID THIS TO GET INTO THE

50:10 - ASSISTANT LIVING IN AND GOT

50:11 - THEM IN THE VAN.

50:12 - >>CORRECT AND AGAIN AT THE TIME

50:14 - OF DISMISSAL THEY WERE ON THEIR

50:15 - WAY I THINK THEY WERE

50:16 - FORTHRIGHT WITH THE COURT AND

50:18 - SAYING THAT THEY WERE NOT READY

50:19 - AT 9 30 IN THE MORNING. THE

50:22 - GET THE WITNESSES RELUCTANCE AT

50:24 - THAT POINT WAS IRRELEVANT

50:25 - BECAUSE THEY WERE COMING TO

50:26 - COURT WHETHER THEY WANTED TO OR

50:27 - NOT THEY WERE ON THEIR WAYS

50:29 - THAT'S WHAT THE PROSECUTOR

50:30 - REPRESENTED THE TIME OF TRIAL

50:31 - AND I BELIEVE THAT THE

50:34 - YOU'RE HONEST

50:34 - QUESTIONS ARE MAKING ME

50:35 - QUESTION MY RECOLLECTION OF THE

50:36 - RECORD BUTTON COME UP SAID AT

50:38 - AT THE OUTSET THAT IT WAS NOT

50:40 - PREPARED BECAUSE ITS WITNESSES

50:41 - HAD NOT ARRIVED. I SUPPOSE IN A

50:43 - DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCE, THE

50:45 - PROSECUTOR COULD HAVE

50:46 - HAD PERHAPS A COLLEAGUE

50:47 - ORGANIZE FOR THEIR ARRIVAL AND

50:48 - NOT IT DISCLOSED TO THE COURT

50:50 - KNOWING WHERE A C S WILL TRY TO

50:52 - UNDERSTAND WHEN YOU SAID NOT

50:53 - ARRIVE.

50:55 - THE COMMONS HAD MADE THE

50:56 - ARRANGEMENTS TO PICK THEM UP AT

50:58 - 8.30.

50:59 - >>THAT WAS ALREADY IN PLACE.

51:00 - YEAH, BUT THEY

51:01 - DIDN'T RESPOND. SO IT'S NOT

51:02 - LIKE THE COBBLES EXPECTING TO

51:04 - GET THERE ON LIKE I'M ON THEIR

51:05 - OWN POWER.

51:06 - THE ARRANGEMENTS FOR READY MADE

51:08 - BY KAMEL TO PICK THEM UP

51:09 - IS THAT.

51:10 - >>CORRECT AND THE ON OPENED AT

51:12 - 9 30 AT THE OPENING OF THE

51:13 - RECORD AND THEN LATER

51:15 - THAT MORNING.

51:16 - >>THEY WERE RESPONSIVE AND

51:18 - WE'RE ON THE WAY. BY 1145.

51:22 - >>THAT'S AT

51:22 - THE TIME OF DISMISSAL AND THAT

51:24 - THIS WOULD BE AN ENTIRELY

51:25 - DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCE

51:26 - IF AT 1145 AFTER 2 HOURS OF A

51:29 - GRACE PERIOD OF TRYING TO TRACK

51:30 - DOWN THESE WITNESSES TO COME ON

51:31 - SET I MEAN TO CONTINUE ITS

51:33 - ITEMS CASE HAS TO GO TO

51:34 - TOMORROW. I THINK IN THAT CASE,

51:35 - DISMISSAL MAY HAVE

51:37 - BEEN APPROPRIATE.

51:38 - >>AND ISN'T IT UP TO THE

51:38 - PROSECUTION HOW THEY WANT TO

51:40 - TRY THEIR CASE IF THEY SAID

51:41 - THEY HAVE A WITNESS READY TO GO

51:43 - THEN IT'S UP TO THEM IF THEY IF

51:46 - THAT WITNESS WASN'T ENOUGH AND

51:47 - THE OTHER WITNESSES OR ON THEIR

51:49 - WAY THEN IT'S UP TO THE JUDGE

51:50 - TO DISMISS THE CHARGES AT THAT

51:52 - POINT. BUT THEY DID SAY THAT

51:54 - THEY WERE READY TO GO AND THEY

51:55 - HAD ANOTHER WITNESS TO CALL

51:56 - CORRECT RIGHT.

51:57 - >>AND THIS AND THIS WAS

51:58 - DISMISSED SOURCE PONTE A WASN'T

52:00 - ON THE MOTION OF THE DEFENSE

52:02 - CORRECT.

52:03 - THE DEFENSE SORT OF ALLUDE TO

52:05 - THAT WE SHOULD JUST AND THIS UM

52:07 - I THINK THAT 1045 OR ONE OF THE

52:09 - EARLIER.

52:10 - >>CHECKINS THAT EVENT SAID

52:11 - PERHAPS WE SHOULD END THIS.

52:12 - BUT THERE WAS NO OFFICIAL

52:13 - MOTION AND THE COURT JUST SORT

52:16 - OF

52:17 - DO IT ABRUPTLY AND DID NOT

52:19 - PROVIDE REASONS AT

52:20 - THAT TIME FOR THE DISMISSAL OR

52:22 - DISCLOSED THAT IT MET WITH THAT

52:23 - SHE INTENDED TO DO SO WITHOUT

52:25 - PREJUDICE WHICH MAY HAVE GIVEN

52:26 - THE COME WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO

52:27 - NOTE THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE

52:28 - BECAUSE IT'S NO WAS AWARE OF

52:30 - THE STATUE. HEDREN.

52:33 - >>WE DIDN'T KNOW UNTIL THE

52:34 - JUDGES 1925 A STATEMENT BECAUSE

52:36 - THE LAST WORDS I BELIEVE IN THE

52:38 - TRANSCRIPT FOR CHARGES JUST

52:39 - DISCHARGED NOTHING AFTER THAT

52:41 - SAID THERE WAS NO WAY FOR THE

52:42 - COMMONWEALTH TO EVEN KNOW WHAT

52:44 - THE JUDGE WAS DOING AT THAT

52:46 - POINT THAT SPRINGER.

52:48 - >>I WOULD SAY ESPECIALLY IN

52:49 - THIS CASE WHERE THERE'S NO

52:50 - ALLEGATION OF MISCONDUCT BY THE

52:53 - PART OF THE

52:53 - COMMONWEALTH OR. NO ALLEGATION

52:56 - OR EVIDENCE THAT THE DEFEND IT

52:58 - WOULD'VE BEEN PREJUDICED IN ANY

52:59 - WAY OF TRIAL HAD BEGUN AT 11 45

53:01 - WHEN THE COME OFF AS READY TO

53:02 - THAT IT WAS AN ABUSE OF

53:04 - DISCRETION TO DISMISS THE

53:05 - CHARGES IN THIS WAY TO IF YOU

53:07 - WANT A REBUTTAL TIME YOU THERE.

53:08 - THANK YOU.

53:16 - MY NAME IS LAWRENCE BRAZILIAN

53:18 - THE ATTORNEY FOR PELLEY IN THIS

53:19 - CASE AND

53:20 - THE ME APOLOGIZE IN ADVANCE OF

53:22 - AN ATTORNEY FOR 20 YEARS, BUT

53:23 - THIS IS MY FIRST TIME OUR UNION

53:24 - BONK SO FROM THAT IS POLISH,

53:26 - I APOLOGIZE WELL UM I DO

53:29 - BELIEVE THAT A FUNNY PROCEED.

53:31 - I DO BELIEVE THAT I ALWAYS TELL

53:33 - PEOPLE ATTORNEYS

53:34 - DON'T EVER TRY TO GUESS THE WAY

53:36 - JUDGES ARE GOING TO RULE BASED

53:37 - UPON THEIR QUESTIONS

53:39 - BUT IT WOULD APPEAR TO ME YOUR

53:40 - BACK IS UP

53:40 - AGAINST DIFFERENT LOOKS TO

53:45 - ARGUE

53:47 - >>I I THOUGHT YOU DID A

53:48 - FANTASTIC WHEN YOU ARGUE THIS

53:51 - CASE, THE FIRST TIME BEFORE

53:52 - THIS COURT. I THINK YOU DID A

53:54 - FANTASTIC JOB AT THE TRIAL

53:56 - READING.

53:56 - >>YOU KNOW THE NOTES OF

53:57 - TESTIMONY AT THE TRIAL. SO I

53:59 - WILL SAY THAT AND AT

54:00 - LEAST WE HAVE THE BENEFIT OF

54:01 - HAVING YOU HERE WHICH IS RARE.

54:04 - THE ACTUAL TRIAL ATTORNEY IN

54:06 - THE

54:06 - MY FIRST QUESTION BEFORE YOU

54:08 - EVEN START IS WAS THAT THE VERY

54:10 - END OF

54:10 - THE TRIAL. CHARGES DISCHARGED

54:12 - AND NOTHING ELSE AFTER THAT

54:14 - BECAUSE WHEN I'M READING THE

54:15 - TRANSCRIPT IT JUST ENDS THERE.

54:17 - >>THAT WAS IT AS FAR AS I

54:18 - RECALL THAT

54:19 - WAS IT. WHAT HAD HAPPENED IN

54:21 - JUST TO CORRECT A NUT TO CRACK

54:22 - BUT TO ADD

54:23 - SO DECEMBER 5TH FIRST WE HAVE A

54:25 - TRIAL READING

54:26 - THIS CONFERENCE IN WHICH

54:27 - THERE'S NO MENTION ABOUT ANY A

54:29 - CONCERN THAT THE WITNESS IS NOT

54:30 - APPEARING BOTH SIDES CALL READY

54:32 - I CALLED READY THE PROSECUTOR

54:33 - CALLED READY. DECEMBER 15 PICK

54:35 - THE JURY WE SPEND ALL DAY

54:36 - PICKING THE JURY THERE'S NOT

54:37 - ONE IOTA. MENTION OH BY THE WAY

54:39 - HAVE SOME CONCERN ABOUT CAN THE

54:41 - WITNESSES IN

54:41 - WE GO TO COURT THAT MORNING

54:43 - PROSECUTOR SAYS FOR THE FIRST

54:44 - TIME. I'VE GOT SOME CONCERNS MY

54:46 - 2 MAIN WITNESSES. WE

54:48 - ARE NOT ANSWERING WE HAVE

54:49 - VICTIM SERVICES GOING OUT TO

54:51 - PICK THEM UP.

54:52 - SO WITH THE TRIAL COURT SAID

54:53 - WHICH WE HAVEN'T SPOKEN ABOUT

54:54 - YET IS OKAY

54:55 - EARLY IN THE MORNING, I'M GOING

54:57 - TO GIVE YOU TO A CERTAIN TIME

54:58 - TO HAVE YOUR WITNESSES HERE IN

54:59 - THE COURTHOUSE. I BELIEVE IT

55:01 - WAS

55:01 - 9.45. THE REGENTS CRE COMING

55:04 - SOMETIME AFTER A STAR 1145.

55:07 - SCOTT NEWLY RECONVENE AND THE

55:09 - CORE ASKS THE PROSECUTION ARE

55:11 - YOUR WITNESSES HERE. AND THE

55:13 - PROSECUTION SAYS MAKES THAT YOU

55:15 - KNOW THE ENVIRONMENT KNOW, BUT

55:16 - THEY'RE ON THEIR WAY. AND THE

55:19 - POINT I WOULD

55:20 - MAKE THERE TO WHAT DOES MAKE

55:22 - LAFAYETTE ASKED ABOUT

55:23 - PROSECUTORS BEING ABLE TO

55:24 - PRESENT THEIR CASE HOW THEY SEE

55:26 - FIT THE PROSECUTION IF THEY

55:28 - WERE CERTAIN THAT THEY'RE

55:29 - WITNESSES WERE ON THEIR WAY

55:31 - COULD HAVE SAID JUDGE IM READY

55:32 - TO PROCEED, LET'S GO. I DON'T

55:34 - THINK THAT WAS EVER DONE BY

55:36 - THE PROSECUTION. NUMBER ONE AND

55:38 - NUMBER 2 AGAIN. THE JUDGE GAVE

55:39 - THE ORDER I WANT YOUR WITNESSES

55:41 - HERE, I'M NOT A JURY PANEL IN

55:43 - THE BACK WE PICK THE MALL

55:44 - YESTERDAY THEY'VE BEEN WAITING

55:46 - OUT ON 9 THE SENATE WAS THAT

55:47 - THE TRIAL THAT BECAUSE I KNEW I

55:48 - READ IT SOMEWHERE WAS THE TRIAL

55:50 - READINESS CONFERENCE WILL

55:51 - DECEMBER 5TH 2016 THE DAY

55:53 - BEFORE.

55:54 - THE OPENING OF THE TRIAL OF THE

55:55 - COMMONS INDICATED IT WAS READY

55:57 - ACTUALLY TWICE THE FIRST

55:58 - DECEMBER CENTER START TO TRUST

56:00 - THEM, BUT I KNOW THAT WHAT I'M

56:01 - TALKING ABOUT RIGHT BEFORE THE

56:02 - TRIAL THIS DECEMBER 5TH THE DAY

56:04 - BEFORE THE TRIAL COME WAS ALSO

56:05 - INDICATED WAS READY AND IT WAS

56:07 - NO INDICATION OF ISSUES WITH

56:08 - WITNESSES OR PROBLEMS OR

56:10 - CHALLENGES OR.

56:12 - >>FEAR.

56:13 - OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT IN FACT

56:15 - THE FIRST TIME IT CAME UP WAS

56:16 - WHEN THE JURY WAS SPENDING

56:17 - READY TO BRING THEM BACK OUT

56:19 - THE BIG IN THE CASE IT WAS THE

56:20 - PROSECUTOR WAIT A SECOND YOU

56:22 - TIME OUT MY WITNESSES ARE NOT

56:23 - ANSWERING

56:24 - THE DOOR. I NEED TO SEND

56:25 - DETECTIVES OUT MORE FORCEFUL.

56:26 - SO THE PROSECUTION DID EXPECT

56:29 - THEIR WITNESSES TO BE THERE

56:31 - ON THE FIRST THEY DID EXPECT

56:32 - THEIR WITNESSES TO BE THERE ON

56:34 - THE 5TH. IT JUST SO HAPPENED ON

56:36 - THE 6 WHEN THEY SENT OUT THE

56:38 - PEOPLE TO GET THEM.

56:39 - THEY DIDN'T ANSWER THE DOOR

56:41 - SAID THIS WAS CLEARLY AN

56:43 - UNEXPECTED EVENT THAT THE

56:45 - PROSECUTION HAD NO PRE. NOTICE,

56:49 - I'M CORRECT.

56:50 - SHE LEARNED THAT WENCH THAT

56:51 - MORNING WHEN SHE WAS TOLD

56:53 - THEY'RE NOT ANSWERING

56:54 - THE DOOR WYOMING SPEAK TO THE

56:56 - PROSECUTION THAT I HAVE TO

56:57 - DISAGREE WITH WHAT WE JUST

56:58 - HEARD WAS THAT THEY WERE IN

56:59 - CONSTANT CONTACT. I WAS TOLD

57:02 - THEY WOULD BE THERE OR NIGHT

57:03 - BEFORE THEY SAID THEY'RE GOING

57:04 - TO BE HERE AND THAT MORNING

57:06 - THEY SEND A VAN OUT THEY RING

57:07 - THE DOOR.

57:08 - >>AND THE PEOPLE DON'T ANSWER.

57:10 - SO MY QUESTION

57:12 - IS THE TRIAL COURT GRACIOUSLY

57:14 - GAVE THEM 2 HOURS AT THE END OF

57:16 - THE 2 HOURS

57:17 - DID THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY

57:19 - ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY SAY

57:21 - THEY ARE

57:22 - IN TRANSIT. I CAN DO MY OPENING

57:25 - AND CALL ANOTHER WITNESS AND

57:27 - THEY SHOULD BE HERE BY THAT

57:29 - TIME I BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT

57:30 - OCCURRED. YES. SO SHE DID SAY

57:33 - SHE WAS READY TO

57:33 - GO THEN EVEN THOUGH HER 2

57:36 - VICTIMS

57:37 - WEREN'T IN THE COURTROOM.

57:39 - SHE HAD OTHER WITNESSES SO AS

57:42 - THE DA SHE COULD CHOOSE TO

57:44 - PRESENTER CASE IN A DIFFERENT

57:46 - ORDER OF SHE WANTED THE COURSE.

57:49 - WHICH IS ULTIMATELY WHAT

57:50 - HAPPENED IS THAT SHE WAS GOING

57:51 - TO PUT ON ANOTHER WITNESS WHY

57:53 - WILL THE.

57:54 - >>COMPLAINTS WERE ON THEIR WAY

57:56 - SHE WAS GOING OPEN. I BELIEVE

57:58 - IT WHICH INDICATE TO THE COURT.

58:00 - BUT AGAIN IT'S

58:01 - ON STARTING TO SHIP FINISH

58:02 - ANSWERING US, YOU KNOW BEGIN

58:03 - THE ISSUE THAT THE TRIAL COURT

58:04 - SAID IS I WOULD LIKE YOUR

58:05 - WITNESSES IN THE COURTROOM IN

58:07 - THE COURTHOUSE BY A TIME

58:08 - CERTAIN AND THEY WERE

58:09 - NOT THERE. OKAY WITH THAT THE

58:12 - JUDGE OFF THE STAGE IN FOR MY

58:14 - QUESTION I WAS GOING REPEAT

58:15 - EVERYTHING THAT SHE JUST SAID.

58:16 - >>ONCE COUNCIL TRIAL COUNSEL

58:18 - FOR THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S

58:19 - OFFICE SAYS SHE'S READY TO OPEN

58:21 - AND SHE HAS A WITNESS PRESENT

58:22 - CAN YOU TELL US WHAT AUTHORITY

58:24 - DOES THE TRIAL COURT HAVE SUE A

58:25 - SPOTTY TO DISMISS THE CHARGES.

58:28 - I BELIEVE THAT TURNS THE ABUSE

58:29 - OF DISCRETION.

58:31 - ARGUMENT WHICH IS MORE THAN IS

58:33 - THERE ANY RULE OF CRIMINAL

58:34 - PROCEDURE THAT GIVES THE TRIAL

58:35 - COURT AUTHORITY TO DISMISS THE

58:37 - CHARGES WHEN COUNCIL SAYS

58:39 - THEY'RE READY TO START TO TRY

58:40 - AND.

