Comments about ‘Ex-seminary principal seeks cell-phone records’

Why won't the prosecution just hand over the phone records?! They've got thousands of these incriminating text messages, right?!

I think it's funny that this dude has more felony ones than the guy who kidnapped the 11-year old girl for the last 18 years and had 2 children with her...They must really want to fry this guy!

If the text messages are such strong evidence, why not hand them over?

more than likely he wants them to try and work out excuses around them all, it is a defense mechanism to try and prove himself innocent even though he knows he is guilty, he is trying to make it less...if he knows when the 100's of texts were made, he can start making up excuses, if he is in the dark about it, he will get fried. it's just a legal ploy.

Thank you legal strategy expert. Why hold back such strong evidence? If the texts were so explicit as the investigators previously claimed, they would be turning them over to the defense and leaking them to the press.

If they are his messages, why can't the cell phone company give them to him? It isn't like he can alter them or anything.

re: AD
I thought that the purpose was to give the man a chance to prove weather he was innocent or not... and how do you know that he is guilty?

Without those texts isn't it he said/she said?? A legal ploy? I would want to see all the evidence against me too. She claims they exsist. He has the right to see them.

what I'm reading in this article I can't understand the reluctance of the prosecution to hand over the cell phone records. Are we missing something important here? Does the prosecution have a better argument than "the records aren't necessary"? If the guy is guilty, prosecute and convict but at least give him a reasonable chance to defend himself.

Why would the prosecution object to him getting these cell phone records?? Could it be that they do not have that strong of a case and this records might work against them? How could they even be prejudicial to the alleged victim, unless it proves she is not quite telling the whole truth? Interesting very interesting.

I have a problem with a prosecutor who does not want to allow the defense to obtain and present the evidence they want to. There are always two or more sides to an argument and the prosecution would only like to have the jury hear their side of the story.

If you were accused of something, wouldn't you like to be able to give your side? I'm sure you would! If the prosecution feels they would lose the case if the defense presented their evidence, I would say the prosecution must not have a very good case!

I'm not willing to say the guy is innocent yet, but the prosecution's strange reluctance to hand over evidence which should be extremely detrimental to the defense's case makes me a bit suspicious.

That, and their "hurry up and get this over with" attitude suggests they are not very confident about their case.

What's going on? The affidavit said there were "thousands' of these texts, then why are the prosecutors BLOCKING cell phone records? They would prove the accusations made by the prosecutors. What gives?

None of you who have commented understand the article. The prosecution is not in possession of the cell phone records (which are different that the text messages themselves). The cellphone records would be like what you see on your bill...the phone calls made, when and to what number and how long the call was.

That said, I can understand the defense wanting those. I also understand the prosecution may feel they have enough evidence to convict without the cell phone records and don't want to see the defendant drag this out any longer than need be. That's why we have an independent judiciary to decide these things.

The prosecution simply objected to the defense getting the cell phone records from the phone company because of the delay it would cause.

It sounds to me like the prosecutor is more interested in getting this trial over in a hurry than giving the man a fair trial. Unfortunately, prosecutors frequently make this argument, but sometimes it backfires. Interesting that her objection to turning over the cell phone records has caused the judge to schedule another hearing, thus delaying the trial even further.

. . . with motions like these is that the records do not exist in the form the defense has asked for them, and it would take significant time, effort, and expense to produce the requested records.

Typically, this is a ploy by the defense to delay the proceedings and/or apply pressure to the prosecution for a better plea agreement.

No special knowledge of this case, but this type of defense motion is quite common in criminal cases, for the reasons stated above.

I guess they'd never approve me for the jury because of the reluctance of the prosecution to bring all evidence in the case to the table. What kind of justice is this?

The trial is to find out weather he is innocent or guilty in the eyes of the State under the Law.
People can make up their own minds anytime they want to.
In the eyes of the State he is innocent until proven guilty. So as of now he is innocent. So I assume that now you would let him let him tutor your teen aged daughter privately one on one?
Even if the State finds him innocent would you let him then?
If not then you are finding him guilty on some level, which is the prudent thing to do.

It may be that the prosecution has some, but not all the records sought by the defendant. The prosecution does not wnat to delay, but it is reasonable that the defendant wants to see the records.