James Holmes Court Advisement Tomorrow

Monday morning, James Holmes, the suspect in the Aurora movie theater shootings, will be advised of the charges against him. The DA previously said in a pleading not under seal there will 12 counts of first degree murder, attempted murder and other charges.

Holmes will not be called upon to plead tomorrow. It is not an arraignment, but an advisement.

There is one motion of interest that will be heard tomorrow -- the defense request for discovery pertaining to leaks about the package Holmes allegedly sent to a psychiatrist/professor (described here.) The DA filed this response, denying it has been established that law enforcement leaked the information. The DA says the news reports got so much wrong, they may just have fabricated their stories. The DA also says their office hasn't yet looked at the contents of the package. It was the Aurora Police Department, not the FBI, who obtained the search warrant, and there was one warrant, not two. [More...]

These factual errors lead the People to believe that there may not even be a "law enforcement source" leaking" confidential information and that the media is getting information from hoaxers, fraudsters, or maybe from nobody at all by creating fake "law enforcement sources" out of whole cloth. To put it bluntly, the People are extremely dubious of the media assertions that "law enforcement sources" exist.

As to the media reports that Holmes told the cops after his arrest about mailing the package, the DA writes:

While the People have seen this report in the media, the People believe that it is just another inaccurate media report floating adrift in a sea of inaccurate media reports relating to this case. Because the People believe that it is just an inaccurate media report-and that the media outlets reporting the information may have just made it up, the People do not even know how to respond to this portion of Motion D-11.

The DA says they haven't examined the contents of the package or box:

Other stories have stated that the police are currently examining the contents of the box - again untrue, as the contents were secured and not examined, and held for potential in camera review.

If the DA hasn't examined the contents of the package or box, I wonder how they make this claim:

The People dispute the defendant's assertions that a privilege existed in relation to the contents of the package, and dispute that there has been a "breach" of the privilege, and thus dispute thal any documents, materials or information related to anything "privileged" or to any "breach" are in existence, and merely state that documents and other information exists relating to the discovery, testing for explosives, contaminants; and seizure of the package.

In addition to its shot at Fox News, the DA attacks NBC News:

For instance, the Fox News story stated that the FBI took possession of the package and its contents- this is incorrect, as it was the Aurora Police Department. The NBCNEWS.com story indicated that the Aurora Police Department had obtained two search warrants, one for the package itself and a second one for its contents. This is not correct, as the Aurora Police Department obtained only one search warrant.

Judge Sylvester entered this order stating he would address the discovery motion tomorrow. He will also set a briefing and hearing schedule on the media's motion to unseal the docket.

< Dick Cheney Says Sarah Palin Was Unqualified for VP | Colorado Bakery Won't Make Wedding Cakes for Gay Couples >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Under CO law, is a person whose mental health (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 30, 2012 at 12:04:27 AM EST
    records are the subject of a subpoena duces tecum entitled to statutory noice prior to production of the records?

    If there wasn't some sort of leak... (none / 0) (#2)
    by unitron on Mon Jul 30, 2012 at 02:09:42 AM EST
    ...how would we mere civilians even know that there was a package?

    Didn't have to be a law enforcement leak (none / 0) (#3)
    by ruffian on Mon Jul 30, 2012 at 10:34:47 AM EST
    How did law enforcement find out about the package? I assume from someone at CU, either mail room or the office to which it was delivered. Seems possible someone there could have told the media.

    Maybe defendant told law (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Mon Jul 30, 2012 at 11:11:59 AM EST
    enforcement about it b/4 he invoked his right to an attorney. Apparently he told them his apartment was set to detonate.  

    Could have been campus law enforcement (none / 0) (#5)
    by Towanda on Mon Jul 30, 2012 at 12:01:05 PM EST
    who can leak like sieves.