58:41 - I WISH I WERE SMART ENOUGH TO

58:42 - KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT, BUT

58:43 - UNFORTUNATELY I DON'T KNOW THE

58:45 - ANSWER TO THAT RIDGE.

58:46 - >>I I DO THINK THAT THIS WOULD

58:47 - HAVE BEEN A WHOLE DIFFERENT

58:48 - RESULT IN MY OPINION

58:50 - HAD THE TRIAL JUDGE FROM THE

58:51 - VERY START COULD HAVE DEMANDED

58:53 - THAT TRIAL TO START AT

58:55 - 09:00AM COULD HAVE ABSOLUTELY

58:57 - DEMANDED WE'RE GOING TO START

58:59 - MY WITNESSES ARE NOT HERE,

59:01 - THAT'S TOO BAD BUT

59:02 - SHE DIDN'T SHE GAVE THIS LEEWAY

59:04 - AND THEN WHEN THEY WERE

59:06 - ACTUALLY IN THE VAN ON THEIR

59:08 - WAY OVER AND SHE SAID I'M

59:09 - READY. I HAVE

59:10 - ANOTHER WITNESS. I THINK THAT'S

59:12 - WHERE YOU KNOW I I HAVE AN

59:13 - ISSUE WITH IT

59:14 - IF SHE DEMANDED AT 9 O'CLOCK

59:15 - AND THEN DISCHARGE THE CASE

59:17 - BECAUSE PEOPLE AREN'T THERE

59:18 - THAT'S THAT'S ON THE

59:19 - COMMONWEALTH. BUT SHE GAVE THEM

59:21 - THAT LEEWAY AND THEN THEY WERE

59:23 - ACTUALLY READY TO GO. AND THEN

59:25 - DISCHARGE THE CASE.

59:27 - >>I UNDERSTAND THE COURT'S

59:29 - POSITION BUT THE ARGUMENT THAT

59:30 - I WOULD AND FORCES THAT IT WAS

59:32 - SET UP TO THE PROSECUTION I

59:34 - WANT YOUR WITNESSES IN THE

59:35 - COURTROOM BY I BELIEVE WAS

59:37 - 1145. THE JUDGE COMES OUT 15

59:39 - MINUTES 20 MINUTES AFTER THAT

59:41 - TIME AND SAYS TO THE PROSECUTOR

59:43 - ARE YOUR

59:44 - WITNESSES HERE. NO EYEWITNESSES

59:46 - OR NOT HERE THEY ARE COMING SO

59:47 - YOU SAY EVEN THOUGH

59:49 - THE COUNCIL IS READY TO PROCEED

59:50 - WITH ANOTHER WITNESS AND ONCE

59:52 - THE WITNESSES CALLED A BIRD

59:53 - DOUBLE JEOPARDY ATTACKED SO

59:54 - THAT'S ON THEM.

59:56 - >>IF THE COMPLAINTS DON'T

59:57 - SHOW UP. SO ONCE THE RESCUE

59:59 - 020 TAKES THE RISK TO OPEN. BUT THE

01:00 - 03.550 WITNESS THEN ANOTHER WITNESS

01:00 - 06.370 UP. ISN'T THAT THE

01:00 - 08.780 THE BURDEN BEYOND A REASONABLE

01:00 - 09.740 DOUBT IS THAT TOTALLY

01:00 - 11.030 APPROPRIATE FOR THEM TO PROCEED

01:00 - 13.130 THAT WAY AND I'M TRYING TO

01:00 - 15.240 UNDERSTAND HOW NOW AS THE COMET

01:00 - 16.530 IS MOVING FORWARD WITH ANOTHER

01:00 - 17.210 WITNESS.

01:00 - 22.490 THEN DOES THE TRIAL DOES HAVE

01:00 - 23.980 DISCRETION TO SET TO DISMISS

01:00 - 24.690 CHARGES.

01:00 - 28.190 WELL AS YOU'RE SAYING THAT EVEN

01:00 - 29.400 THOUGH THE COMMONS HAD ANOTHER

01:00 - 31.210 WITNESS. THE JUDGE WAS

01:00 - 32.980 INSISTING THAT THE COMPLAINTS

01:00 - 35.480 BE PHYSICALLY IN THE COURTROOM.

01:00 - 37.180 WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE

01:00 - 38.550 TESTIFYING AT THAT MOMENT AND

01:00 - 39.840 EVEN HAS COME UP PUT ON ANOTHER

01:00 - 41.710 WITNESS. THE JUDGE WAS SAYING

01:00 - 43.410 THOSE COMPLAINTS MUST BE IN THE

01:00 - 44.030 COURTROOM AT

01:00 - 46.190 THAT TIME. CORRECT I CAN

01:00 - 47.580 SPECULATE AS TO WHY THE TRIAL

01:00 - 48.810 JUDGE DID THAT MAYBE SHE WAS

01:00 - 49.870 CONCERNED BECAUSE THE WAY TO

01:00 - 51.010 PUT THIS CASE ON.

01:00 - 52.250 >>WHAT HAVE BEEN WITH

01:00 - 53.800 THAT THE PLANNING WINS WITH A

01:00 - 54.930 KEY TO THE CASE. THIS IS A

01:00 - 56.120 CIRCUMSTANTIAL CASE FOR OTHER

01:00 - 57.720 WITNESSED THE ESTABLISHED

01:00 - 59.270 GUILT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT

01:00 - 00.630 NEEDED THOSE 2 COMPLAINING

01:01 - 02.120 WITNESSES IF ANYTHING ON THE

01:01 - 03.050 RECORD THAT.

01:01 - 05.320 >>ASSISTANT DA SAID WHEN YOU

01:01 - 07.180 RECOUNTED THE FACTS YOU STATED

01:01 - 09.190 THAT THE DA SAID THEY

01:01 - 11.550 WERE COMING. NOT THAT THEY WERE

01:01 - 13.650 IN THE VAN AND HAD BEEN YOU

01:01 - 16.140 KNOW OBTAINED THIS ANYTHING ON

01:01 - 17.770 THE RECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE

01:01 - 18.230 THAT.

01:01 - 19.530 >>I DON'T RECALL THAT IS BASED

01:01 - 21.540 ON MEMORY RECOLLECTION AS TO

01:01 - 23.080 WHAT THE THE PROSECUTOR SAID,

01:01 - 24.460 AND THE ONLY THING THAT ON THE

01:01 - 26.140 RECORD IS THAT THE JUDGE

01:01 - 27.700 DISMISSED THE CASE.

01:01 - 29.650 >>AND DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE

01:01 - 30.280 ON THE RECORD.

01:01 - 31.480 >>THEY THINK THERE WAS

01:01 - 32.600 TESTIMONY THAT THEY WERE EN

01:01 - 33.950 ROUTE. THEY WERE IN THE VAN AND

01:01 - 36.520 THEY KNEW THEY VERIFICATION

01:01 - 37.740 THAT THEY WERE IN RUDE IN THE

01:01 - 38.860 VAN ON THEIR WAY

01:01 - 40.420 AND THEN THE JUDGE SAID RIGHT

01:01 - 41.570 BEFORE SHE SAID THE CHARGES

01:01 - 43.480 WERE DISCHARGED THE JUDGE ASKED

01:01 - 44.760 ARE YOU READY FOR TRIAL.

01:01 - 46.630 YES CHARGES DISCHARGED.

01:01 - 49.620 THAT'S OUT WENT AT THAT THE

01:01 - 50.750 LAST THING RIGHT BEFORE

01:01 - 52.390 DISCHARGING SHE SAID ARE YOU

01:01 - 54.210 READY. YES AND I THINK THERE

01:01 - 55.950 WAS TESTIMONY YOUR HONOR THERE

01:01 - 56.670 IN THE VAN.

01:01 - 58.700 I JUST GOT VERIFICATION THERE

01:01 - 00.780 WITH DA EMPLOYEES THERE IN THE

01:02 - 02.110 BAN ON THEIR WAY DOWN.

01:02 - 04.280 AND I HAD I'M READY TO START I

01:02 - 05.450 HAVE ANOTHER WITNESS WE CAN DO

01:02 - 06.550 OPENINGS AND I HAVE ANOTHER

01:02 - 08.720 WITNESS TO CALL. IS MY

01:02 - 10.340 RECOLLECTION OF THE TRANSCRIPT.

01:02 - 15.160 RIGHTFULLY SO LET THE JUDGE GO

01:02 - 16.230 WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT I WOULD

01:02 - 17.170 HAVE DONE IF I WERE IN YOUR

01:02 - 17.620 POSITION.

01:02 - 19.740 YOU DID EVERYTHING THAT YOU

01:02 - 20.920 COULD HAVE DONE I THINK THERE

01:02 - 22.330 WAS GIVING THEM 2 HOURS.

01:02 - 25.310 AND IN THE BEGINNING GIVING THE

01:02 - 27.170 DEFENDANT 2 YEARS

01:02 - 28.870 TO HANDLE A FEDERAL CHARGE

01:02 - 30.150 WHICH THE PROSECUTOR DID NOT

01:02 - 30.370 HAVE

01:02 - 31.670 TO DO I MEAN THAT'S NOT AN

01:02 - 32.930 ISSUE BEFORE OUR COURT. BUT

01:02 - 34.490 THIS CASE WAS DELAYED SO MUCH

01:02 - 36.090 BECAUSE THE PROSECUTORS ALLOWED

01:02 - 38.660 THE DEFENDANT TO A DEAL WITH A

01:02 - 40.130 FEDERAL ISSUE BEFORE DEALING

01:02 - 40.960 WITH THE STATE ISSUE.

01:02 - 45.810 THANK YOU FOR MAKING

01:02 - 47.140 THE ARGUMENT THEY HAVE 3

01:02 - 48.110 MINUTES IN REBUTTAL. YOU WANT

01:02 - 48.650 TO USE THEM.

01:02 - 53.110 >>ADDRESSES THE ISSUE OF

01:02 - 54.540 JURISDICTION, SPECIFICALLY THE

01:02 - 56.000 JURISDICTION OF THE SUPERIOR

01:02 - 58.350 COURT. IN THE NAME OF THE ONLY

01:02 - 00.010 THE BUCKS COUNTY REPUBLICAN

01:03 - 00.940 COMMITTEE IN COMES FROM

01:03 - 03.090 BUCKS COUNTY. THE APPELLANT

01:03 - 05.020 TODAY AMONA WAS A REPUBLICAN

01:03 - 06.480 COMMITTEE MAN AND HE WAS

01:03 - 08.220 REMOVED FROM THE LOCAL

01:03 - 10.240 REPUBLICAN PARTY. THE ISSUE

01:03 - 11.490 THAT'S BEFORE THE COURT

01:03 - 13.240 AMONG OTHER THINGS IS WHETHER

01:03 - 14.150 OR NOT THIS COURT HAS

01:03 - 15.570 JURISDICTION TO HEAR THIS.

01:03 - 17.740 WE ANTICIPATE THE ARGUMENTS ARE

01:03 - 19.090 GOING TO HEAR ARE THESE ARE

01:03 - 20.600 PRIVATE MATTERS BETWEEN

01:03 - 22.370 PARTIES AND THEREFORE SHOULD

01:03 - 23.600 NOT BE LITIGATED BEFORE THE

01:03 - 24.990 COURT. LET'S GO TO

01:03 - 25.420 THE CORE.

01:03 - 27.700 >>A CASE NUMBER 3 ON OUR LIST

01:03 - 29.210 IS MOWN VERSUS BUCKS COUNTY

01:03 - 31.750 REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE. THANK MAY

01:03 - 33.090 PLEASE THE COURT MY NAME IS

01:03 - 35.390 JOSH BOND REPRESENT DANIEL MAN.

01:03 - 36.790 >>MAY IT PLEASE RESERVE 2

01:03 - 37.860 MINUTES FOR REBUTTAL.

01:03 - 42.460 APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO

01:03 - 44.040 BE HERE IN THE SPEAR

01:03 - 47.310 COURT TODAY. THE COMMONWEALTH

01:03 - 48.830 COURT MADE THERE BY

01:03 - 50.770 TRANSFERRING THIS CAME TO THIS

01:03 - 53.010 WAS MY VERY FIRST QUESTION WAS

01:03 - 54.260 YOU KNOW WE'RE GLAD TO SEE YOUR

01:03 - 55.730 CREDIT WHY HAS THIS IN COMMON

01:03 - 56.870 WITH THE COURT THAT WAS A THAT

01:03 - 57.960 WAS GOING TO BE MY VERY FIRST

01:03 - 59.540 QUESTION WELL WHY ARE WE HERE

01:03 - 01.070 THE COMMONWEALTH COURT ISSUED A

01:04 - 01.540 PERT.

01:04 - 04.470 >>ORDER. THEY RELIED ON A

01:04 - 05.920 SUPERIOR COURT CASE.

01:04 - 08.690 THE COURT GORDON GORDON THAT

01:04 - 09.790 WAY AND YOU'RE ASKING US TO

01:04 - 11.790 OVERTURN TODAY. NO I'M NOT

01:04 - 13.610 ASKING YOU TO OVERTURN. GORDON

01:04 - 15.890 GORDON IS DISTINGUISHABLE FROM

01:04 - 17.450 THIS AND

01:04 - 19.360 THE REASON THAT THAT THAT THE

01:04 - 20.540 COMMONWEALTH COURT HAS

01:04 - 22.820 JURISDICTION IS UNDER.

01:04 - 25.820 SECTION 28 37 OF THE ELECTION

01:04 - 26.520 CODE.

01:04 - 30.850 I'M SORRY UNDER OF SECTION 62

01:04 - 32.070 OF THE JUDICIAL CODE.

01:04 - 33.810 THE COMMONWEALTH COURT HAS

01:04 - 36.240 EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER THE

01:04 - 37.940 INTERPRETATION OF THE

01:04 - 38.980 PENNSYLVANIA

01:04 - 40.960 ELECTION CODE AND SOMETHING

01:04 - 43.260 THAT MY CO-COUNSEL NY AGREE ON

01:04 - 45.670 IS THAT THIS CASE INVOLVES THE

01:04 - 47.260 INTERPRETATION OF THE

01:04 - 48.760 PENNSYLVANIA ELECTION CODE.

01:04 - 51.850 THE ARKANSAS COURT SAID IT

01:04 - 52.110 DIDN'T

01:04 - 54.050 HAVE JURISDICTION. YES, AND

01:04 - 55.070 THAT IN MATTERS THAT TO THIS

01:04 - 56.790 DAY AFTER THIS IT INTRAPARTY

01:04 - 58.500 DISPUTE, NO DIRECT SUBSTANTIAL

01:04 - 59.550 RELATIONSHIP, THE PUBLIC

01:04 - 00.650 INTEREST INCLUDING.

01:05 - 02.720 >>INTERPRETATION OF ELECTION

01:05 - 05.520 LAW AND JUST SAY THAT YES CAN

01:05 - 05.990 HEAR IT.

01:05 - 08.350 WELL THAT IF THAT'S A DISTINCT

01:05 - 09.800 ISSUE FROM WHETHER OR NOT THE

01:05 - 11.390 SUPERIOR COURT WHERE DO I KNOW

01:05 - 13.100 IT HAS JURISDICTIONS LIKE

01:05 - 14.360 EVERYBODY WANTS TO TRANSFER HIS

01:05 - 15.870 CASE IF THEY SUSPECT NOBODY WAS

01:05 - 17.680 SEATED THIS ISSUE WELL THIS

01:05 - 18.960 ISSUE CAME UP A LITTLE EARLIER

01:05 - 19.970 IN THE ARGUMENT THAT I THOUGHT

01:05 - 20.830 IT WAS GOING TO BE LET'S

01:05 - 22.760 VISITED SINCE IT POPPED UP OK

01:05 - 24.510 SURE NO WAIT I HAVE 2 QUESTIONS

01:05 - 26.600 FOR OK FIRST QUESTION IS.

01:05 - 28.760 >>WHAT WAS A OUR HOLDING IN

01:05 - 31.300 GORDON TELL ME. OK GORDON

01:05 - 32.300 HELD THAT.

01:05 - 35.530 >>VOTER

01:05 - 37.810 CANNOT PROSPECTIVELY CHALLENGE

01:05 - 39.520 A POLITICAL PARTIES

01:05 - 42.220 DISQUALIFICATION ROLE FOR LOCAL

01:05 - 43.320 COMMITTEE MEMBERS.

01:05 - 45.120 THAT'S ONE OF THE KEY

01:05 - 46.470 DISTINGUISHING FACTORS FROM

01:05 - 47.950 THIS CASE THIS CASE ACTUALLY

01:05 - 49.960 INVOLVES A COMMITTEE.

01:05 - 52.360 HER SON WHO WAS SUBJECT

01:05 - 54.330 TO DISQUALIFICATION.

01:05 - 55.890 >>BUT I FOUGHT IN COURT IN

01:05 - 58.520 TRACY GORDON WAS COMMITTEE

01:05 - 59.100 PERSON WHO

01:05 - 01.880 WAS REMOVED 5 DEMOCRATIC OF

01:06 - 03.840 PHILADELPHIA DEMOCRATIC COUNTY

01:06 - 05.240 YES THERE WAS THERE WAS

01:06 - 06.570 ACTUALLY THERE WERE MODELED

01:06 - 08.210 PLAINTIFFS IN GORDON AND.

