Open full view…

Ryan's hearing at Georgia Supreme Court?

Tue, 07 May 2019 12:59:29 GMT

Hey guys, is it today and if so is there a place to watch or listen? Thank you!😁

Tue, 07 May 2019 15:07:16 GMT

What did we just witness.....

Tue, 07 May 2019 15:14:55 GMT

I can see a deal coming.... and soon! This is all a huge mess, and both sides would benefit from getting it over with and QUICKLY! Such a sad, sad situation.

Tue, 07 May 2019 15:15:34 GMT

I got the impression they don’t want to get involved but I’m absolutely not a legal expert. Hoping Phil breaks down his opinion soon.

Tue, 07 May 2019 15:56:24 GMT

can someone please explain what happened i couldnt get it on???

Catwoman (daystar)
Tue, 07 May 2019 16:59:38 GMT


Tue, 07 May 2019 17:00:45 GMT

So what happened guys? Trying to tune in now...

Tue, 07 May 2019 17:08:03 GMT

No idea! 😂 A lot of interrupting, confusion, questioning of it was a legit issue to bring to the supreme level at this time.... 🤷🏻‍♀️

Tue, 07 May 2019 17:43:11 GMT

Wait, if not at this time then when? Admittedly I don't understand a lot of legal stuff but this seems extra confusing. To me they are discussing something that is both very important in ensuring a fair trial and precedent-setting so it makes sense to me that it's where it is now. However if Reinhardt had just done the right thing to begin with then this whole ridiculous situation wouldn't even be going on, imo.

Tue, 07 May 2019 17:46:26 GMT

Hey Emphasis, who are you referring to above when you talk about " not wanting to be involved?" The Georgia Supreme Court? Huhhh? I am totally confused. If not them then who does decide stuff like this?

Tue, 07 May 2019 18:22:23 GMT

I think they shouldn’t have came before the court arguing collateral order doctrine and just stuck to referencing the Waldrip (sp??) case that they referenced in their brief. I could be completely wrong about this but I think the judges Didn’t feel collateral order applies here and they spent the whole time arguing that.

Tue, 07 May 2019 18:35:17 GMT

Seemed to be leaning towards the issue/s raised by Ryan/counsel would be handled in the same manner as others and their issues. And that would be, if convicted - by appeal.

Tue, 07 May 2019 19:17:45 GMT

@lex, from what I understand this was a hearing to determine whether the Georgia Supreme Court will hear the defense’s appeal. If they decide not to, it goes back to Reinhardt. If they decide to hear it then the defense will present their arguments for why Ryan should receive the funding.

Tue, 07 May 2019 19:20:01 GMT

It’s a lot more complicated than that of course, but whether it’s Ryan’s trial or not, I think it’s an issue that should be addressed.

Tue, 07 May 2019 19:20:30 GMT

Also seemed like they needed to go to Superior Court Judge and have some motion redone. And it should be worked out on the local level with prosecutors , defense team and judge.i It’s beyond crazy not to give him the experts and investigators before his trial. The judge in Irwin County needs to give him every opportunity to have a fair trial. If he is found innocent okay then but if he is found guilty no way should they jeopardize the conviction and spend more money on all the appeals. I’m not a Ryan fan by no means but I want him to receive a fair honest trial.

Tue, 07 May 2019 19:32:54 GMT

Agree, Juliet. Just want to add that Irwin County likely can’t afford to pay, which they wouldn’t be required to if Ryan was represented by the public defender. The public defenders get funding from the state public defender fund but indigent defendants represented privately pro bono can’t access those funds. So in these rare cases like Ryan’s, trial judges have been known to order the county to pay (which the prosecution and Reinhardt didn’t seem to understand). There have probably been cases where the judge denied the request too. But I don’t think it’s fair for the county. The easiest solution to this seems to be for the GSC to determine the state public defender’s fund should pay in these very uncommon cases.

Tue, 07 May 2019 19:41:07 GMT

Here’s some comments from Phil fb about his thoughts, for those interested. https://imgur.com/a/1vapABW

Tue, 07 May 2019 21:12:41 GMT

The justices seemed perplexed that this problem was not being remedied by the local judge before trial rather than it having to be brought to them. They seemed of the opinion that going forward would create grounds for an appeal and a second trial and that it would be more sensible to deal with it before the trial. They were also questioning if they should make that decision or if it should go back and be decided by the trial judge as an appeal to him. However, AM did not have the time needed for such an appeal as the judge was trying to move forward with the trial after denying the defenses request for funds. So, AM had no choice but to apply for an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court of GA. The judge should have allowed for some source of funds before the trial because not doing so was violating RD rights.

Wed, 08 May 2019 18:20:23 GMT


Fri, 10 May 2019 06:27:13 GMT

Why are you using this discussion board? Tara's is season 1. I dont understand why that is so difficult.

Fri, 10 May 2019 11:42:10 GMT

@crimejunkie, nobody does it purposely; the format of this board has changed. Posts now default to season 2 unless one goes to channels and clicks on Season 1. Folks have used this board since 2016 and are accustomed to the old format which defaulted to season 1, and some are new users who don’t realize posts default to season 2. There aren’t many posts lately regarding season 2 anyway - I think most moved to private Facebook groups a while back. Don’t know if they are still discussing or not. At any rate, if we had active admins they could probably keep this better organized. Or if the board format required choosing the season before posting, etc. Trust me, most - if not all of us - are frustrated with the format...don’t even get me started on the search function.