RE: Court Listener Updated15 Jan 2020 14:31
I dont understand the legalese but the tone and words used are so aggressive. For example:
Indivior’s argument again relies on rank speculation that “the government asked the grand jury to return [the Superseding Indictment] in less than a day” and denied the Grand Jury “the opportunity to” review electronic evidence, and
an inappropriate suggestion that the Grand Jury was not “independent.”
We seem to be asking to see the evidence against us and they seem to be saying ' Nope, not going to because of rule 3457, article 265790, subsection (a) 3hu7d blah blah blah. '
I hope they continue to fight these people come what may.