01:06 - 09.740 >>THERE WAS A COMMITTEE PERSON

01:06 - 10.950 WHO BROUGHT IN ACTION IN THE

01:06 - 12.210 COURT OF COMMON PLEAS,

01:06 - 13.500 WHENEVER SHE BROUGHT THAT

01:06 - 15.000 ACTION THE POLITICAL PARTY

01:06 - 16.290 REINSTATED HER AND SHE

01:06 - 18.060 DISMISSED HER CASE IN THE TRIAL

01:06 - 19.350 COURT. WHAT WENT UP TO

01:06 - 21.070 DISAPPEAR COURT WAS A CHALLENGE

01:06 - 22.650 BY A VOTER

01:06 - 24.460 WHO WHO DID NOT THIS CONTINUE

01:06 - 25.940 THEIR CASE WHO IS CHALLENGING

01:06 - 27.410 COURT SAY THAT BECAUSE GORDON

01:06 - 30.180 WITHDREW THE VOTER. I THINK WAS

01:06 - 31.850 JOHNSON DIDN'T HAVE STANDING

01:06 - 33.610 CORRECT AND GORDON WAS NOT

01:06 - 36.040 DECIDED ON THE GORTON DID NOT

01:06 - 37.430 HOLD THAT THE TRIAL COURT DID

01:06 - 39.280 NOT HAVE JURISDICTION, NOT

01:06 - 41.270 GORDON HELD THAT A VOTER

01:06 - 43.260 DOES NOT HAVE STANDING TO

01:06 - 45.170 CHALLENGE A POLITICAL PARTIES

01:06 - 47.390 REMOVAL GIRL AND BECAUSE THE OF

01:06 - 48.670 THE PANELISTS APPEAR IN COURT

01:06 - 50.010 WHICH WAS A SPLIT DECISION IT

01:06 - 52.030 WAS IT A 2 TO ONE DECISION

01:06 - 54.300 BECAUSE OF THAT THEY HELD THAT

01:06 - 56.020 THEY WERE NOT A DECIDING

01:06 - 57.600 ANYTHING TO THE ELECTION CODE.

01:06 - 59.060 >>SO THAT JURISDICTION COULD

01:06 - 00.750 REMAIN IN THE SUPERIOR COURT.

01:07 - 02.320 THEY WERE UNDER NO OBLIGATION

01:07 - 03.790 TO TRANSFER TO THE COMMONWEALTH

01:07 - 05.480 COURT CORRECTED NOW RIGHT NOW

01:07 - 06.600 MY SECOND QUESTION OF GETTING

01:07 - 07.330 BACK TO THAT.

01:07 - 10.690 YOU WANT US TO DISAGREE WITH

01:07 - 11.870 THE COMMONWEALTH COURT.

01:07 - 14.530 HOWEVER, THE COMMONWEALTH COURT

01:07 - 16.130 RELIES ON GORDON

01:07 - 18.320 IN TRANSFERRING THE CASE TO SEE

01:07 - 20.720 DONE SO IF WE DO NOT OVERRULED

01:07 - 23.120 BOARD. YOU WANT US TO TELL OUR

01:07 - 24.790 SISTER COURT THE COMMONWEALTH

01:07 - 26.020 COURT THAT THEY

01:07 - 27.840 INCORRECTLY INTERPRETED.

01:07 - 29.870 GORDON SO NOT ONLY DO YOU WANT

01:07 - 31.790 US TO DISAGREE WITH THEM AND

01:07 - 33.270 SEND IT BACK YOU WANT US TO

01:07 - 34.990 TELL THEM THAT THEY DIDN'T

01:07 - 36.330 PROPERLY INTERPRET ONE OF OUR

01:07 - 37.960 DECISIONS IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT

01:07 - 38.450 US TO DO

01:07 - 40.200 YET. YES BECAUSE I

01:07 - 43.390 >>THE BIG BECAUSE I THINK THAT

01:07 - 45.860 OVERRULING OVERRULING A CASE

01:07 - 46.000 THAT

01:07 - 47.230 IS DISTINGUISHABLE.

01:07 - 49.730 >>IS A WORSE ALTERNATIVE THAN

01:07 - 51.030 TELLING THE COMMONWEALTH COURT

01:07 - 52.690 WE'VE LOOKED AT THE FACTS OF

01:07 - 55.050 THIS CASE AND THIS CASE NEEDS

01:07 - 57.930 TO BE. THE SITE THE INTERPRET

01:07 - 59.260 THE ELECTION CODE NEEDS TO BE

01:07 - 00.510 INTERPRETED TO DECIDE

01:08 - 02.560 THIS CASE THAT'S WITHIN YOUR

01:08 - 04.710 EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION, AND.

01:08 - 07.430 YOU REALLY DON'T HAVE A CHOICE

01:08 - 08.660 IN MATTER BECAUSE THE JUDICIAL

01:08 - 10.290 CODE GIVES THEM EXCLUSIVE

01:08 - 11.360 JURISDICTIONS RE

01:08 - 13.040 REALLY CAN'T HOW DO YOU HAVE IF

01:08 - 14.280 WE DIDN'T HAVE JURISDICTION IN

01:08 - 15.510 THE FIRST PLACE TO DECIDE

01:08 - 17.470 GORDON. THEN WHY SHOULDN'T WE

01:08 - 18.160 OVERTURN IT.

01:08 - 21.000 WELL NO I'M NOT SAYING THAT YOU

01:08 - 23.020 SEEK TO GORDON HAD LANGUAGE

01:08 - 24.980 THAT THERE WAS ONLY THERE

01:08 - 26.760 BECAUSE IT INVOLVED THE VOTER

01:08 - 28.760 THAT IT DID NOT INVOLVE

01:08 - 31.070 THE ELECTION COULD BUT IF WE

01:08 - 32.800 LOOK AT THAT CASE AND SAY LOOK

01:08 - 33.910 IT NOT ONLY INVOLVES THE

01:08 - 34.940 ELECTION CODE, BUT IT ALSO

01:08 - 36.200 INVOLVED A NONPROFIT

01:08 - 38.740 ORGANIZATION. NEITHER

01:08 - 40.740 OF WHICH WE HAVE JURISDICTION

01:08 - 43.690 TO HEAR THEN WHY IS IT THAT

01:08 - 46.260 MUCH CLEAR FOR US TO SAY FROM

01:08 - 47.000 HERE ON IN.

01:08 - 48.800 GORDON DOESN'T APPLY UNDER THE

01:08 - 50.020 CIRCUMSTANCES.

01:08 - 52.900 I MEAN AT WHAT WERE THE ONLY

01:08 - 55.980 BOMB TURNOVER TERM, A DECISION

01:08 - 57.270 SO THAT IT CAN'T USE BE IS

01:08 - 57.620 THAT.

01:08 - 00.010 BASED ON BOARD AND THE

01:09 - 01.600 COMMONWEALTH COURT WILL NOT

01:09 - 03.740 TAKE ANY CASE THAT LOOKS LIKE

01:09 - 05.220 THIS AND THAT'S CAN BECOME A

01:09 - 07.650 PROBLEM FOR NOT ONLY YOU AND

01:09 - 09.360 YOU PUT US IN THE FUTURE

01:09 - 10.900 BECAUSE WE BELIEVE DIDN'T HAVE

01:09 - 12.160 JURISDICTION TO HEAR THAT CASE

01:09 - 12.920 TO BEGIN WITH.

01:09 - 14.430 WELL.

01:09 - 15.920 >>I'M NOT GOING TO ARGUE THAT

01:09 - 18.180 YOU SHOULD NOT BE OVERRULED OR

01:09 - 19.960 DONE A GOOD MOVE AND THIS AND

01:09 - 21.780 THAT GORDON IS GORDON IS

01:09 - 23.770 DISTINGUISHABLE BUT IF THAT

01:09 - 25.690 SAYS THAT IF THAT'S AN ISSUE

01:09 - 27.560 THAT THIS COURT NEEDS TO

01:09 - 30.090 RESOLVE THEN. THEN YOU WOULD

01:09 - 31.730 HAVE TO OVERRULE THE LORDS THE

01:09 - 33.040 STRENGTH OF YOUR ORAL ARGUMENTS

01:09 - 34.230 SURPRISE ME JUST A LITTLE BIT

01:09 - 35.300 BECAUSE IN YOUR BRIEF YOU

01:09 - 36.810 CLEARLY ARGUE WITH GORDON IS

01:09 - 38.140 NOT DISTINGUISHABLE WE SHOULD

01:09 - 39.300 OVERRULE BOARD.

01:09 - 41.590 >>I THE PRIZE WHEN YOU STARTED

01:09 - 42.810 QUICKLY BY SAYING YOU SHOULDN'T

01:09 - 44.150 OVERBOARD OK REALLY.

01:09 - 47.220 >>HE'S ARGUING THE

01:09 - 53.160 IF YOU CAN IF YOU CONCLUDE THAT

01:09 - 54.620 YOU DO HAVE A.

01:09 - 58.070 >>IF YOU

01:09 - 59.000 CONCLUDE THAT GORDON'S

01:09 - 00.310 CONTROLLING THEN I AGREE THAT

01:10 - 01.390 YOU SHOULD LUCK.

01:10 - 03.790 IN FACT COUNCIL YOU DID FILE

01:10 - 04.970 THIS WITH THE COMMONWEALTH

01:10 - 06.840 COURT TO BEGIN WITH YES AND

01:10 - 08.950 THERE'S ACTUALLY A SECTION OF

01:10 - 10.650 WEST PENNSYLVANIA PRACTICE

01:10 - 11.290 DISCUSSING

01:10 - 14.010 THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURTS

01:10 - 15.780 TO DECIDE THESE TYPES OF CASES

01:10 - 17.020 AND I ACTUALLY THINK THAT YOU

01:10 - 18.140 COULD HAVE MADE A COLORFUL

01:10 - 19.330 ARGUMENT THAT.

01:10 - 22.250 THE SUPREME THE COMMONWEALTH OR

01:10 - 24.340 SPIRIT COURT HAS EXCLUSIVE

01:10 - 25.060 JURISDICTION

01:10 - 27.240 BUT MIKE CONCLUSION BASED ON

01:10 - 28.550 THE PARTICULAR FACTS OF THIS

01:10 - 29.780 CASE IS THAT THE COMMONWEALTH

01:10 - 31.240 COURT WAS MOST APPROPRIATE

01:10 - 32.990 COURT TO DECIDE THIS CASE

01:10 - 35.330 BECAUSE IT TURNS ON BECAUSE IT

01:10 - 36.700 WAS THE COMMONWEALTH COURT THEY

01:10 - 38.380 DID THE TRANSFER WASN'T AS IF

01:10 - 40.230 IT WAS REQUESTED OR YOU MOVE TO

01:10 - 42.440 DO IT. THE COMMONS CONCLUDED BY

01:10 - 43.840 CUOMO'S COURT CONCLUDED BY

01:10 - 45.420 LOOKING AT GORDON CORRECT

01:10 - 47.340 THAT THE CASE SHOULD BE

01:10 - 48.530 TRANSFERRED TO THIS COURT

01:10 - 50.380 CORRECT. AND IT WAS A.

01:10 - 52.540 IT WAS NOT A PRESIDENTIAL

01:10 - 53.910 DECISION I MEAN IT WAS THE IT

01:10 - 54.360 WAS A PER

01:10 - 58.410 ORDER RIGHT. AND SO IT DID NOT

01:10 - 59.220 HAVE THE

01:10 - 01.380 IT WAS NOT BRIEFED THAT WAS IT

01:11 - 02.940 WAS SPAWN TAPED BY THE

01:11 - 05.490 COMMONWEALTH COURT AND A ORDER

01:11 - 06.970 THE PARTIES DIDN'T GET A CHANCE

01:11 - 09.120 TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE WITH THE

01:11 - 11.310 COMMONWEALTH COURT. SO UNDER

01:11 - 12.890 THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, I'M

01:11 - 13.480 REQUESTING

01:11 - 15.360 THAT YOU RE TRANSFER THE CASE

01:11 - 17.370 REVIEW THE FACTS THAT YOU

01:11 - 18.640 RELYING UPON.

01:11 - 20.360 >>FOR WHEN YOU'RE APPLYING

01:11 - 23.490 SECTION 7.62 THAT THIS CASE

01:11 - 23.950 INVOLVES

01:11 - 25.890 THE INTERPRETATION OF THE

01:11 - 28.570 STATUTE INVOLVING CAMPAIGNS

01:11 - 30.320 ELECTIONS CAMPAIGNS ARE LIKE TO

01:11 - 30.890 PROCEDURE.

01:11 - 34.560 28 37 OF THE ELECTION

01:11 - 35.940 COULD REQUIRES POLITICAL

01:11 - 38.030 PARTIES TO FOLLOW THEIR OWN

01:11 - 39.080 RULES REGARDING.

01:11 - 41.320 >>THE SELECTION AND REMOVAL OF

01:11 - 43.630 COMMITTEE PERSONS THE LOCAL

01:11 - 45.560 POLITICAL PARTY HERE THIS

01:11 - 46.850 QUALIFIED MOON.

01:11 - 49.830 >>FOR REASONS THAT THE NOT

01:11 - 52.240 CONSTITUTE GROUNDS UNDER THE

01:11 - 55.330 PARTY'S OWN THIS QUALIFICATION

01:11 - 56.330 RULE.

01:11 - 00.310 AND THE DISQUALIFICATION ROLE.

01:12 - 02.340 IT GIVES THE

01:12 - 04.620 IT GIVES 3 REASONS WHY A

01:12 - 05.850 COMMITTEE PERSON CAN BE

01:12 - 07.170 DISQUALIFIED ONE THAT THEY'RE

01:12 - 09.210 NOT QUALIFIED. REPUBLICAN

01:12 - 10.820 ELECTOR THAT'S NOT AN ISSUE.

01:12 - 11.760 2.

01:12 - 15.650 WHETHER A COMMITTEE

01:12 - 17.810 PERSON IS NEGLECTING OR

01:12 - 18.650 REFUSING

01:12 - 20.630 TO ATTEND DUTIES OF THEIR

01:12 - 22.090 OFFICE I INTERPRET THAT AS

01:12 - 23.200 MEANING DURING THEIR CURRENT

01:12 - 25.250 TERM NOT DURING A PRIOR TERM OF

01:12 - 27.310 OFFICE AND IF THEY'RE

01:12 - 30.070 CAMPAIGNING AGAINST ENDORSED A

01:12 - 32.160 PARTY CANDIDATES IN A GENERAL

01:12 - 34.460 THE ELECTION. THIS IS A

01:12 - 36.130 ELECTION, YOU'RE ALWAYS GOING

01:12 - 37.200 TO HAVE IF YOU

01:12 - 41.340 COMPETING PERSONS RUNNING FOR

01:12 - 42.100 THESE LOCAL

01:12 - 45.000 COMMITTEE SEATS. IF ONE PERSON

01:12 - 46.600 IS IN THE WORST DOES THAT MEAN

01:12 - 47.960 THAT THE THAT THE OTHER PERSON

01:12 - 49.270 IS RUNNING AGAINST THE ENDORSED

01:12 - 50.750 CANDIDATE ARGUMENT THAT ACTING

01:12 - 52.090 UNETHICALLY HIM WITH THE

01:12 - 53.720 JURISDICTION ISSUE YOUR

01:12 - 55.140 COMMUNITIES YOU RAISE THESE

01:12 - 56.330 ISSUES WERE NOT THAT THEY WERE

01:12 - 56.660 NOT.

01:12 - 58.360 >>I'M NOT LOOKING I'M NOT LOOK

01:12 - 59.630 IF YOU TO ADDRESS THE MERITS OF

01:12 - 00.910 IT. BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY

01:13 - 02.580 YOU'RE ARGUING IS LOOK THESE

01:13 - 03.820 ARE THE ISSUES IN THIS

01:13 - 06.070 INVOLVES THE INTERPRETATION OF

01:13 - 10.080 A STATUTE ELECTION YES, OKAY.

01:13 - 12.330 WHY DID YOUR CLIENT ATTEND THE

01:13 - 13.090 INITIAL HEARING.

01:13 - 16.240 THERE WERE THERE WAS

01:13 - 17.980 AN INVESTIGATORY HEARING AND

01:13 - 18.340 THERE WAS A

01:13 - 19.880 DISQUALIFICATION HEARING.

01:13 - 21.880 >>THE INVESTIGATORY HEARING HE

01:13 - 23.950 ASKED FOR IT TO BE CONTINUED

01:13 - 24.850 SAID THAT HE COULD GET

01:13 - 25.940 WITNESSES THEY WOULD NOT

01:13 - 27.540 CONTINUE ITS A DID NOT ATTEND

01:13 - 29.750 THE DISQUALIFICATION HEARING.

01:13 - 31.320 HE DID NOT ATTEND BECAUSE IT

01:13 - 33.570 WAS UNLAWFUL AND THERE SHOULD

01:13 - 35.340 BE NO LEGAL REQUIREMENT IS IN

01:13 - 36.590 IT FOR THE COURTS TO DETERMINE

01:13 - 38.200 WHETHER IT AWFUL SO AT THAT

01:13 - 39.660 JUNCTURE WHAT HAD BEEN TO HIS

01:13 - 41.200 BENEFIT TO GO TO THE HEARING

01:13 - 41.440 AND THEN

01:13 - 41.930 AT LEAST.

01:13 - 43.590 >>AT PEEL WHAT YOU'RE DOING NOW

01:13 - 44.990 LET THE COURTS DECIDE BUT BY

01:13 - 45.620 NOT GOING

01:13 - 46.250 AT ALL.

01:13 - 47.750 >>NO IT WAS AN UNLAWFUL

01:13 - 49.050 INQUISITION AND THERE'S NO

01:13 - 50.630 LEGAL REQUIREMENT FOR SOMEONE

01:13 - 51.800 TO ATTEND SOMETHING THAT'S

01:13 - 53.670 UNLAWFUL IN ORDER TO CHALLENGE

01:13 - 55.150 THEIR DETERMINES ITS UNLAWFUL

01:13 - 56.080 YOUR CLIENT OR.

01:13 - 57.800 >>YEAH, THE COURT WILL YOU THE

01:13 - 58.760 COURT DIDN'T DETERMINE

01:13 - 00.370 THAT YET. SO WHY WHAT YOUR

01:14 - 02.180 CLIENT HAVE AT LEAST GONE TO

01:14 - 03.550 THE HEARING AND AT LEAST BE

01:14 - 05.810 HEARD BUT MAKE A RECORD OF WHY

01:14 - 07.400 HE FEELS HE MIGHT HAVE BEEN IN

01:14 - 08.520 A BETTER POSITION TODAY.

01:14 - 11.030 >>WELL HE DID I MEAN WE DID PUT

01:14 - 12.570 OUR POSITION ON THE RECORD WHEN

01:14 - 14.190 A LETTER TO OUR LEGAL POSITION

01:14 - 15.760 THAT IN THE LETTER BUT WE'RE

01:14 - 16.900 NOT GOING TO

01:14 - 18.410 EXPOSE HIM TO AN

01:14 - 20.660 UNLAWFUL INQUISITION BUT AT

01:14 - 22.190 AGAIN IT'S NOT A LEARN ELECTED

01:14 - 24.790 EVERY 2 YEARS, YES, SO THAT HIS

01:14 - 26.680 TERM WOULD HAVE BEEN UP BY NOW.

