Tag Archives: bud randles

iePolitics: Exclusive: The Eyler/Postmus witness list – Updated

Posted on by Administrator
21

Editor’s Note:  For a blog that “no one reads,” stories that are printed on it sure do have the tendency to create havoc.  We knew there would be several additional names to this list, but then presents drop from the sky.  And those presents were read by the defense.


iePolitics has obtained a partial list of witnesses expected to be called as a part of the upcoming corruption trial in People v. Postmus, et al.  Attorneys for the defendants have given the judge an expected length of seven to eight weeks for the trial.  Here are the names we have been given so far:

Continue reading →

iePolitics: Games being played by District Attorney in Judge Smith’s courtroom

Posted on by Administrator
4

I could have subtitled this “My morning with Bill” because being friends with Bill Postmus never leaves a dull moment.  This morning was no exception.  There will be several entries detailing all that happened this morning.

A few days ago Bill asked me if I would attend his preliminary hearing today.  He simply wanted a little moral support for a change.  I’ve been sick all week, and this morning was no exception, but I managed to make it to the courthouse before the hearing started.

I had no intention of blogging about today as I was there as a friend.  I did not have a computer with me and I only planned to observe.  But the District Attorney’s office had other ideas.

Bill and Jim had a hearing on the case they share just before Bill’s preliminary hearing with Greg Eyler.  We were all waiting in the hall but the hall had to be cleared to get a chain gang from another courtroom, so the bailiff allowed us  to sit in Judge Smith’s courtroom where the preliminary hearing was scheduled to be held.

Continue reading →

iePolitics: Brady issues in the District Attorney’s office

Posted on by Administrator
6

We have been saying all along that there are some “issues” with the District Attorney’s investigation in the corruption scandal.  Now we have proof.

For those not familiar with Brady, here is an excerpt from a previous post:

There is a case entitled Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).  The Wikipedia entry reads (emphasis added):

. . . in which the prosecution had withheld from the criminal defendant certain evidence. The defendant challenged his conviction, arguing it had been contrary to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Maryland prosecuted Brady and a companion, Boblit, for murder. Brady admitted being involved in the murder, but claimed Boblit had done the actual killing. The prosecution had withheld a written statement by Boblit confessing that he had performed the act of killing by himself. The Maryland Court of Appeal had affirmed the conviction and remanded the case for a retrial only of the question of punishment. Continue reading →