If jurisdiction is an issue concerning prosecutorial misconduct, which should be entertained in the trial court, what did Justice S. Barrett Hickman have to say about the issue?
Justice Hickman ruled on the issue of prosecutorial misconduct in favor of Maddox and no person sought to appeal his ruling. In fact, Pagones defaulted by failing to file an appellate brief challenging any of the jurisdictional arguments or issues on appeal. This fact alone should have required the appeals court to rule in favor of Maddox and Sharpton and suppressing the “hoax” claim. Justice Hickman ruled on the jurisdictional question, in pertinent part, as follows: In his opposing submissions, the Attorney General raises an argument that the Court lacks jurisdiction since the jury rendered its verdict and the appeal has been dismissed. However, as the justice who presided over the very complicated and lengthy trial with important constitutional issues, the undersigned is of the opinion that a motion based on alleged newly discovered evidence [prosecutorial misconduct] should not be summarily dismissed but should be addressed by the trial justice. In any event, CPLR 5015 subd. 2 prov
Related Questions
- If jurisdiction is an issue concerning prosecutorial misconduct, which should be entertained in the trial court, what did Justice S. Barrett Hickman have to say about the issue?
- When does an Ohio court have jurisdiction to issue a domestic violence civil protection order (CPO)?
- Did Prosecutorial Misconduct Deny Denny a Fair Trial?
