Succintly and well said Jules.
David
________________________________
From: Jules M Epstein (hehimhis) <jules.epstein@temple.edu>
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2023 2:50 PM
To: Schenker, Nathan M. <nschenker@chesco.org>; Brian Deiderick <chiefdefenders@pdap.simplelists.com>
Cc: Miller, David B. <dmiller@chesco.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] - Re: [External] FW: Com's Rule 580 arguments
EXTERNAL: Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Nathan
Not in my wheelhouse but this is officious BS
Professor Jules Epstein
Edward D. Ohlbaum Endowed Term Professor
Director of Advocacy Programs
Temple Beasley School of Law
1719 N. Broad Street
Philadelphia, Pa. 19122
(215) 204-6288
pronouns: he, him, his
TEMPLE TRIAL ADVOCACY<https://www.law.temple.edu/academics/areas-of-study/trial-advocacy/>
Read the ADVOCACY AND EVIDENCE RESOURCE CENTER - BLOG<https://www2.law.temple.edu/aer/posts/>
[https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/RQl9cCJB9JRf-4M5-I91WUUXGiL76SbVY0lcrxLcOp0o6OZFXY-X7ftJ_Bq3o-zAvqlGoEAENYj_jFAwqiiB_jpnNFLbnY8iWbk_7fuEPh6yAa8YXFO1sJH4U-XI7Travh4GyVoBZXOj8DqWBKSNqdGNqOL2WBBz5O717IsUtbIfAJXEwzMU_5UgCsYuf3UjGwVkMvl3UDLChsh96g=s0-d-e1-ft#https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=14DqVlXgPrYdaXvrXWsOqLJhe9J1gy3Gi&revid=0B9O3Nreb_1mkL2ZTUGtKOEZMK2Vza0xjNk1Ock93YVJOblFnPQ]
________________________________
From: Schenker, Nathan M. <nschenker@chesco.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2023 12:39 PM
To: Brian Deiderick <chiefdefenders@pdap.simplelists.com>
Cc: Jules M Epstein (hehimhis) <jules.epstein@temple.edu>; Miller, David B. <dmiller@chesco.org>
Subject: [External] FW: Com's Rule 580 arguments
This is a new wrinkle from our DA. I think that we meet the requirements of the rule by giving basic facts and notice. I’m interested if anyone else is seeing this and your response / experience. Please forward to anyone in your office who deals with Rules and motions.
Thank you.
Nathan
From: Miller, David B. <dmiller@chesco.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2023 12:10 PM
To: Schenker, Nathan M. <nschenker@chesco.org>; Dodd, Stephen P. <sdodd@chesco.org>; Vonderheide, Nathan L. <nvonderheide@chesco.org>
Subject: Com's Rule 580 arguments
Per our conversation this morning, in a nutshell, the Com filed a motion (attached) this morning arguing violation of R. 580 merits dismissal of motion to suppress. Specifically, Bill Judge posits that the defense motion fails to “…site to any specific facts to support any of the legal violations alleged in the motion.” And as a result, “…leaves the Commonwealth to guess as to what specifically defense is alleging should be suppressed and under what basis.”
The case is a first offense DUI. Police stop one vehicle. Defendant drives up behind the patrol car in another vehicle Police then start asking him questions, and then get him out of the car, etc. Admission to using but not in recent past, and blood test, positive for meth. All on MVR. The suppression motion is attached; arguing no RS for detention and even if RS exceeded scope of a permissible Terry stop, fruit of the poisonous tree, etc. Maybe we could have included additional facts, but I don’t think there is a violation of Rule 580 as the Com is sufficiently on notice. Certainly, dismissal is ridiculous.
David B. Miller
Asst. Public Defender - Chester County
610-344-6940
This County of Chester e-mail message, including any attachments, is intended for the sole use of the individual(s) and entity(ies) to whom it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended addressee, nor authorized to receive for the intended addressee, you are hereby notified that you may not use, copy, disclose or distribute to anyone this e-mail message including any attachments, or any information contained in this e-mail message including any attachments. If you have received this e-mail message in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message. Thank you very much.