01:14 - 28.460 WELL HE'S ACTUALLY BEEN

01:14 - 30.980 REELECTED HIS SAY HE WAS

01:14 - 33.770 REMOVED FROM HIS 2000 TO 2000.

01:14 - 35.840 18 TERM HE'S NOW.

01:14 - 38.460 CURRENTLY SERVING IN THE 2018

01:14 - 40.780 2020 TERM. MY CONCERN IS

01:14 - 42.140 BECAUSE HE WAS REMOVED FOR

01:14 - 44.950 CONDUCT THAT OCCURRED PRIOR TO

01:14 - 45.430 HIS TERM

01:14 - 47.290 OF OFFICE THAT THEY COULD JUST

01:14 - 49.070 CONTAIN THIS COULD HAPPEN OVER

01:14 - 50.710 AND OVER AGAIN HE COULD RUN FOR

01:14 - 52.550 ELECTION WHEN THEN

01:14 - 54.180 BE REMOVED FOR REASONS THAT

01:14 - 55.080 SOUNDS VERY OR SOMEWHAT

01:14 - 56.290 IMPORTANT CASE THAT'S THE

01:14 - 58.560 SIMILAR. ARGUMENT THAT THE

01:14 - 01.120 VOTER RAISE IN THAT. EVEN

01:15 - 04.100 THOUGH A GORDON WAS REINSTATED

01:15 - 05.450 IN ULTIMATELY WENT ON TO

01:15 - 07.260 SOMETHING ELSE. THE VOTER WAS

01:15 - 08.530 CONCERNED THAT THE KIND

01:15 - 10.310 OF BEHAVIOR AND THAT HAPPENED

01:15 - 12.240 WITH THE CITY COMMITTEE COULD

01:15 - 13.580 JUST BE REPEATED OVER AND OVER

01:15 - 14.910 AGAIN IN TIMES AS SOMEBODY

01:15 - 15.750 STOOD UP.

01:15 - 18.070 THAT YOU KNOW THEY COULD BE

01:15 - 19.240 KNOCKED BACK DOWN SO IT'S

01:15 - 20.670 SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING

01:15 - 22.400 HERE. WELL A VOTER DOESN'T HAVE

01:15 - 23.650 STANDING TO CHALLENGE THAT BUT

01:15 - 24.950 SOMEONE WHO SUBJECT TO

01:15 - 26.040 DISQUALIFICATION

01:15 - 28.510 UNDERSTAND BUT YEAH, HE'S

01:15 - 29.730 SERVING A TOUCHLINE SERVING AS

01:15 - 31.050 A COMMITTEE PERSON RIGHT NOW.

01:15 - 34.130 YES. PLANNING COULD BE THAT HE

01:15 - 34.950 COULD BE.

01:15 - 36.890 >>THEY IF THEY THEY COULD HAVE

01:15 - 37.220 THE.

01:15 - 38.860 >>FOR THE SAME REASONS THAT

01:15 - 40.290 THEY DISQUALIFIED HIM BEFORE

01:15 - 41.730 THEY COULD DISQUALIFY HIM AGAIN

01:15 - 42.710 BUT NO SUCH

01:15 - 44.460 NO ACTIVITY HAS HAPPENED THUS

01:15 - 46.900 FAR NO SOUL. IT IS

01:15 - 49.340 THIS MOVE. NO THIS IS CAPABLE

01:15 - 50.220 OF REPETITION YET

01:15 - 52.810 EVADING REVIEW. HE I MEAN HE

01:15 - 54.160 PROMPTLY BROUGHT IN A

01:15 - 54.820 DECLARATORY

01:15 - 56.480 JUDGMENT ACTION TO TRY TO

01:15 - 58.350 PREVENT THE DISQUALIFICATION

01:15 - 01.250 FROM OCCURRING. HE HE MOVE FOR

01:16 - 02.790 PLAN THEIR INJUNCTION WHICH WAS

01:16 - 06.020 9. HE MOVED FOR

01:16 - 06.940 SUMMARY JUDGMENT

01:16 - 09.130 I MEAN BY THE TIME THIS IS

01:16 - 10.840 LITIGATED THAT WAS 2 OR 3 YEARS

01:16 - 12.410 AGO NOW SO IT'S

01:16 - 14.510 SOMETHING THAT IT COULD TO KEEP

01:16 - 15.960 HAPPENING BUT NEVER HAVE A

01:16 - 16.920 CHANCE TO GET A FINAL

01:16 - 19.090 ADJUDICATION WAIT YOU SAY THAT

01:16 - 19.200 IT

01:16 - 20.200 COULD HAPPEN.

01:16 - 21.960 >>I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT

01:16 - 23.730 ANSWERS THE MOVIE THIS QUESTION

01:16 - 27.300 I MEAN THE ACTIONS THAT WHOEVER

01:16 - 29.020 IT IS TOOK HIS LONG

01:16 - 31.940 AGO EXPIRED RIGHT NOW HE'S

01:16 - 33.660 SERVING HIS COMMITTEE PERSON

01:16 - 35.540 YOU'RE SAYING THEY COULD DO IT

01:16 - 37.010 AGAIN BUT APPARENTLY THEY HAVE

01:16 - 40.140 NOT HAD THEY DONE IT AGAIN THAT

01:16 - 40.280 WOULD

01:16 - 42.310 TOTALLY ELIMINATE THE MOVE THIS

01:16 - 44.200 ISSUE BY THAT I MEAN I DO THINK

01:16 - 45.830 THERE'S A NEW THIS ISSUE PRIOR.

01:16 - 47.280 >>BECAUSE OUR COURT DETERMINED

01:16 - 48.760 IN GORDON THAT THE

01:16 - 50.410 FACT THAT GORDON WAS

01:16 - 53.000 REINSTATED. MADE THE

01:16 - 55.370 AND THE VOTER HAD NO STANDING

01:16 - 56.740 BECAUSE GORDON WAS REINSTATED

01:16 - 57.970 AS COMMITTEE PURSE WHY IS IT

01:16 - 58.690 NOT MOVE HERE.

01:16 - 59.990 >>WELL, THIS IS A DIFFERENT

01:16 - 00.980 ACTION MEAN THIS WAS A

01:17 - 02.520 PERSPECTIVE DECLARATORY

01:17 - 04.210 JUDGMENT ACTION ASKING FOR AN

01:17 - 06.110 INTERPRETATION THAT SENT THE

01:17 - 08.840 SAYS MY CONDUCT IN VIOLATE

01:17 - 09.840 THEY CAN'T HOLD THE

01:17 - 11.070 DISQUALIFICATION HEARING

01:17 - 12.330 AGAINST ME BASED ON THIS

01:17 - 14.480 CONDUCT. AND THAT'S WHAT HE WAS

01:17 - 15.890 DOING THAT'S WHAT HE'S STILL

01:17 - 16.320 SEEKING

01:17 - 18.110 AT STEPPED. GORE AND INVOLVE

01:17 - 19.650 THEM AND AIMS NO NO I RE I NEED

01:17 - 20.810 A MAN WITH THE FACT THAT

01:17 - 22.190 BORDERS REINSTATED ME AS A

01:17 - 23.470 COMMITTEE PERSON MAYBE ACTION

01:17 - 24.030 MOVED UP.

01:17 - 26.630 AND YOUR CLIENT IS SERVING HIS

01:17 - 27.830 COMMITTEE PERSON RIGHT NOW.

01:17 - 30.260 YES, I'M NOT NOT IN THAT AND

01:17 - 31.510 YOUR TIME IS UP I THINK.

01:17 - 40.070 WARNING ON THE JOELE

01:17 - 41.890 FRANK OFF LIMIT WHEN I MY

01:17 - 43.310 PARTNER SCOTT WITHERS REPRESENT

01:17 - 44.330 THE BUCKS COUNTY REPUBLICAN

01:17 - 44.730 COMMITTEE.

01:17 - 47.280 >>THROUGHOUT THIS TORTURED

01:17 - 48.840 HISTORY OF THIS CASE WAS AN UP

01:17 - 49.120 DOWN

01:17 - 50.870 ALL AROUND NEVER REALLY AGREED

01:17 - 52.160 MUCH YOU KNOW WITH OPPOSING

01:17 - 53.720 COUNSEL THE APPELLANT BUT

01:17 - 55.470 BECAUSE WE BELIEVE THAT GORDON

01:17 - 57.800 IN FACT IS DISTINGUISHABLE AND

01:17 - 59.490 IT'S ACTUALLY SHOULD GO BACK TO

01:17 - 01.230 THE COMMONWEALTH COURT FOR

01:18 - 02.790 ULTIMATE DETERMINATION WITH

01:18 - 03.630 THAT SAID.

01:18 - 05.860 WE'RE HAPPY FOR YOUR HONOR'S TO

01:18 - 07.630 KATE AND CONSIDER THE MATTER OR

01:18 - 08.710 TO COME OF COURSE BECAUSE NO

01:18 - 10.700 MATTER WHAT WE BELIEVE THAT

01:18 - 12.230 JUDGE MELLON THE LOWER COURT

01:18 - 14.510 DECISION AND OUR FAVORITE NEEDS

01:18 - 15.740 TO BE UPHELD BASED UPON

01:18 - 17.650 GOVERNING LAW AND THE FACTS AS

01:18 - 18.970 FOR THE RIGHT TO DO IT.

01:18 - 20.760 >>I'M NOT SURE THAT WE ARE THE

01:18 - 22.930 RIGHT COURT TO DO THAT BECAUSE

01:18 - 25.040 IF THIS IN FACT INVOLVES THE

01:18 - 27.600 INTERPRETATION OF IT OF THE

01:18 - 28.260 ELECTION.

01:18 - 30.800 AND IT INVOLVES A NONPROFIT

01:18 - 32.320 CORPORATION BECAUSE I THINK THE

01:18 - 33.370 REPUBLICAN PARTY AND THE

01:18 - 35.490 DEMOCRATIC PARTY ARE NONPROFITS

01:18 - 36.990 YOU PUT THE 2 OF THEM TOGETHER

01:18 - 37.080 AND

01:18 - 37.410 I THINK.

01:18 - 39.480 >>THE JUDGE I AGREE WITH WHAT I

01:18 - 40.570 SEE I MEAN I THINK YOU KNOW THE

01:18 - 41.850 KEY LANGUAGE FROM GORDON, IF

01:18 - 42.820 I'M MAKING THOSE BE

01:18 - 44.450 THIS AS YOU KNOW, ALTHOUGH THE

01:18 - 46.250 INSTANT APPEAL TANGENTIALLY

01:18 - 47.430 INVOLVED IN ELECTION.

01:18 - 49.360 WE WERE NOT REQUIRED TO APPLY

01:18 - 50.600 INTERPRET OR ENFORCE THE

01:18 - 51.630 ELECTION CODE IN REACHING

01:18 - 53.040 WORLD. THAT'S THE QUOTE FROM

01:18 - 54.060 BORN I THINK THAT'S THAT'S THE

01:18 - 55.700 KEY TO TERMINATION HERE BECAUSE

01:18 - 57.320 IN THIS MATTER THERE ARE 2 IN

01:18 - 58.490 FACT THE SECTIONS OF THE

01:18 - 00.940 ELECTION CODE 8 OH 7 WORSHIP,

01:19 - 03.090 ELLEN CLAIMS IS IS IN PLAY

01:19 - 04.520 BECAUSE THE CLAIM

01:19 - 05.970 THAT THE BUCKS COUNTY

01:19 - 07.150 REPUBLICAN RULES WERE

01:19 - 08.480 INCONSISTENT WITH THE

01:19 - 10.700 PENNSYLVANIA. GOP RULES WERE

01:19 - 11.880 SHOULD NOT PERMITTED TO BE

01:19 - 13.860 AND NUMBER 2 WE CONTEND THE

01:19 - 15.760 SECTION 8.12 GIVES US THE RIGHT

01:19 - 16.750 TO DO EXACTLY WHAT

01:19 - 19.700 WE DID IN REMOVING HIM AND

01:19 - 20.790 THAT'S WHAT HAITIAN OF THE

01:19 - 23.040 ELECTION CODE ARE IN DISPUTE

01:19 - 24.910 HERE AT CORRECT NEXT THAT

01:19 - 26.010 DISTINGUISHING FACTOR FROM

01:19 - 27.530 GORDON ITSELF. GORDON WAS MORE

01:19 - 29.520 OF A GENERAL. YOU KNOW FACT IF

01:19 - 30.020 YOU WILL

01:19 - 31.760 YOU KNOW TALKING ABOUT THE WILL

01:19 - 32.720 OF THE ELECTORATE CAN'T BE

01:19 - 33.710 SUPPLANTED RIGHT.

01:19 - 35.320 >>IN IN THE COURT IN CASE

01:19 - 37.310 MISTER FRANK IT WAS AN ISSUE OF

01:19 - 42.180 AND THEREFORE A JUDGE PRESIDENT

01:19 - 44.380 JUDGE CANELA INDICATED THAT THE

01:19 - 45.480 YOU WANT US TO TELL THE

01:19 - 46.740 COMMONWEALTH QUICK THAT THEY

01:19 - 49.680 HAVE MISINTERPRETED OUR CASE

01:19 - 52.010 AND MY POSITION WOULD BE THAT

01:19 - 53.020 IT WAS HIS POSITION WILL BE

01:19 - 53.310 WHEN HE

01:19 - 55.190 VOTES BUT GORDON IS

01:19 - 56.980 A STAND IN CASE THAT WASN'T

01:19 - 58.850 VOTER IN THIS CASE IT WAS

01:19 - 00.760 ELECTED COMMITTEE PERSON AND I

01:20 - 01.270 THINK THAT'S

01:20 - 02.990 A DIFFERENCE BECAUSE ELECTED

01:20 - 04.480 COMMUNITY PERSON THEN SUBJECT

01:20 - 06.050 TO THE ELECTION CODE AS IT

01:20 - 07.220 ABSOLUTELY LEGITIMATE

01:20 - 07.710 DISTINGUISHING

01:20 - 10.570 FACTOR AGREE. I MEAN IT SOUNDS

01:20 - 12.460 LIKE YOU DON'T DISAGREE WITH

01:20 - 13.670 YOUR OPPONENT HERE.

01:20 - 15.180 >>I MEAN YOU'RE BOTH HAPPY TO

01:20 - 16.450 HAVE GOOD COLUMN

01:20 - 18.410 WILL COURT. I ASSUME YOU WOULD

01:20 - 20.100 PROBABLY BE BOTH HAPPY IF WE

01:20 - 21.530 OVERRULED GORDON SO IN THE

01:20 - 22.770 FUTURE WOULD BE CLEAR.

01:20 - 24.450 >>WELL I THINK THE PRACTICE AND

01:20 - 25.630 PUT YOUR HONOR MEAN I GREW FROM

01:20 - 27.150 TH THAT THAT YOU KNOW COME OF

01:20 - 28.120 COURSE PROBABLY THE MOST

01:20 - 29.340 PRUDENT COURT TO GET IN HERE

01:20 - 30.760 THE MATTER THE OF YOU GO IF YOU

01:20 - 31.850 WILL GREATER PRACTICAL

01:20 - 32.980 EXPERTISE IN DEALING WITH

01:20 - 34.480 ELECTION MATTERS INCLUDING SOME

01:20 - 35.800 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION MATTERS

01:20 - 37.020 WORSE, YOU KNOW THIS COURT IS

01:20 - 38.950 GREATER BUT THE SUN HANDLING

01:20 - 40.010 YOU KNOW CRIMINAL MATTERS

01:20 - 42.080 AND SOPHISTICATED CIVIL MATTERS

01:20 - 43.110 AS WELL SO I THINK THERE'S A

01:20 - 45.120 PRACTICAL APPLICATION AS WELL,

01:20 - 46.410 I'M HAPPY TO HAVE EITHER COURT

01:20 - 47.720 DECIDE QUITE HONESTLY BECAUSE

01:20 - 48.640 AGAIN I THINK THE

01:20 - 50.740 UNDERLYING CASE THAT MAN IS

01:20 - 52.260 DETERMINATIVE AND WHAT IT GIVES

01:20 - 53.500 US THE RIGHT TO DO EXACTLY WHAT

01:20 - 54.770 WE DID FOR THE REASON WE DID

01:20 - 54.970 IT.

01:20 - 56.650 >>YOU SEE ISSUE MOOT CAN YOU

01:20 - 58.020 ADDRESS THE MUTINOUS ISSUE.

01:20 - 59.960 >>I BELIEVE THAT IS NEW YOUR

01:21 - 02.680 YOU AT SAME TIME ACQUIESCE THAT

01:21 - 04.090 THAT THIS IS CAPABLE OF

01:21 - 07.280 REPETITION EVADING REVIEW, SO.

01:21 - 09.440 I'M COMFORTABLE IF THE CASE

01:21 - 10.720 THAT WHATEVER COURT ONCE AGAIN

01:21 - 12.010 OPEN TO DECIDE IT WANTS TO

01:21 - 13.720 AND ULTIMATELY ADDRESS THE

01:21 - 14.790 UNDERLYING ISSUES THAT WE'RE

01:21 - 16.640 COMFORTABLE THAT OFF THE JUDGE

01:21 - 17.390 MELONS VERTICAL

01:21 - 19.130 BE UPHELD. SO YOU AGREE WITH

01:21 - 20.960 YOUR OPINION THAT THIS AS WELL

01:21 - 22.300 THAT MEANS.

01:21 - 24.050 >>YOUR ANSWER WAS BASICALLY THE

01:21 - 25.500 SAME ANSWER THAT HE GAVE.

01:21 - 27.400 >>AND THAT YOU'RE ACCURATE

01:21 - 28.470 RECORD AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT

01:21 - 29.390 IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN AGAIN

01:21 - 30.910 IN TOWN FOR NOT NECESSARILY

01:21 - 32.810 WITH THAT PARTY, BUT YOU KNOW

01:21 - 34.330 WITH PARTIES IN GENERAL YOU CAN

01:21 - 35.210 DO NO EVIL GENERAL

01:21 - 36.390 IN ORDER FOR EITHER THE

01:21 - 37.770 COMMONWEALTH COURT FOR THIS

01:21 - 39.450 COURT TO ADDRESS THE MOVE THIS

01:21 - 40.660 ISSUE THOUGH DOES THE CERTIFIED

01:21 - 42.000 RECORD NEED TO BE SUPPLEMENTED.

