Not many of the Law-tube channels show pre-trial motions and I think showing them would be an excellent niche. In all the big trials I've followed, the big audiences come for the trial proper, then don't understand why evidence they've seen on the news etc. isn't presented to the jury - and this is where all that is decided. Bravo 👏👏

Interesting hearing. I like how the pros makes her position so clear and strong, but does it in a forceful, but respectful way. Kudos.

I really enjoyed this video, as we, the audience, got to see how various pre-trial arguments are made. Thank you for sharing!

I'm wondering if this a sexual assault on a minor & that's why she's concerned about others seeing it?

In the case of the internet, judge is on the money. Internet has many avenues.

For some reason there is a protective order that somehow relates to the video. He wants an unknown expert to view the video. Sounds very open ended, I can see why the prosecuter is being very cautious.

Good grief! What the heck is on the recording???

I enjoyed this! Thank you

I’m only about halfway through the vid, but I’ll explain the crux of it, as I see it anyway… This is a pre trial motion filed by the defense. There is some sort of video/video statement of a very sensitive nature, of which the prosecution has possession. Apparently, they filed an earlier motion for the video’s contents to be guarded by a protective order, and it was granted. For this reason, it is not subject to the rules of discovery. The order only grants viewing by limited individuals. The defense attorneys and the defendant are allowed to view the video, but it must be done in the prosecutors’ office. The defense is trying to get their own copy of the video, because they may or may not want an expert witness to view it. The prosecution is not in favor of providing the defense with their own copy, because they feel they will lose control over who views it. My opinion here… I completely understand the defense wanting their own copy. It’s easier to build a defense with all the evidence being freely available as needed. That’s the point in discovery - so the defendant knows what evidence the prosecution plans to use against them. However, generally speaking, prosecutors work for the victim(s) in a case. They were granted the protective order for the video. So, obviously, they feel it is their duty to be sure that order is upheld, and the content of the video is not seen by unauthorized parties nor disseminated in any way. It seems obvious that a minor was likely the victim in this case. The prosecutor is just trying to protect the privacy and rights of that minor. Ok, back to watching now… 😊

Judge Simpson is probably glad there is are out of normal arguments

Happy Canada Day… to and from your Canadian Friends…. 🇨🇦

Hogan!

Who's to say the prosecutor won't improperly display it omg

This prosecutor is WAY off base IMHO.

Why is the 1st lawyer going over each piece of evidence with a fine tooth comb. Isn't a video part of the discovery package, i have never heard of a prosecuter that doesn't include a copy of a video recording of the statement.

I can't listen to the DA. She is not used to actually arguing a case (based on the limited scope of what I see on KZfaq).

He got a LOT of paper in that accordian file folder. He seems prepared to argue in a supreme court, though. Sir Judge Simpson doesn't need all of this jibber jabber, tho. I wondered how long it was going to take Judge Simpson to say, "Cut to the chase." I hope he wins though

I love judge Simpson get tired of him at times he always gotta prove or tell everyone he’s the smartest guy in the room it gets old

So the prosecutor can use this evidence but not the defense that's not fair

What did this do??

I don’t think the court should be involved. The prosecution has a process and defense should follow that process.

This was as boring as watching paint dry

Why wouldn't the defense want to hire an expert for their client? it costs $ ..does the defendant have $. not so the taxpayer paid lawyer for the defense has to get the Judge's order to be able to hire an expert witness ~ cha ching at taxpayer$ expense and could win and the state be liable for a false arrest and prosecution and the Judge works for the state too ....