Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Drew Peterson - Defendant - Appellee/cross - Defendant - Appellee/cross - Appellant's Reply Brief and Argument on Appeal

Drew Peterson - Defendant - Appellee/cross - Defendant - Appellee/cross - Appellant's Reply Brief and Argument on Appeal

Ratings: (0)|Views: 330 |Likes:
Published by Justice Café
Defendant - Appellee/cross - Appellant's Reply Brief and Argument on Appeal

Points and Authorities
I The trail court's order of dismissal with prejudice is a final order because it conclusively adjucates the rights of the parties in this case; therefore, the cross-appeal issues are cognizable.

II The standard for obtaining discovery from the state into the selective prosecution is "colorable claim," not the "reasonableness" pleadings standard the state asserts.

III The trial court should have dismissed this case because , as a qualified law enforcement officer authorized to carry, and therefore possess, an "illegal" firearm, defendant-appellee/cross-appellant is under LEOSA - regardless of contrary state law.

IV The trial court should have ordered a venue change upon defendant-appellee/cross-appellant's motion because reasonable grounds to believe prejudice and an inability to obtain a fair trial exist under state constitutional law.
Defendant - Appellee/cross - Appellant's Reply Brief and Argument on Appeal

Points and Authorities
I The trail court's order of dismissal with prejudice is a final order because it conclusively adjucates the rights of the parties in this case; therefore, the cross-appeal issues are cognizable.

II The standard for obtaining discovery from the state into the selective prosecution is "colorable claim," not the "reasonableness" pleadings standard the state asserts.

III The trial court should have dismissed this case because , as a qualified law enforcement officer authorized to carry, and therefore possess, an "illegal" firearm, defendant-appellee/cross-appellant is under LEOSA - regardless of contrary state law.

IV The trial court should have ordered a venue change upon defendant-appellee/cross-appellant's motion because reasonable grounds to believe prejudice and an inability to obtain a fair trial exist under state constitutional law.

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Law
Published by: Justice Café on Oct 19, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/19/2009

pdf

text

original

Activity (3)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->