01:21 - 44.720 >>I DON'T BELIEVE THAT DOESN'T

01:21 - 45.680 GET A BLEED. THE DOES YOUR

01:21 - 46.470 HONOR NOW I MEAN

01:21 - 47.160 THE.

01:21 - 48.930 >>SO I HAVE TO DISCUSS THE

01:21 - 50.400 JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE FIRST

01:21 - 51.850 BEFORE WE DISCUSS MOVE THIS IS

01:21 - 53.340 MADNESS WOULD APPLY TO MERITS

01:21 - 54.540 OF THE CASE CORRECT HAS TO

01:21 - 55.430 AGREE WITH THAT AS WELL YOU'RE

01:21 - 55.800 ON.

01:21 - 59.370 THE FOR THE BETTER AND I THANK

01:21 - 01.410 YOU VERY MUCH FOR SHIP. THE

01:22 - 02.720 RESERVE 3 MINUTES BUT.

01:22 - 05.700 I WAS DOING AND YOU.

01:22 - 08.510 THE NEXT CASES, SCHICK THE

01:22 - 09.810 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

01:22 - 11.020 YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR IN THIS

01:22 - 12.600 CASE A SERIES OF LEGAL TERMS

01:22 - 13.220 YOU MAY NOT BE

01:22 - 15.480 FAMILIAR WITH THE SHIFT AT SOME

01:22 - 17.390 POINT ACTED PRO SE MEANING HE

01:22 - 19.910 WAS HIS OWN ATTORNEY. UNDER THE

01:22 - 20.980 PENNSYLVANIA LAW

01:22 - 22.350 YOU'RE PERMITTED TO FILE

01:22 - 24.000 ACTIONS, OWNERS OF PCR RATE

01:22 - 25.150 WHICH IS THE POST CONVICTION

01:22 - 26.880 RELIEF ACT. IN WHICH YOU CAN

01:22 - 28.210 CLAIM THAT YOUR ATTORNEY DID

01:22 - 30.490 NOT DO A GOOD JOB. IT'S CALLED

01:22 - 32.300 BE INEFFECTIVE OR INEFFECTIVE

01:22 - 33.390 ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.

01:22 - 36.150 THERE'S A SERIES OF COMPLICATED

01:22 - 37.710 PROCEDURAL ISSUES IN THIS CASE,

01:22 - 38.810 ONE OF THEM BEING

01:22 - 40.410 THE TIMING IN WHICH CERTAIN

01:22 - 41.770 APPEALS AND CERTAIN DOCUMENTS

01:22 - 43.470 WERE FILED. THERE IS A SEPARATE

01:22 - 44.860 ISSUE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT

01:22 - 47.290 THE DEFENDANTS SINCE HE WAS PRO

01:22 - 48.700 SE MEANING HE WAS WITHOUT A

01:22 - 50.730 LAWYER WAS ACCURATELY AND

01:22 - 52.490 APPROPRIATELY GIVEN HIS RIGHTS

01:22 - 52.700 AND

01:22 - 54.810 WAS TOLD WHAT NOTICE IS HE HAD

01:22 - 56.330 TO DO AND WHAT APPEALS YET TO

01:22 - 56.840 FILE.

01:22 - 00.010 WHAT IS BEFORE THE COURT IS

01:23 - 01.330 WHETHER OR NOT WHAT THE

01:23 - 03.590 DEFENDANT FILED CONSTITUTED AN

01:23 - 05.730 ACTUAL PETITION UNDER THE PCR A

01:23 - 07.550 BECAUSE IT'S IMPORTANT

01:23 - 10.220 BECAUSE IF THERE IS A FILING

01:23 - 11.530 MADE IN THEIR CERTAIN TIME

01:23 - 13.130 PERIODS IN TIME DEADLINES THAT

01:23 - 13.840 ARE IN POST.

01:23 - 16.940 WHAT'S BEFORE NOW THE COURTS

01:23 - 18.150 AND THE ARGUMENTS WENT TO SPEAK

01:23 - 20.290 WE'RE GOING TO HEAR IS THAT THE

01:23 - 22.360 DEFENDANT IS GOING TO SAY THAT

01:23 - 24.670 THEY FILED THEY'RE APPROPRIATE

01:23 - 26.810 PETITIONS AND WORK EFFECTIVELY

01:23 - 29.280 PROVIDED COUNSEL, LET'S GO TO

01:23 - 30.330 THE COURTROOM AND FIND OUT.

01:23 - 31.690 >>A GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR MY

01:23 - 32.680 NAME IS ALAN G AND

01:23 - 35.050 I REPRESENT. MISTER SHECK WHO

01:23 - 36.150 WAS THE PETITIONER IN THIS

01:23 - 38.370 PARTICULAR CASE. AND I REQUEST

01:23 - 39.970 2 MINUTES OF REBUTTAL TIME

01:23 - 41.930 THAT'S FINE. THE OUTSET OF

01:23 - 43.080 THESE PROCEEDINGS THIS COURT

01:23 - 45.810 INDICATED THAT WE ARE TO UH I

01:23 - 47.110 GUESS AVOID GETTING INTO

01:23 - 48.360 PROCEDURAL ISSUES BUT THE

01:23 - 49.610 PROCEDURE IN THIS PARTICULAR

01:23 - 51.400 MATTER IS EVERYTHING THAT'S

01:23 - 52.400 EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE TALKING

01:23 - 54.790 ABOUT AND SO I WILL BRIEFLY

01:23 - 56.370 A TOUCH ON WHAT I THINK OF THE

01:23 - 58.050 IMPORTANT PROCEDURAL ASPECTS OF

01:23 - 58.780 THIS CASE.

01:23 - 01.120 WE COME BEFORE THE COURT

01:24 - 03.850 BECAUSE IT PANEL A QUASHED OUR

01:24 - 06.070 APPEAL INDICATING THAT THE

01:24 - 07.830 COURT LACKED JURISDICTION AND

01:24 - 08.670 THIS WAS BASED

01:24 - 11.300 ON THE ONE YEAR RULE LIKE YES

01:24 - 12.760 WITH REGARD TO LIMITATIONS ON A

01:24 - 15.210 PCR A FILING. THE

01:24 - 17.080 CRITICAL DATE AS TO

01:24 - 19.310 WHEN THIS PERIOD COMMENCED

01:24 - 22.080 WOULD HAVE BEEN 5/7/2016.

01:24 - 24.550 THAT'S WHEN THE SENTENCING

01:24 - 25.510 BECAME FINAL.

01:24 - 30.940 PROCEDURALLY IS THAT

01:24 - 32.090 THE PETITIONER

01:24 - 33.900 PRO SE FILED

01:24 - 38.220 A SERIES OF MOTIONS A NOTICES

01:24 - 39.950 AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE A

01:24 - 41.730 VERY BRIEFLY ON

01:24 - 44.810 7/28/2016 HE FILED A PRO SE

01:24 - 46.040 NOTICE OF APPEAL WHICH WAS

01:24 - 46.680 DISMISSED.

01:24 - 49.770 ON AUGUST 3RD HE FILED A MOTION

01:24 - 51.880 TO DISMISS INDICATING THAT

01:24 - 52.230 THERE WAS A

01:24 - 53.960 VIOLATION OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL

01:24 - 56.530 RIGHTS ON AUGUST 50 FILED A

01:24 - 58.310 MATTER WHICH INDICATED THAT HE

01:24 - 00.960 FELT HIS COUNSEL

01:25 - 03.530 WAS INEFFECTIVE THE COURT

01:25 - 04.490 STATED THAT IT LACKED

01:25 - 06.080 JURISDICTION TO HEAR THESE ON

01:25 - 11.070 2/9/2017 HE FILED. ANOTHER PRO

01:25 - 12.960 SE A THE PETITION

01:25 - 15.540 TO RECONSIDER AN APPEAL.

01:25 - 16.930 NO PRO TALK.

01:25 - 20.650 >>FOR ALL OF THESE

01:25 - 22.940 MOTIONS PETITIONS WHATEVER HE

01:25 - 24.580 WAS ON COUNCIL. AND

01:25 - 26.580 THAT'S WHAT THE ESSENCE OF

01:25 - 28.630 WHERE WE ARE HE HAD NO COUNCIL

01:25 - 30.380 AND FURTHERMORE.

01:25 - 33.180 I CAN'T FIND ANYWHERE IN THE

01:25 - 35.140 RECORD WHERE HE WAS EVER

01:25 - 37.820 COLLOQUY ARE ADVISED OF HIS

01:25 - 41.570 RIGHTS TO HAVE COUNSEL IN A PCR

01:25 - 42.460 A PROCEEDING.

01:25 - 46.580 THE LOWER COURT WE

01:25 - 50.370 BELIEVE CORRECTLY DECIDED THAT

01:25 - 51.020 WHAT OCCURRED.

01:25 - 53.640 WAS THAT WHEN HE FILED THESE

01:25 - 54.920 VARIOUS PETITIONS.

01:25 - 58.530 IN THE SUMMER OF 2016 THEY

01:25 - 59.210 WERE.

01:25 - 00.890 >>BY LAW.

01:26 - 03.030 >>A PCR A PETITION.

01:26 - 05.650 AND THEY'RE RELYING PRIMARILY

01:26 - 07.000 ON THE CASE AND THIS WAS RELIED

01:26 - 09.050 ON BY THE DISSENTING JUDGE IN

01:26 - 11.530 THIS PARTICULAR CASE. ANY.

01:26 - 15.230 FILED AFTER THE JUDGMENT

01:26 - 17.520 OF SENTENCE. WE'LL BE TREATED

01:26 - 20.090 AS A PCR PETITION P SHERRY

01:26 - 21.520 PETITION SO WHERE TO POSITION

01:26 - 23.900 WHERE ALL OF THESE HAVE TO BE

01:26 - 25.710 CONSIDERED A PCR A PETITION.

01:26 - 27.220 AN INTERESTING LEE IN THESE

01:26 - 29.860 PETITIONS HE FILED. HE RAISE

01:26 - 32.190 LEGITIMATE ISSUES SUCH AS THE

01:26 - 34.060 EFFECTIVENESS OF COUNCIL, LET'S

01:26 - 35.310 COUNCIL LET'S JUST BACK UP JUST

01:26 - 37.620 FOR A MOMENT, OK SO WE FINALLY

01:26 - 39.240 GET A COUNCIL PCR KIT.

01:26 - 41.090 >>PCR A PETITION FILED IN

01:26 - 43.660 NOVEMBER OF 17 DEATHS ARE TRIAL

01:26 - 45.750 COURT SERIOUSLY CONSIDERS THAT

01:26 - 46.300 AND IN

01:26 - 49.290 FACT REINSTATES DIRECT APPEAL

01:26 - 51.370 RIGHTS HE DOES LIMITED TO THE

01:26 - 52.800 ISSUE OF THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE

01:26 - 54.810 GUILTY PLEA BECAUSE YOUR CLIENT

01:26 - 55.740 PLED GUILTY.

01:26 - 57.830 YES, SIR. I GUESS THE ONLY

01:26 - 58.800 OTHER ISSUE THAT COULD HAVE

01:26 - 00.090 BEEN INVOLVED IN A DIRECT

01:27 - 00.940 APPEAL WOULD HAVE BEEN THE

01:27 - 03.790 SENTENCE. BUT THE PARTS OF THE

01:27 - 04.810 GUILTY PLEA

01:27 - 07.410 WE'RE ACTUALLY THE GUILTY PLEA

01:27 - 08.700 WAS CONDITION ON CERTAIN

01:27 - 10.430 CONCESSIONS AS TO THE SENTENCE.

01:27 - 12.730 YES, SIR K FOLLOWING THAT.

01:27 - 14.730 YOU FILE AN APPEAL

01:27 - 16.550 TO US. YES SIR, AND GUESS WHAT

01:27 - 17.740 WE SAY YOU DIDN'T HAVE

01:27 - 19.520 JURISDICTION EITHER TOTALLY OUT

01:27 - 21.210 OF FORT SO SORT OF

01:27 - 24.030 HE GAINED APPEAL RIGHT DIRECT

01:27 - 25.520 APPEAL RIGHTS YOU COME TO US

01:27 - 26.680 AND NOW YOU'RE OUT OF COURT.

01:27 - 28.390 SO YOU IT TOOK A STEP BACK BY

01:27 - 29.590 APPEALING. WE SURE

01:27 - 31.990 DID OKAY, HOWEVER, WITH DIRECT

01:27 - 34.160 APPEAL RIGHTS BEING REINSTATED.

01:27 - 36.450 HE WOULD HAVE HAD A RIGHT TO

01:27 - 36.960 FILED A

01:27 - 39.300 DIRECT APPEAL. ARGUE TO US THAT

01:27 - 40.840 THE TRIAL COURT WAS INCORRECT

01:27 - 42.320 IN REFUSING HIS REQUEST TO

01:27 - 43.770 WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY PLEA.

01:27 - 46.950 UPON FINAL JUDGMENT OF SENTENCE

01:27 - 48.300 WOULD NOT IF HE HAD HAD

01:27 - 50.930 AVAILABLE THEN HIS PCR A RIGHTS

01:27 - 53.050 ABSOLUTELY SO THEN WHY ARE

01:27 - 54.890 YOU HERE WHAT WRITING SHOULD

01:27 - 56.420 PURSUE YOU A DIRECT APPEAL

01:27 - 58.730 RIGHTS WIN OR LOSE A FEW ONE

01:27 - 00.640 GRADY WITHDRAWS HIS APPEAL HIS

01:28 - 02.520 GUILTY PLEA AND HE GOES BACK TO

01:28 - 04.920 TRIAL. IF YOU LOSE

01:28 - 06.900 YOU COULD RAISE ANY AND ALL

01:28 - 09.080 ISSUES ON PCR A THAT YOU WANT.

01:28 - 11.570 >>WHAT HAVE YOU GAINED BY

01:28 - 13.240 APPEALING THE TRIAL COURT'S

01:28 - 15.130 DECISION THE TRIAL COURT.

01:28 - 17.760 DID NOT CONSIDER THE TRIAL

01:28 - 19.460 COURT RIGHT SAID ALL WE'RE

01:28 - 19.690 GOING TO

01:28 - 21.360 GIVE YOU IT'S THE RIGHT TO

01:28 - 23.190 APPEAL THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE

01:28 - 25.370 PLEA RIGHT WHICH IS THAT HIS

01:28 - 26.860 DIRECT APPEAL RIGHTS WOULD

01:28 - 28.460 HAVE INCLUDED WHAT ELSE IS

01:28 - 29.510 THERE AND YOU WOULD HAVE HAD

01:28 - 32.530 ALL YOUR PCR A RIGHTS AVAILABLE

01:28 - 33.160 TO YOU.

01:28 - 35.340 >>UPON THE ENTRY, A FINAL

01:28 - 36.800 JUDGMENT OF SENTENCE IF YOU

01:28 - 38.780 WERE UNSUCCESSFUL IN YOUR

01:28 - 41.080 DIRECT APPEAL. SO I JUST DON'T

01:28 - 42.340 GET IT WHY ARE YOU HERE.

01:28 - 49.370 >>THAT'S

01:28 - 56.220 DID YOU I DON'T MEAN TO SOUND

01:28 - 57.600 SO FORCEFUL WITH YOU, BUT IT

01:28 - 59.170 WENT ON TO GAIN BY APPEALING

01:28 - 00.620 THE TRIAL COURT'S DECISION IN

01:29 - 01.360 THIS CASE.

01:29 - 03.630 >>THAT WHAT WE

01:29 - 05.880 WHAT WE THOUGHT WAS YOURS

01:29 - 06.850 EXACTLY WHAT WE WERE

01:29 - 09.080 OKAY, OKAY AND SINCE I DIDN'T

01:29 - 14.980 FILE THE APPEAL OF GOT HERE'S

01:29 - 17.000 THE PROBLEM. LET'S ASSUME THAT

01:29 - 19.490 WE DID THAT AND WHAT OCCURRED

01:29 - 22.730 HERS IS WE GO BACK AND.

01:29 - 25.520 >>WE. WE TAKE

01:29 - 27.140 THE APPEAL. AND WE

01:29 - 29.270 COME BACK, THIS COURT DENIES

01:29 - 31.800 THE APPEAL. ON THE SENTENCE AND

01:29 - 34.130 SO WHERE WE ARE THEN IS WE GET

01:29 - 34.470 BACK

01:29 - 37.230 TO NOW. WE START THE PCR A

01:29 - 38.700 PERCEIVED ONE YEAR PERIOD

01:29 - 40.330 BEGINS THE ONE YEAR PERIOD

01:29 - 42.960 BEGINS. BUT IT SETS ARE KIND

01:29 - 45.620 BACK A COUPLE YEARS. WE WANT TO

01:29 - 46.440 LITIGATE.

01:29 - 49.410 THE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE

01:29 - 51.760 OF COUNSEL AND THE PROBLEM WITH

01:29 - 53.260 THAT IS IS TO GO THAT ROUTE.

01:29 - 55.010 YES WE'VE STILL BE IN COURT.

01:29 - 57.580 BUT IF WE GO THAT ROUTE WE ARE

01:29 - 59.680 AS I SAY SET BACK SEVERAL YEARS

01:29 - 02.260 AND THE INEFFECTIVENESS GO TO

01:30 - 04.570 THE GUILTY PLEA. AND IF

01:30 - 06.570 YOU DON'T IF YOU DON'T BATTLE.

01:30 - 08.490 >>OR ARE YOU.

