Grab your reading glasses and take a look at what Moultrie’s defense filed yesterday. I’ve listed the four motions on USA v Moultrie under Legal on the left sidebar.
The “unnamed public official” figures prominently in this latest round of filings – a good thing Carothers is available as there’s a lot of work to be done.
- Motion to Dismiss Count 1 of the Indictment
- Motion to Require Heightened Standard.
- Motion for Juror Questionnaire.
- Motion to Exclude Evidence of Prior Acts
Moultrie’s attorney, Tom Freeland, has done an excellent job – and killed a couple of trees with the Exhibits that we’ll post as time permits during the day.
I guess they’re prediciting what Carothers will say. Is the reason for the Juror Questionaire motion just a strategy move from Freeland? He can’t voi dire the jury before selection, can he (if that’s the correct question)? Is it just to try and “get to know” the potential jurors before they walk in?
Jack, I don’t know. I’ve read the motions and exhibits; but, as you can tell, haven’t had the time to write comments.
My gut reaction to the jury questionnaire is that it serves to “educate” the jurors it doesn’t screen out.
Certainly, the fact that Musgrove is running for the Senate is a factor; but, IMO, irrelevant in terms of this case.
He knew this was out there and he had two options – don’t run or run with it. He made his choice.
This case isn’t about Musgrove. It’s about the taxpayers of this State. I think it totally inappropriate for Moultrie’s defense to be filing motions that appear to benefit Musgrove more than Moultrie et al – but that’ strictly my opinion.