I'm 100 per cent willing to concentrate on the last issue all by itself. Please state any facts you have such as the names of attorneys with whom Mrs. Snyder spoke and what sealed documents she spoke about. I've looked at at least a dozen different variations on this story in the news and not a single one mentioned any specifics. And why would both the prosecutor and "attorney" have problems with her actions? Did neither care about justice? Were both more concerned about earned votes in the one case and billable hours on the other?
Were the other lawyers she spoke with those from the Innocence Project? Was she trying to undo a criminal conspiracy to prevent an innocent man from getting justice?
Please provide any facts you can find about what was sealed and what she did and why she should not have done what she did anyway.
Repeating myself -
http://www.kmbc.com/news/kansas-city/longtime-court-employee-fired-for-offering-advice/-/11664182/21212530/-/xwesmm/-/index.html Byrn fired her June 27, telling her she had violated several court rules by providing assistance to Nelson
and talking about aspects of the case, even while under seal, to attorneys not involved in the matter.I have absolutely no idea what material was under seal. That's sort of the whole point of it being sealed, isn't it? To keep it out of the public record.
I have no idea why she talked "about aspects of the case, even while under seal, to attorneys not involved in the matter." All I have to go on is the judge saying there were recordings of her doing so. He gets to make the decision if thatis factual as opposed to a hallucination.
If tyhe attorneys she spoke with were connected with te Innocence Project they would have been involved in the case. The judge said that wjoever it was she talked with was not involved in the case. The onus is actually on
you to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they were in fact involved in the case.
Why does it matter what the judge sealed, or why he sealed it? The guy and his attorney had the oppoetunity at the time it was placed under seal, and at every point of contact with the court following that, to appeal the ruling sealing the material. As there is no information saying they did that, the inference must be that they in fact did not challenge the sealing of the material, whatever it was.
If someone ( attorney, reporter. busybody, curious onlooker) who was/is not directly connected to the case wanted to challenge the sealinmg of the material there are procedures for doing that. Because there was no mention of anybody having filed a challenge the inference musat be that nobody in fact challenged the sealing of the material.
Whatever was sealed was never withheld from the prosecutor, the defense attorney(s) or the defendant/appellant. They were, as a matter of fact, the only ones besides the judge and the clerk, who were entitled to look at, handle, read, and even copy (so long as the copied material was protected from disclosure the same as the original sealed material) whatever was placed under seal. So what's the big deal you are trying to create about material being placed under seal?
Where the heck does "
[w]as she trying to undo a criminal conspiracy to prevent an innocent man from getting justice"" come from? What can/do you offer, except an overactive imagination and perhaps an untreated case of paranoia, to even suggest that conspiracy? The judge even said that if he/his relatives, friends, or attorneys requesyed a copy of the motion from the other court file they would have been entitled to it as a matter of law. Which is one of the reasons why I eliminated that whole issue from the discussion.
As for
"[a]nd why would both the prosecutor and "attorney" have problems with her actions? Did neither care about justice? Were both more concerned about earned votes in the one case and billable hours on the other?" - let's start with the presentation above about how the right to challenge the sealing of material can be challenged, by whom it can be challenged, and that there is nothing showing that anybody ever challenged the sealing of the material that was in fact placed under seal. Then we can go to the fact that once the material is placed under seal it becomes both an ethical and criminal violation to breach the seal. If someone feels the material under seal ought to be made part of the public record they can follow the established process for seeking to overturn the order sealing the material. (Admittedly it might be a bit more difficult if the person challenging the sealing had absolutely no idea whatsoever what was under seal, but there are established procedures for getting at least a hint about what is under seal.)
I will grant that there are certain laws that ought not to be followed - but I will insist that before we willy-nilly go ignoring one of those laws we try to get it overturned/repealed. The guy was convicted 27 years ago, presumably at least on part based on some sort of body fluid analysis - but not DNA analysis because it was not until a year after his conviction that DNA analysis was deemed to be scientifically reliable. So he had roughly 26 years to apply for DNA analysis of whatever bofy fluids were in evidence I do not think it is material at all to bother asking why he waited until "now" to ask for it to be done. As a matter of fszct there is some indication that he might in fact have submitted a previous motion that was turned down. Even first-year law students can be trained to "shepardize" a case to see if someone previously had been successful in petitioning for DNA analysis, and then hunt down that motion to use as an example of how his should be worded. I'll go so far as to say that if the Innocence Project was involved and they did not find that motion it would be grounds for an appeal based on ineffective legal counsel.
A clerk wjo is within months of retirement ought to know what the sealing of a portion of a record means, and what the probable consequences of breaching that seal would be. So I cannot put her gossiping about material under seal with attorneys not involved in the case down to an "innocent" error by someone who did not know any better.
Do you see any difference between breacing the seal of confidentiality in this case and a prirst breaking the seal of confidentiality of the confessional? If so, what is that difference, and why is it different?
stay safe.