01:30 - 10.290 >>BY NOT WITHDRAWING A GUILTY

01:30 - 12.020 PLEA THAT THAT KIND OF THE KEY

01:30 - 12.980 TO THE

01:30 - 14.980 WHOLE THING YOU KNOW IS AS

01:30 - 16.330 PRESIDENT JUDGE INDICATED BY

01:30 - 18.770 KIND OF BYPASSING THAT YOU KIND

01:30 - 20.430 OF PIGEON HOLE IN YOUR ARGUMENT

01:30 - 20.570 WHEN

01:30 - 23.020 YOU HAVE EVEN THOUGH YOU HAVE

01:30 - 24.330 EVEN THE JUDGE DID APPLY SOME

01:30 - 25.520 OF THE EXTENSION THEORY AND

01:30 - 27.390 SAID THAT THE FIRST BE SURE IT

01:30 - 28.220 WAS TIMELY.

01:30 - 30.050 THAT THAT

01:30 - 32.400 SECOND PCR THAT YOU FIRST THE

01:30 - 33.690 STORY WAS TIMELY SO EVEN THOUGH

01:30 - 35.940 THE SECOND PCR IT WAS FACIALLY

01:30 - 38.060 UNTIMELY SHOULD RELATE BACK TO

01:30 - 39.000 THE FILING OF ALL THESE

01:30 - 41.480 PRO SE. OCEANS WHICH IN

01:30 - 44.180 CONSTRUED AS IS A IS PCR A

01:30 - 46.330 BUT ISN'T IT A STRONGER ARGUE

01:30 - 47.550 FOR CLAY UNDERSTAND THE TIME

01:30 - 49.330 BUT LOST TO BATTLE THE

01:30 - 50.630 WITHDRAWAL OF THE GUILTY PLEA.

01:30 - 53.220 TO GET TO TO BE ABLE TO FIGHT

01:30 - 53.920 THAT BATTLE.

01:30 - 56.420 RATHER THAN SKIPPING THAT AND

01:30 - 58.620 GOING WELL THE INEFFECTIVENESS

01:30 - 59.980 OF COUNCIL COMES TRYING TO

01:30 - 02.370 UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION REALLY.

01:31 - 06.710 >>WE WE MIGHT HAVE BEEN MUCH

01:31 - 08.830 SMARTER TO DO THAT AND THEN WE

01:31 - 10.020 WOULD HAVE TAKEN US A COUPLE

01:31 - 11.310 EXTRA YEARS AND SO FORTH.

01:31 - 14.430 BUT WE ARE HERE TODAY BECAUSE

01:31 - 15.340 WE NEVER DREAMED.

01:31 - 18.250 THAT THIS COURT WOULD SAY THAT

01:31 - 19.890 THERE WAS A JURISDICTION, FORT

01:31 - 22.550 BASED ON THE PRIOR HOLDINGS OF

01:31 - 23.660 THIS COURT AND THE SUPREME

01:31 - 25.960 COURT. AND SO WHAT WE'RE SAYING

01:31 - 26.660 YES.

01:31 - 31.120 IN RETROSPECT KNOWING THAT THIS

01:31 - 32.750 COURT PANEL WOULD HAVE FOUND

01:31 - 35.030 THAT WAY. I GUESS WE SHOULD

01:31 - 36.070 HAVE DONE IT DIFFERENTLY.

01:31 - 36.900 YEAH, BUT

01:31 - 38.950 YOU'RE HERE EVERYTHING YOUR

01:31 - 41.340 ENTIRE ARGUMENT IS BASED ON THE

01:31 - 42.300 EXTENSION HERE.

01:31 - 45.080 >>IT'S NOT. HOW TO HOST

01:31 - 47.690 THE U HOW ELSE ARE YOU HERE ARE

01:31 - 48.940 YOU HAVE 2 YEARS TO WRITE THE

01:31 - 51.310 THEORY. I MEAN I I IN THAT

01:31 - 53.320 THAT'S NOT THE CURRENT LAW IN

01:31 - 54.780 PENNSYLVANIA. I GREAT

01:31 - 56.750 EXTENSIONS THEIR CABLE. HERE'S

01:31 - 59.100 HERE'S WHAT WHAT OUR POINT IS.

01:32 - 01.450 HE FILES.

01:32 - 06.170 KCRA

01:32 - 09.170 PETITION ANY PIE IT FILES

01:32 - 10.980 A TIMELY AND HE ALLEGES

01:32 - 12.080 INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF

01:32 - 12.920 COUNSEL AND THAT IS

01:32 - 14.100 CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ARE

01:32 - 15.700 VIOLATED OR THAT HE SHOULD HAVE

01:32 - 17.300 CONSUL RIGHT THERE. YES.

01:32 - 20.990 HE DIDN'T HAVE COUNTS. THE

01:32 - 23.590 THEORY IS OUR THEORY.

01:32 - 25.230 IS THAT THAT IS

01:32 - 27.610 STILL PENDING THE LOWER COURT.

01:32 - 29.650 THE TRIAL COURT NEVER MADE ANY

01:32 - 31.250 DECISION WITH REGARD TO THE

01:32 - 33.680 ALLEGATIONS OF THE PEACE E R A.

01:32 - 35.310 >>THE PETITION. THE

01:32 - 37.300 TRIAL COURT DISMISSED OUT OF

01:32 - 40.030 HAND WITHOUT ANY CONSIDERATION

01:32 - 41.400 OF THE FACT THIS IS A

01:32 - 43.390 LEGITIMATE PIECE E R A BUT

01:32 - 45.330 BISHOP INDEED HE APPEALED THAT

01:32 - 47.620 WHAT'S THAT THE PEEL THEM THE

01:32 - 49.390 ANSWERS NOW. NOW WE DIDN'T

01:32 - 50.730 APPEAL IT BECAME YOU KNOW, BUT

01:32 - 52.120 IT'S NEVER BEEN THROUGH PEEL

01:32 - 52.610 ROUND.

01:32 - 56.760 PCR A ALLEGATIONS.

01:32 - 57.910 I

01:32 - 01.060 HAVE NEVER BEN REVIEW,

01:33 - 03.170 I KNOW, BUT YOU DON'T GET TO DO

01:33 - 05.970 PCR A INEFFECTIVENESS UNTIL

01:33 - 06.180 YOUR

01:33 - 07.330 DIRECT APPEAL.

01:33 - 09.620 >>IS DONE THEY GAVE YOU A GIFT

01:33 - 10.730 WHEN THEY SAID YOU CAN HAVE A

01:33 - 12.060 NEW DIRECT APPEAL EVERYTHING

01:33 - 15.340 >>YOUR ARGUMENT IS THAT THERE

01:33 - 16.770 SHOULD BE AN EQUITABLE

01:33 - 18.490 EXCEPTION. BUT IN THE

01:33 - 22.310 PCR A. RUBRIC THERE IS NO

01:33 - 24.670 EQUITABLE EXCEPTION TO PCR

01:33 - 25.560 WALLS.

01:33 - 28.310 I GUESS YOU CAN LIVE WITH THAT.

01:33 - 30.340 BUT WHAT WHAT OUR POSITION

01:33 - 32.430 REALLY IS THIS I THINK THE

01:33 - 32.800 LOWER

01:33 - 34.830 COURT RECOGNIZED THAT THIS WAS

01:33 - 36.980 A PCR A IT UNLESS YOU CAN

01:33 - 38.440 ESTABLISH, HERE'S A BREAKDOWN

01:33 - 39.660 OF COURT OPERATIONS WHICH I

01:33 - 41.570 THINK DID CENKOS INTO.

01:33 - 45.290 THAT TREATING NOT TREATING THAT

01:33 - 45.880 MOTION TO

01:33 - 48.040 PRO SE MOTION TO DISMISS IS A

01:33 - 48.720 PIECE AREA THAT

01:33 - 50.550 WAS 8 A BREAKDOWN QUIT

01:33 - 52.600 OPERATIONS AND THEREFORE THOUGH

01:33 - 54.290 WAS THE CLOCK, IT'S RESET.

01:33 - 57.110 THAT IF YOU ARE A BUNCH NET

01:33 - 58.830 SHOW GUNS THE CENTER RIGHT AND

01:33 - 00.300 THAT SHE RAISES CHIEF

01:34 - 02.470 DETERMINED. AND IF YOU PUT AND

01:34 - 03.320 I HAVE BRIEFLY

01:34 - 05.240 GONE THROUGH THIS PERCEIVED

01:34 - 06.680 ROEMER AP THAT'S THE ONLY WAY

01:34 - 07.800 YOU GET TO THAT KIND OF

01:34 - 08.700 EQUITABLE IF THERE IS

01:34 - 10.780 AN ESTABLISHMENT OF A BREAKDOWN

01:34 - 12.020 OF PORT OPERATIONS.

01:34 - 14.510 THE TRIAL COURT CONCEDED THIS

01:34 - 16.530 IS A PERK PROCEDURAL MASS

01:34 - 18.190 AND I THINK THE TRIAL COURT TO

01:34 - 18.700 SEE THAT

01:34 - 20.910 WHITE REINSTATED AS I WRITE

01:34 - 22.410 ABOUT THE GREENS TAKE THAT THE

01:34 - 24.550 ACTIVE FEEL RIGHT FOR THE WHAT

01:34 - 25.560 ROLE OF THE GUILTY PLEA.

01:34 - 27.880 TO TO KIND OF CLEAN UP THE

01:34 - 29.810 MESS. BUT HAVING

01:34 - 32.340 STATED THAT IS THERE A

01:34 - 34.660 BREAKDOWN IN THE SYSTEM AND THE

01:34 - 36.100 ANSWER IS CLEARLY THERE IS.

01:34 - 38.190 AND I THINK THAT SHOW COME WAS

01:34 - 39.790 CORRECT IF YOU REJECT SHOW GUNS

01:34 - 41.210 OPINION SHE REALLY TRACES WHAT

01:34 - 43.410 WE'RE SAFER. AND WE THINK THAT

01:34 - 46.960 IT'S WHICH N. THANK YOU

01:34 - 48.670 VERY MUCH YOU YOU HAVE YOUR

01:34 - 49.920 REBUTTAL TIME IF YOU NEED IT.

01:34 - 59.090 GOOD AFTERNOON YOUR HONOR'S

01:34 - 00.650 MAKAR BLUR FOR THE COMMON LAW.

01:35 - 03.170 AS I THINK THE COURT HAS HAS

01:35 - 04.580 PICKED UP ON THE CEILING ISSUE

01:35 - 06.060 HERE IS WHETHER YOUR HONOR

01:35 - 08.340 CENTER SECTION TO HEAR THIS

01:35 - 10.000 APPEAL TODAY. AND THE

01:35 - 11.780 COMMONWEALTH. BUT FIRST ARGUE

01:35 - 14.360 THAT THAT NOVEMBER ONE 2017 PC

01:35 - 16.160 OR A PETITION FILED WITH THE

01:35 - 17.280 ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL

01:35 - 19.170 MUST BE CONSIDERED AT A SECOND

01:35 - 21.970 UNTIMELY PCR A THUS LEAVING THE

01:35 - 23.440 TRIAL COURT THE PEACE ERIC

01:35 - 24.520 COURT AND THIS COURT WITHOUT

01:35 - 26.350 JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER THE

01:35 - 26.660 MATTER

01:35 - 27.440 AT HAND.

01:35 - 29.190 >>HE DISAGREED THAT HE DIDN'T

01:35 - 30.920 HAVE COUNSEL THAT FOR THE

01:35 - 32.250 PERIOD OF TIME BEFORE THEN.

01:35 - 33.790 >>YOUR HONOR I WOULD AGREE THAT

01:35 - 34.950 MISTER SCHICK DID NOT HAVE

01:35 - 36.900 COUNSEL AT THE TIME AT THE

01:35 - 38.130 RELEVANT TIMES AND IT'S NOT OUR

01:35 - 41.020 POSITION THAT. THAT WAS PROPER

01:35 - 41.600 IN ANY WAY.

01:35 - 43.920 ART THE CALM LAST POSITION HERE

01:35 - 45.070 IS JUST THAT THAT THE COURT

01:35 - 46.230 DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO

01:35 - 47.850 CONSIDER THE MATTER AS FAR AS

01:35 - 50.120 COUNSEL AT THE TIME OF A

01:35 - 52.140 PCR I MISTER SHAIK WAS NOT

01:35 - 53.860 AFFORD COUNSEL THAT POINT WITH

01:35 - 54.120 THAT.

01:35 - 56.180 >>SO CAN WASN'T 40 COUNSEL AT

01:35 - 57.080 THAT TIME.

01:35 - 00.860 WHAT IS IN FACT THE BREAKDOWN

01:36 - 01.280 IN

01:36 - 03.490 PORT OPERATION. I THINK

01:36 - 04.890 SOMEBODY SHOULD HAVE TAKEN A

01:36 - 05.370 LOOK AT HIS

01:36 - 07.500 PRO SE THE VIOLENCE AND SAID

01:36 - 09.100 AND FOUND OUT WITH THE AD

01:36 - 10.810 COUNCIL FOR WEATHER.

01:36 - 12.240 HOW THE BEEN APPOINTED AND HE

01:36 - 13.480 DIDN'T HAVE COUNSEL TO APPOINT

01:36 - 15.360 COUNSEL TIMELY FOR HIM ISN'T

01:36 - 16.920 THAT A BREAKDOWN IN THE PORT

01:36 - 19.690 AND PORT. NOT AS THE COURTS

01:36 - 21.430 HAVE INTERPRETED IT BREAK DOWN

01:36 - 22.620 THE OPERATIONS OF THE COURT.

01:36 - 24.460 >>THE CASES CITING A BREAKDOWN

01:36 - 25.620 OPERATIONS THAT COURT

01:36 - 27.750 SEEM TO SAY CASES WHERE NOTICE

01:36 - 29.830 OF A PIECE YOU WRITE DCRA DENY

01:36 - 31.590 WASN'T MAIL OR THE DEFENDANT

01:36 - 31.800 WAS

01:36 - 33.690 INFORMED THAT A TIME LIMIT

01:36 - 35.580 BEGAN TO RUN FOR OR WOULD YOU

01:36 - 36.620 AGREE WITH ME THAT THIS IS A

01:36 - 38.320 MUCH MORE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT

01:36 - 38.670 THEN.

01:36 - 40.510 >>THE FAILURE TO SEND OUT A

01:36 - 41.280 NOTICE.

01:36 - 44.210 THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL IS A

01:36 - 45.710 FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT YOUR HONOR

01:36 - 47.420 BUT THAT THE COURTS HAVE HELD

01:36 - 47.810 THAT.

01:36 - 49.840 THE TIME TO CHALLENGE

01:36 - 51.120 EFFECTIVENESS OF PEACE

01:36 - 53.270 AREA COUNCIL WHICH THE COURTS

01:36 - 55.070 HAVE AGREED IS THE SAME THING

01:36 - 56.900 AS HAVING COUNSEL AT ALL THE

01:36 - 57.300 TIME

01:36 - 59.570 TO CHALLENGE THE FACT IN THIS

01:36 - 01.170 COUNCIL IS WITHIN ONE YEAR OF

01:37 - 02.470 FINALITY OF JUDGMENT WHICH

01:37 - 04.200 BEGAN ON MAY 31TH AT LEAST

01:37 - 07.720 2016. BUT HIS OF HIS AUGUST OF

01:37 - 10.180 2016 MOTION TO DISMISS.

01:37 - 12.390 >>DON'T YOU THINK THAT PROBABLY

01:37 - 13.460 SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED

01:37 - 14.190 FILED UNDER THE

01:37 - 17.060 PCR A AND COUNCIL APPOINTED FOR

01:37 - 18.810 HIM BECAUSE THAT WAS A PRO SE 5

01:37 - 20.070 OH COME OFF WOULD AGREE WITH

01:37 - 21.230 THAT YOU'RE NOT WOULD HAVE BEEN

01:37 - 23.290 A TIMELY PCR A AT THAT TIME,

01:37 - 24.570 YES, AND IT'S A CALM LAST

01:37 - 27.030 POSITION THAT THAT AUGUST AND I

01:37 - 28.400 BELIEVE THOSE AUGUST 1ST OR 5TH

01:37 - 30.130 PEACE OR A PETITION. IT SHOULD

01:37 - 31.320 HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED PIECE IT

01:37 - 32.810 PEACE OR A PETITION COUNCIL

01:37 - 33.070 SHOULD HAVE

01:37 - 34.770 BEEN APPOINTED THEY GIVE ME THE

01:37 - 35.970 BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT HIS

01:37 - 38.730 7/28/2016, PRO SE NOTICE OF

01:37 - 40.820 APPEAL MAYBE NOT BUT DEFINITELY

01:37 - 43.050 THE AUGUST 5TH 2016 MOTION TO

01:37 - 44.510 DISMISS SHOULD HAVE FALLEN

01:37 - 45.710 UNDER THE PCR IT

01:37 - 47.150 CORRECT YOUR HONOR AND MISTER

01:37 - 48.430 SCHICK WOULD HAVE HAD 30 DAYS

01:37 - 50.430 TO APPEAL. THE DENIAL OF THAT

01:37 - 52.080 MOTION 30 DAYS TO APPEAL THE

01:37 - 53.090 FACT THAT HE WAS APPOINTED

01:37 - 55.090 COUNSEL. NOPE HE WAS EVER TIME

01:37 - 56.680 IF I WASN'T THERE ALSO AN ISSUE

01:37 - 58.220 OF HE NEVER PROVED IS INDIGENT.

01:37 - 01.060 >>YOUR HONOR I BELIEVE

01:38 - 01.600 AND

01:38 - 03.620 MY RECOLLECTION MISTY HAD HIRED

01:38 - 06.460 2 PRIVATE LAWYERS PREVIOUS IT

01:38 - 07.760 WAS ACTUALLY A PRIVATE LAWYER

01:38 - 08.730 THAT FILED PLEADING

01:38 - 10.780 FOR THAT CORRECT AND I THINK

01:38 - 12.180 THAT ONE OF THE BIG ISSUES THAT

01:38 - 13.650 MISTER MISTER SHAKE CRAZE THAT

01:38 - 13.960 IS.

01:38 - 15.270 >>MOTION WITHDRAW HIS GUILTY

01:38 - 17.030 PLEA WAS THAT HIS LAWYERS AND

01:38 - 17.830 CHARGED HIM IN CHARGE

01:38 - 19.790 OF MEN AND FOR ME AT THE PAY

01:38 - 20.970 BEFORE THEY WOULD SHOW UP SO

01:38 - 22.040 THERE MAY HAVE BEEN AN ISSUE

01:38 - 23.970 WITH MISTER XIX INDIGENT AND.

01:38 - 26.630 I'M NOT SURE WHETHER THE COURT

01:38 - 27.530 EVER GRANTED.

01:38 - 29.990 MISTER SHAKES MOTION PROCEED

01:38 - 31.810 INFORM. POPPER US. I THINK MY

01:38 - 33.820 NOT THE BECAUSE THE COURT

01:38 - 35.530 CONCLUDED ITSELF THAT THERE

01:38 - 37.280 WAS SOME FELT THE NEED TO BE

01:38 - 39.170 RECTIFIED IS AIDED REINSTATE

01:38 - 40.720 THE DIRECT IS YOU

01:38 - 42.750 DISCUSSED WITH DEFENSE COUNSEL

01:38 - 44.200 THE COURT DID REINSTATE

01:38 - 45.910 THE DIRECT APPELLATE RIGHTS

01:38 - 47.530 LEASES TO THE WITHDRAWAL PLEA

01:38 - 48.540 NOT PRO TALK.

01:38 - 50.130 AND THE QUOTE WAS PERSUADED

01:38 - 51.760 THAT ALL THOSE PRO SE MOTIONS

01:38 - 52.930 THAT HAVE FALLEN USUALLY SHOULD

01:38 - 54.170 HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED FIRST

01:38 - 56.750 TIMELY FILE PCR RAY, IT WAS

01:38 - 59.560 THE SECOND COUNCIL PCR A WITCH

01:39 - 00.970 WAS ON TIMELY.

01:39 - 03.030 YES, YOUR HONOR AND HAS A CORE

01:39 - 05.530 I BELIEVE TOUCHED ON EARLIER IF

01:39 - 06.510 MISTER SHIFTED

01:39 - 07.970 THE MOVE FORWARD WITH HIS

01:39 - 09.400 APPEAL OF HIS MOST WITHDRAW HIS

01:39 - 10.640 GUILTY PLEA AT WE WOULDN'T BE

01:39 - 12.270 HERE TODAY. THE COMMONWEALTH

01:39 - 12.640 ISN'T

01:39 - 14.300 ASSERTING THAT THE COURT

01:39 - 15.650 FOLLOWED ALL PROPER PROCEDURE

01:39 - 17.050 IN IN APPOINTING COUNSEL WHEN

01:39 - 18.530 IT SHOULD BEEN APPOINTED MERELY

01:39 - 18.900 THAT.

01:39 - 21.280 THERE'S NO JURISDICTION FOR THE

01:39 - 22.630 COURT HERE TODAY TO HEAR THE

01:39 - 24.030 MATTER BECAUSE THE ON TIME IN

01:39 - 25.720 THIS OF THE SECOND. YES, SHE

01:39 - 27.700 CRE YEAH THAT THE PEACE HERE

01:39 - 29.870 I ACT THE PIECE OR A SETS OUT A

01:39 - 32.390 ONE YEAR. RYAN BAR COUNCIL HELP

01:39 - 33.910 ME HERE HELP YOU FEEL BETTER

01:39 - 36.060 JUST FOLLOW WITH ME.

01:39 - 37.700 >>WE HAVE FOR

01:39 - 39.960 THAT MEANS HE STILL HAS A RIGHT

01:39 - 41.180 TO A DIRECT APPEAL. DO YOU

01:39 - 42.020 AGREE WITH THAT.

01:39 - 45.110 BECAUSE OF THE COURT ORDERED

01:39 - 47.270 THAT HE HAD A RIGHT TO DIRECT

01:39 - 49.570 APPEAL. SO HE'S DO YOU AGREE

01:39 - 50.510 STILL HAS THAT.

01:39 - 53.240 WE WOULD AGREE THAT ONCE WE

01:39 - 53.650 AFFIRM.

01:39 - 56.000 YES YOUR HONOR IF IF YOU REFORM

01:39 - 57.320 TODAY, MISTER SHAPE WOULD HAVE

01:39 - 59.230 HIS RIGHT TO DIRECT APPEAL OF

01:39 - 00.550 THE MOTION WITHDRAW THE GUILTY

01:40 - 02.690 PLEA ONLY OK TO FALL WITH ME

01:40 - 05.030 THEN HE TAKES THAT UP AND LET'S

01:40 - 06.140 JUST SAY HE'S GOING TO

01:40 - 09.110 LOSE BECAUSE EVERYONE DOES YOU

01:40 - 11.750 KNOW WHERE NOW I FEEL OVER THE

01:40 - 13.110 MOON WITH RAUL THE GUILTY PLEA

01:40 - 14.420 THAT'S TOUGH. YOU KNOW, WHERE

01:40 - 15.320 YOU STOOD UP AND

01:40 - 19.700 AFTER WE AFTER THAT DIRECT

01:40 - 22.120 THINK HE'LL OCCURS. AND THERE'S

01:40 - 24.770 DOESN'T HE THEN HAVE THE

01:40 - 25.600 RIGHT TO FOLLOW

01:40 - 29.080 PCR A AND START THE PEACE FROM

01:40 - 29.620 THE GET GO.

01:40 - 31.910 I BELIEVE SO YOUR HONOR MISTER

01:40 - 33.330 SCHICK HAD DIRECT APPEAL RIGHTS

01:40 - 34.660 THAN THE THE JUDGMENT WOULD NOT

01:40 - 36.310 HAVE BECOME FINAL UNTIL GET

01:40 - 37.780 EXHAUSTED ALL THOSE A BILL THAT

01:40 - 38.800 SO HE IS

01:40 - 40.610 THE ADMITTEDLY THERE'S BEEN A

01:40 - 40.840 LOT

01:40 - 42.800 OF RIGMAROLE BUT AT THE END OF

01:40 - 44.560 THE DAY IF HE'S AFFIRMED AND

01:40 - 46.340 DIRECT APPEAL HE THEN GETS

01:40 - 48.900 TO RAISE EXACTLY WHAT HE WANTS

01:40 - 50.990 TO RAISE NAIL IN THE PCR A

01:40 - 52.880 WHICH WOULD BE A NUMBER ONE PC

01:40 - 53.340 OR A

01:40 - 55.790 WHERE AT THIS POINT WE HOPE HE

01:40 - 56.500 WOULD HAVE COUNTS

01:40 - 58.780 CORRECT AND ALL RESPECT JUDGE

01:40 - 00.700 PENDING NUMBER ONE IF WE WERE

01:41 - 02.460 TO SQUASH THE APPEAL BECAUSE WE

01:41 - 02.610 HAVE

01:41 - 03.940 NO JURISDICTION.

01:41 - 05.610 >>HE WOULD THEN NOT HAVE THE

01:41 - 05.890 RIGHT

01:41 - 09.700 TO FILE A PCR A AND NUMBER 2 WE

01:41 - 12.220 DO REVIEW EVERY CASE INVOLVING

01:41 - 13.650 THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE GUILTY

01:41 - 15.370 PLACE THAT'S WHY I SAID IF WE

01:41 - 17.700 AFFIRMED I MEAN I I AGREE WITH

01:41 - 19.270 YOU AND THAT'S WHY IN A FROM

01:41 - 19.560 THIS

01:41 - 23.260 FROM CASE WOULD DO MORE JUSTICE

01:41 - 24.280 THAN A CAUTION.

01:41 - 25.970 BUT THEY NOW GO BACK TO THE

01:41 - 28.840 EQUITABLE RELIEVED WHICH A PCR

01:41 - 29.910 RATE DOES NOT HAVE.

01:41 - 33.610 THERE'S NO EXCEPTION YPC ARE

01:41 - 34.610 LET'S GET BACK. LET'S GO BACK

01:41 - 35.050 TO COUNCIL.

01:41 - 37.890 AND AND JUDGE GAME AND I YOU'RE

01:41 - 39.780 CORRECT THERE'S A STRICT ONE

01:41 - 41.610 YEAR TIME BAR TO THE FILING OF

01:41 - 42.920 A PEACE EERIE THE COURTS HAVE

01:41 - 44.560 HELD THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN

01:41 - 45.840 EXCEPTIONS WHERE THERE'S A

01:41 - 46.930 BREAKDOWN THE OPERATIONS THAT

01:41 - 48.490 COURT WHERE A PCI CAN THE

01:41 - 49.970 UNTIMELY FILED A SECOND PIECE

01:41 - 51.000 HERE IT CAN BE ON TIME WE

01:41 - 51.340 FILED.

01:41 - 53.160 >>BUT THE COMMONWEALTH DOESN'T

01:41 - 54.520 BELIEVE THAT THAT APPLIES HERE

01:41 - 56.070 AS I STATED EARLIER THAT WOULD

01:41 - 57.650 BE WHERE THE 4 FAILED TO SEND

01:41 - 59.240 NOTICE NOT WHERE A

01:41 - 01.720 DEFENDANT IS THIS CHALLENGING

01:42 - 03.540 THE LEGAL DECISION OF A JUDGE

01:42 - 04.140 IF THERE WAS AN

01:42 - 06.870 EQUITABLE AND REPEAT KABAL

01:42 - 08.780 EXCEPTION THAT DEFENSE COULD

01:42 - 10.430 CHALLENGE THERE COULD FILE

01:42 - 11.880 UNTIMELY PEACE AREAS OUTSIDE

01:42 - 13.640 THE ONE YEAR TIME BAR BASED ON.

01:42 - 14.920 AN

01:42 - 18.280 ALLEGED ILLEGAL. AND LEGALLY

01:42 - 20.000 ERRONEOUS DECISION THAT WOULD

01:42 - 21.800 REALLY JUST DO AWAY WITH THE

01:42 - 23.350 TIME BAR IN AND OF ITSELF.

01:42 - 28.040 AND THERE NEVER WAS A GRAZER

01:42 - 28.800 HEARING

01:42 - 30.700 CONDUCTED IN THIS MATTER

01:42 - 32.600 GREATLY WAS ALL THESE FILINGS

01:42 - 33.730 COURT TRIAL COURT NEVER

01:42 - 35.500 BECAUSE THAT IT GOES

01:42 - 37.720 TO IS JOE CHILDREN POINTED OUT

01:42 - 39.020 HER DISSENT THAT BREAKDOWN

01:42 - 40.800 CORPORATIONS THERE NEVER WAS A

01:42 - 42.230 GRAZER TO FIGURE OUT.

01:42 - 44.770 TO GET THE COLLOQUY ON THE

01:42 - 48.180 RECORD ABOUT THE DEFENDANT SO

01:42 - 50.310 ABILITY HAVE COUNSEL TO GET

01:42 - 51.770 COUNSEL THERE WAS NEVER A

01:42 - 53.230 GREATER HEARING YOUR HONOR I I

01:42 - 54.320 BELIEVE THAT THE TRIAL COURT

01:42 - 55.780 DID MENTION TO MISTER SCHICK AT

01:42 - 57.340 THE TIME OF HIS SENTENCING THAT

01:42 - 58.380 HE BE ENTITLED

01:42 - 00.690 TO COUNSEL THE ASSISTANCE OF

01:43 - 02.320 COUNSEL FILING AN APPEAL BUT I

01:43 - 03.280 DON'T BELIEVE THAT THERE IS

01:43 - 04.920 THAT A FULL-FLEDGED GREATER

01:43 - 06.720 HEARING HELP MET AND DIDN'T HE

01:43 - 07.920 PERSISTENTLY.

01:43 - 10.550 >>ASKED PROCEED PRO SE

01:43 - 11.870 THE TRIAL COURT BUT THAT I

01:43 - 13.090 THINK IT WAS ON PAGE 3 OF

01:43 - 13.840 THEIR OPINION THAT THE

01:43 - 15.620 DEFENDANT PERSISTENTLY

01:43 - 17.840 EXPRESSED HIS DESIRE TO PROCEED

01:43 - 19.740 SO A LOT OF THESE ISSUES WERE

01:43 - 21.840 BROUGHT ON HIM BY THAT. YES,

01:43 - 22.900 YOUR HONOR AT THE TIME OF.

01:43 - 25.640 MISTER SCHICK WAS REPRESENT AT

01:43 - 26.710 THE TIME IS GUILTY PLEA.

01:43 - 28.840 HE NEVER NEVER CHALLENGE GUILTY

01:43 - 29.650 PLEA AT THAT TIME.

01:43 - 32.130 AND KNOWING WHAT HE SAYS IS HE

01:43 - 33.750 EXPRESSED HIS DESIRE TO PROCEED

01:43 - 35.690 PRO SE WHICH WE INDULGED.

01:43 - 38.830 SO YOUR HONOR I I BELIEVE AT

01:43 - 40.000 THE TIME OF SENTENCING.

01:43 - 43.550 A MONTH AFTER THE TIME OF

01:43 - 44.690 SENTENCING AT THE TIME MISTER

01:43 - 46.090 SCHICK SMOOTH MOTION WITHDRAW

01:43 - 46.900 HIS GUILTY PLEA.

01:43 - 49.310 MISTER SCHICK INDICATED THE

01:43 - 50.670 COURSE THAT I CAN GIVE YOU TIME

01:43 - 53.140 TO FIND YOU'RE ENTITLED TO

01:43 - 54.380 COUNSEL YOU WANT TO PROCEED PER

01:43 - 55.850 SE MISTER SCHICK SAID THIS IS

01:43 - 57.270 ALSO OBVIOUS THAT I THINK I CAN

01:43 - 59.340 HANDLE MYSELF AND PROCEEDED ON

01:43 - 00.770 HIS OWN. SO THE COURT.

01:44 - 02.710 AND A FEW DIFFERENT TIMES THAT

01:44 - 03.780 THE PROCEEDINGS INDICATED

01:44 - 04.990 MISTER SCHICK THAT HE HAD THE

01:44 - 06.000 RIGHT TO COUNSEL

01:44 - 07.840 THE COME OFF CONCEDE WHAT CAN

01:44 - 09.160 SEE THE NO GREATER HEARING WAS

01:44 - 10.920 HELD. ALTHOUGH THE COURT

01:44 - 12.130 I'M A TIME THOSE ISSUES

01:44 - 13.570 WERE TOUCHED BY ONE RIGHTS THEY

01:44 - 15.120 WERE TOUCHED HE WAS 58 YEARS

01:44 - 16.740 OLD HAD 2 YEARS OF COLLEGE

01:44 - 18.460 THERE WAS LIKE A 9 PAGE WRITTEN

01:44 - 20.050 COLLOQUY THAT HE HAD READ.

01:44 - 21.430 >>YES, YOU'RE AT IT. THERE'S A

01:44 - 22.970 9 PAGE WRITTEN COLLOQUY AND

01:44 - 25.690 THAT'S A STANDARD FORM COLLOQUY

01:44 - 26.100 USED BY

01:44 - 27.750 THE COURT AND I BELIEVE IN THE

01:44 - 29.040 COURT INDICATING THE TRANSCRIPT

01:44 - 30.290 THAT THEY INFORM MISTER SHEK

01:44 - 31.430 THAT THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE

01:44 - 32.040 IMPOSED.

01:44 - 34.390 THAT COULD BE IMPOSED IS 20

01:44 - 35.930 YEARS MISTER SHEK WAS SENTENCED

01:44 - 37.560 TO 7 AND A HALF TO 15 YEARS.

01:44 - 38.750 SO IT'S NOT THAT.

01:44 - 40.780 THEN I GUESS THIS GETS TO THE

01:44 - 42.190 MERITS OF THAT WITHDRAWAL THE

01:44 - 43.640 GUILTY PLEA MORE THAN THE

01:44 - 44.960 PROCEDURE, SHE'S HERE BUT IT'S

01:44 - 45.910 NOT THAT. MISTER

01:44 - 47.390 SHIP WAS AT THE TIME OF

01:44 - 48.780 SENTENCING SENTENCES, SOMETHING

01:44 - 50.410 THE FOREIGN ABOVE WHAT.

01:44 - 53.100 HAD BEEN TOLD THAT HE COULD BE

01:44 - 54.810 SENTENCED IF HE DOES INDICATE

01:44 - 56.430 THAT THERE MAY HAVE BEEN AT THE

01:44 - 58.400 SERIES BY THE BODILY INJURY.

01:44 - 00.930 OR AGGRAVATION FACTOR THAT HE

01:45 - 02.020 WAS UNAWARE OF BUT

01:45 - 03.680 IT'S IT'S CLEAR FROM THE RECORD

01:45 - 04.900 THAT THE COURT DID INDICATE

01:45 - 05.810 MISTER SCHICK THAT HE WAS

01:45 - 07.210 LOOKING AT UP TO 20 YEARS,

01:45 - 09.170 CATHY, LET ME ASK YOU THE

01:45 - 11.400 DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN MYSELF AND

01:45 - 13.450 JUDGE GAP AND A BOTTOM IN THE

01:45 - 14.460 WASH OVER SAYS

01:45 - 15.200 ENOUGH OR.

01:45 - 17.150 >>WHERE DO YOU STAND ON THAT

01:45 - 19.320 ISSUE INDEED OR DO YOU EVEN

01:45 - 20.350 HAVE A POSITION.

01:45 - 24.200 IF THE APPEAL WERE TO BE

01:45 - 25.670 AFFIRMED AND ESSENTIALLY THAT

01:45 - 27.420 THE TRIAL COURTS.

01:45 - 30.100 ORDER REINSTATING MISTER SCHICK

01:45 - 30.490 STRICT

01:45 - 32.420 APPEAL RIGHTS AND THE CALM WHAT

01:45 - 33.420 DOES BELIEVE THAT MISTER SCHICK

01:45 - 34.220 WOULD THEN BE ENTITLED

01:45 - 36.330 TO THIS. FINALLY PCR PETITION

01:45 - 37.530 AFTER THE DIRECT DEFEAT AT

01:45 - 40.830 BEYOND I WATCHED THAT DOES NOT

01:45 - 42.950 EXIST AND THAT'S THE LATER HOW

01:45 - 46.050 THE NEW PCR IT MISTER SHAKES

01:45 - 47.220 OUT OF DIRECT APPEAL IN MIND

01:45 - 48.850 HE'S OUT OF THE SERIE TIME IT

01:45 - 50.140 BE THE COME ON SPURS THIS

01:45 - 51.490 POSITION THAT PROCEDURALLY

01:45 - 52.730 THEY FEEL SHOULD BE QUASHED

01:45 - 53.490 THIS COURT DOESN'T HAVE

01:45 - 54.610 JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE

01:45 - 55.030 MATTER.

01:45 - 57.630 NOW THE PROBLEM WITH THAT IS IN

01:45 - 00.750 I I AGREE ON THERE IS A WAY YOU

01:46 - 02.190 COULD MAKE THAT ARGUMENT.

01:46 - 04.590 BUT THAT LEAVES MISTER SHEN

01:46 - 07.020 IN A POSITION WHERE HE DID NOT

01:46 - 09.060 OF PAYING COUNCIL FOR HIS FIRST

01:46 - 10.750 PIECE ERIE AND HE SHOULD HAVE

01:46 - 12.480 AND AND MY UNDERSTANDING

01:46 - 14.010 THERE'S NO WAY TO FIX THAT

01:46 - 15.830 WITHIN OUR SYSTEM I WOULD HE

01:46 - 16.660 WOULD HAVE TO GO

01:46 - 19.960 TO A. A FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS

01:46 - 21.620 GOT NIGHTMARE. I MEAN HE YOU

01:46 - 22.950 KNOW IT THE COSTS WOULD

01:46 - 25.090 PROBABLY BE THE INSURMOUNTABLE

01:46 - 26.110 THAT'S CORRECT YOUR HONOR AND I

01:46 - 27.870 GUESS THE ONLY OTHER SOLUTION I

01:46 - 29.580 COULD I COULD POINT TO WOULD BE

01:46 - 31.930 THAT THE LEGISLATOR COM AND ADD

01:46 - 34.720 A 4TH EXCEPTION TO THE 3 3

01:46 - 36.860 EXCEPTIONS BUT AS FAR AS WELL

01:46 - 38.060 THAT'S NOT GOING TO BREAK.

01:46 - 40.360 I AGREE ON THAT IN THE TIME OF

01:46 - 42.100 HIS SENTENCE CORRECT. AND

01:46 - 43.390 SO IT'S IT'S NEVER BEEN THE

01:46 - 45.490 CALM LAST POSITION THAT MISTER

01:46 - 47.050 SCHICK SHOULDN'T HAVE HAVE HAD

01:46 - 48.670 COUNSEL THAT THE TRIAL COURT

01:46 - 51.010 WAS CORRECT IN FAILING TO

01:46 - 53.140 APPOINT COUNSEL. OUR POSITION

01:46 - 54.600 HERE IS JUST TO SEE JULIE UNDER

01:46 - 56.390 THE 3 DELINEATE EXCEPTIONS

01:46 - 57.730 THAT'S A LEGISLATOR SET OUT FOR

01:46 - 59.020 US HERE THAT WHEN YOUR PIECE AT

01:46 - 00.870 TIME BAR. MISTER SCHICK IS HE'S

01:47 - 01.960 HE'S OUT A LOT THAT TIME HAS

01:47 - 03.260 RUN FOR 30 DAY DIRECTOR

01:47 - 05.540 FEELINGS, THE ONE YEAR TIME BAR

01:47 - 07.790 AS EXPIRED AND.

01:47 - 10.510 MISTER SHAKY SATELLITE OF OUR

01:47 - 11.760 LUCK UNFORTUNATELY IN THE

01:47 - 15.190 WORKS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

01:47 - 17.090 THANK YOU THAT'S ABOUT IT.

01:47 - 23.550 VERY BRIEFLY, A JUDGE NICHOLS

01:47 - 25.800 GET ON THE COURSE WHAT WE THINK

01:47 - 27.420 IS THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR IN

01:47 - 28.530 THE CASE THERE WAS NO GREAT

01:47 - 30.390 YOU'RE HEARING. AND WITH WITH

01:47 - 32.170 WITH REGARD TO THAT I THINK THE

01:47 - 33.340 PUBLIC OR SPUR SICK, WHAT

01:47 - 35.110 PARTICULAR GRAZER IS INDICATED.

01:47 - 37.050 >>THAT WHEN THERE IS NOT

01:47 - 38.870 APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND

01:47 - 41.170 WHERE THERE IS NOT A COLLOQUY.

01:47 - 43.530 CLEARLY OUTLINES WHAT HIS

01:47 - 46.440 RIGHTS ARE. THE SECOND PETITION

01:47 - 47.880 HAS TO BE TREATED AS THE FIRST

01:47 - 49.670 PETITION, SO IT WOULD MATTER

01:47 - 50.820 THAT THE TRIAL COURT

01:47 - 53.900 SAID REPEATEDLY. HE INDICATED

01:47 - 55.460 IT'S A DESIRE TO REPRESENT

01:47 - 57.020 HIMSELF BECAUSE UNDER OUR

01:47 - 58.930 SYSTEM UNLESS YOU HAVE THAT.

01:47 - 00.640 >>APPROPRIATE COLLOQUY UNDER

01:48 - 02.590 GREATER, IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW

01:48 - 03.970 MANY TIMES HE SAYS THAT ISN'T

01:48 - 04.770 THAT CRACKED.

01:48 - 06.720 >>THAT'S EXACTLY OUR POSITION

01:48 - 09.050 AND SO CONSEQUENTLY THIS COURT

01:48 - 10.240 DOES HAVE JURISDICTION

01:48 - 12.760 BECAUSE THE SECOND AS IT WERE

01:48 - 14.590 SECOND WHICH WE REALLY THE

01:48 - 16.430 SUGGEST IS JUST AN AMENDMENT OF

01:48 - 19.600 THE FIRST WHATEVER IT WAS IT

01:48 - 21.780 DOESN'T COUNT. AND OVER SO

01:48 - 23.170 THAT'S THAT'S WHAT OUR POSITION

01:48 - 26.550 IS I IN LIGHT OF THE ARGUMENT

01:48 - 27.040 TODAY.

01:48 - 30.170 HAD HE HAD COUNSELED MAYBE HE

01:48 - 31.620 SHOULD HAVE SMARTER LAWYERS IN

01:48 - 32.320 THE WHAT HE GOT.

01:48 - 35.020 >>THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK

01:48 - 36.540 THANK YOU.

01:48 - 38.110 >>THE NEXT CASE IS AN

01:48 - 39.400 INVOLUNTARY TERMINATION OF

01:48 - 41.230 PARENTAL RIGHTS AND THIS IS

01:48 - 42.580 GOING TO BE A VERY INTERESTING

01:48 - 44.020 ARGUMENT MAY BE FOR PRESIDENT

01:48 - 44.800 JUDGE IN L A

01:48 - 46.500 BECAUSE A NORTHAMPTON COUNTY HE

01:48 - 49.140 WAS SOLICITOR TO THE COUNTY AND

01:48 - 49.970 JUVENILE COURT.

01:48 - 51.600 AND CHILDREN IN YOUTH WERE ONE

01:48 - 52.730 OF THE DIVISION'S FOR WHICH

01:48 - 54.300 HE'S RESPONSIBLE SO HE'S VERY

01:48 - 56.480 FERVENT AND VERY INTIMATE ABOUT

01:48 - 58.460 THESE TYPE OF TOPICS THE

01:48 - 00.250 FAMILY. CAME

01:49 - 01.810 TO THE ATTENTION OF THE AGENCY

01:49 - 04.340 SOME TIME IN 2014. THERE WERE

01:49 - 07.000 4 CHILDREN. THE MOTHER WAS

01:49 - 08.230 THERE MONITORING THE MOTHER

01:49 - 09.170 BECAUSE OF

01:49 - 11.420 LICE BECAUSE THE ONE OF THE

01:49 - 13.110 CHILDREN HAD ABOUT PROBLEM THAT

01:49 - 13.860 LAW WAS NOT

01:49 - 15.570 BE MET AND HER MEDICAL CONCERNS

01:49 - 16.590 FOR NOT BEING ADDRESSED BY THE

01:49 - 18.480 DOCTOR AND ALSO THE SCHOOL AGE

01:49 - 19.850 CHILDREN HAD TRUCK TRUANCY

01:49 - 20.430 PROBLEMS.

01:49 - 22.920 THE AGENCY CONTINUE TO MONITOR

01:49 - 25.100 THE CASE UNTIL FEBRUARY 2017

01:49 - 26.070 WHERE THEY BELIEVE THE MOTHER

01:49 - 26.810 WAS LIVING WITH THE

01:49 - 28.140 REGISTERED SEX-OFFENDER

01:49 - 29.350 THEREFORE THEY MOVED THE

01:49 - 30.780 CHILDREN TO A KINSHIP FOSTER

01:49 - 33.910 CARE HOME. IN DECEMBER OF 2017

01:49 - 35.050 THEY FILED A PETITION TO

01:49 - 36.460 INVOLUNTARILY TERMINATE THE

01:49 - 37.610 MOTHER'S RIGHTS TO ALL THE

01:49 - 39.930 MINOR CHILDREN. AND A MARCH 5TH

01:49 - 41.770 2018 THE LOWER COURT ENTERED

01:49 - 43.830 A DECISION INVOLUNTARILY

01:49 - 45.190 TERMINATING THE RIGHTS OF THE

01:49 - 46.480 MOTHER TO ALL THE CHILDREN.

01:49 - 48.580 THE INTERESTING ASPECT OF THE

01:49 - 51.190 CASE IS ALTHOUGH WE MIGHT HEAR

01:49 - 52.460 SOME ARGUMENTS ABOUT WHETHER

01:49 - 54.370 THE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION

01:49 - 56.170 OR COMMITTED AN ERROR OF LAW IN

01:49 - 57.470 VOLUNTARILY TERMINATE THE

01:49 - 59.810 PARENTAL RIGHTS. BUT MOSTLY THE

01:49 - 00.840 SUPERIOR COURT

01:50 - 03.880 AN ORDER DIRECTING THAT.

01:50 - 07.550 THEY RAISE IN THEIR BRIEFS AND

01:50 - 09.230 AN ARGUMENT, SEVERAL QUESTIONS

01:50 - 09.730 ABOUT THE RIGHT

01:50 - 11.770 TO COUNSEL CHILDREN IN AN

01:50 - 13.000 INVOLUNTARY TERMINATION

01:50 - 14.490 PROCEEDINGS HAVE A STATUTORY

01:50 - 15.390 RIGHT TO COUNSEL.

01:50 - 18.620 THERE'S A COMPLAINT BY THE

01:50 - 20.210 AGENCIES AND ALSO BY GUARDIAN

01:50 - 21.600 AD LITEM IS THAT EVEN THOUGH

01:50 - 23.350 THEY HAVE THAT RIGHT HAS TO BE

01:50 - 24.780 MAKE CERTAIN THAT THE RIGHT IS

01:50 - 25.800 ENFORCED ON BEHALF OF THE

01:50 - 26.300 CHILDREN.

01:50 - 28.380 THE FIRST PRIMARY ISSUE

01:50 - 30.500 OF CERTIFICATION IS MUST THE

01:50 - 32.130 SUPERIOR COURT REVIEW SUE A

01:50 - 33.780 SPOTTY THAT MEANS ON THEIR OWN

01:50 - 34.970 EVEN THOUGH IS NOT RAISED BY

01:50 - 35.800 ANY OF THE PARTIES

01:50 - 37.440 WHETHER THE CHILD'S LEGAL

01:50 - 39.030 COUNSEL AND OR GUARDIAN AD

01:50 - 41.050 LITEM PROPERLY REPRESENT OF THE

01:50 - 42.940 CHILD'S LEGAL INTEREST IN EVERY

01:50 - 44.250 INVOLUNTARY TERMINATION

01:50 - 46.400 PROCEEDING PARTICULARLY IN

01:50 - 48.140 REGARD. WHETHER THERE'S A

01:50 - 49.930 CONFLICT BETWEEN COUNCILS

01:50 - 51.440 REPRESENTATION AND THE CHILD

01:50 - 54.050 STATED PURPOSE. THE COURT ALSO

01:50 - 54.980 ORDERED THAT IF

01:50 - 57.090 SUCH REVIEW IS TO BE MADE BY

01:50 - 58.930 THEM ON AN APPEAL WHAT WOULD BE

01:50 - 00.140 THE SCOPE AND STANDARD OF

01:51 - 00.610 REVIEW.

01:51 - 03.990 THE COURT IS DIRECTING THAT

01:51 - 05.570 THEY BRIEF IF THE SUPERIOR

01:51 - 07.070 COURT REVIEW, SORE SPOT TO THE

01:51 - 08.770 CONFLICT BETWEEN THE GUARDIAN

01:51 - 10.460 AD LITEM AND

01:51 - 12.490 THE ATTORNEY IS EVERY MAN TO

01:51 - 14.130 THE ORPHANS COURT NECESSARY FOR

01:51 - 15.550 AN INITIAL DETERMINATION OF

01:51 - 16.180 WHETHER THERE IS

01:51 - 18.460 A CONFLICT OR MAY DISAPPEAR

01:51 - 19.730 COURT DECIDE THE ISSUE ON THE

01:51 - 22.310 CERTIFIED RECORD. LASTLY THE

01:51 - 22.950 COURT WANTS

01:51 - 24.990 TO HEAR ARGUMENT ABOUT WHAT

01:51 - 26.220 FACTORS THE COURT HAS TO

01:51 - 27.290 CONSIDER IN MAKING A

01:51 - 29.300 DETERMINATION. WHETHER THERE IS

01:51 - 30.710 A CONFLICT OF INTEREST BETWEEN

01:51 - 32.090 THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM WHO

01:51 - 33.530 ADVOCATES FOR THE BEST INTEREST

01:51 - 33.600 OF

01:51 - 35.420 THE CHILDREN AND LEGAL COUNSEL

01:51 - 37.930 WHO ADVOCATES WHAT IS THEIR

01:51 - 39.510 LEGAL INTEREST AND

01:51 - 41.870 IF SO WHAT FINDINGS ARE

01:51 - 43.140 REQUIRED IN THE CERTIFIED

01:51 - 44.610 RECORD FOR APPELLATE REVIEW IF

01:51 - 45.270 NECESSARY.

01:51 - 47.850 IN THIS CASE AND EMMA TO SECURE

01:51 - 49.010 A BRIEF WAS FILED BY THE

01:51 - 51.350 PENNSYLVANIA. LEGAL AID NETWORK

01:51 - 52.510 AND WE'RE GOING TO DEFER TO

01:51 - 54.100 THEM BY THE ACRONYM PLAN.

01:51 - 56.440 AND THEY WERE IN SUPPORT OF

01:51 - 58.050 MOTHER'S POSITION ON THE

01:51 - 59.490 ARGUMENT THAT HER RIGHTS NOT

01:51 - 01.090 BEEN INVOLUNTARILY TERMINATED.

01:52 - 03.190 AND THEY WERE ALSO ARGUING

01:52 - 04.210 TOGETHER WITH THE MOTHER

01:52 - 06.210 IN REFERENCE TO LEGAL COUNSEL

01:52 - 07.610 AND THE OBLIGATION OF THE LEGAL

01:52 - 09.010 COUNSEL VERSUS THE GUARDIAN.

01:52 - 11.180 IN THIS CASE IN PARTICULAR AND

01:52 - 12.200 ORDER WAS ENTERED

01:52 - 13.850 WHERE BY THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM

01:52 - 14.660 WHO WOULD REPRESENT THE

01:52 - 16.130 CHILDREN IN THAT THE TENDENCY

01:52 - 16.720 PERSIE'S

01:52 - 20.060 WAS ALSO THE APPOINTED AS LEGAL

01:52 - 21.650 COUNSEL TO REPRESENT THEM IN

01:52 - 22.960 THE INVOLUNTARY TERMINATION

01:52 - 25.070 PROCEEDINGS. THE PLAN AND THE

01:52 - 26.640 MOTHER ARGUED THAT OF COURSE

01:52 - 28.180 THE SUPERIOR COURT MUST WEIGH

01:52 - 30.180 SPAWN TAKE RAISE THIS ISSUE

01:52 - 32.080 ABOUT A CONFLICT THEY ARGUE

01:52 - 33.950 THAT THE CHILD ON ITS OWN IS

01:52 - 35.800 NOT ABLE TO RAISE THE ISSUE THE

01:52 - 38.540 PARTIES EITHER ARE NOT ABLE TO

01:52 - 39.620 OR THEY DO NOT

01:52 - 40.840 OF RAISE THE ISSUE AND THE

01:52 - 42.380 CHILD THEN RIGHT SHOULD NOT BE

01:52 - 44.400 PREJUDICE BY FAILURES HAVE THIS

01:52 - 46.670 ISSUE RAISED THE GUARDIAN AD

01:52 - 48.930 LITEM AND THE AGENCY RAISE THE

01:52 - 51.400 ARGUMENT THAT THERE IS NO SUCH

01:52 - 52.400 REVIEW PERMITTED IN

01:52 - 54.270 THE LAW AND THAT THE SUPERIOR

01:52 - 55.710 COURT SHOULD NOT SORE SPOT A

01:52 - 58.170 RAISE THESE ISSUES. THE NEXT

01:52 - 00.720 ISSUE CONCERNING WHETHER THE

01:53 - 01.870 THE SCOPE AND STANDARD OF

01:53 - 04.170 REVIEW, THE STANDARD OF REVIEW,

01:53 - 07.240 ACCORDING TO THE US PLAN AND

01:53 - 08.930 THE MOTHER IS TO NOBLE. LET'S

01:53 - 10.390 START ALL OVER AGAIN, BUT

01:53 - 12.030 THEY'RE SAYING THE SCOPE OF

01:53 - 13.310 REVIEW IS VERY BROAD.

01:53 - 15.650 THEY SAY THAT WHAT IF IT'S AND

01:53 - 17.180 IT SHOULD GO BACK AND THERE

01:53 - 18.880 SHOULD BE REVIEWED BY THE SCORE

01:53 - 19.760 THAT SHOULD BE

01:53 - 21.740 VERY DETAIL. LOOK AT THE

01:53 - 22.820 CONFLICT IF THERE WAS A

01:53 - 24.030 CONFLICT LOOK AT WHAT THE

01:53 - 25.290 GUARDIAN DID ON BEHALF OF THE

01:53 - 27.520 CHILD. IF THE GUARDIAN WAS ALSO

01:53 - 28.470 LEGAL COUNSEL

01:53 - 30.420 WERE THEY EXCLUSIVELY

01:53 - 31.530 REPRESENTING THE INTEREST OF