Started By
Message

re: RI's use of Red Flag and what the future for you will look like.. SECRET COURT baby!

Posted on 8/8/19 at 7:23 am to
Posted by AggieHank86
Texas
Member since Sep 2013
42941 posts
Posted on 8/8/19 at 7:23 am to
So, the procedure for a red flag order is exactly the same as for obtaining any other TRO and then extending it to a temporary injunction, EXCEPT that the burden of proof for the State at the second hearing is FAR higher.

You get essentially these same orders already in many divorce cases now.

Sure, they are still too easy to obtain, and I would tweak the procedures somewhat.

I would require that all complaining witnesses appear at the first hearing (no Orders based upon affidavits or hearsay), so the judge can assess credibility, and I would preclude the State from presenting ANY evidence at the second hearing which was not presented at the first. “Clear and convincing” should be the evidenciary standard at the first hearing.

I would require that the second hearing take pace in 3-7 days (not 14), and I would appoint counsel for the Respondent. I would give the Respondent and counsel “open file” access to EVERYTHING in the prosecutor’s file, and require that copies be delivered along with service of the Order. (including a recording or an electronic transcript of the first ihearing). I would require the State to have all complaining witnesses present at the second hearing and mandate a ruling against the State if the prosecutor fails to do so.

I would award costs and fees to any prevailing Respondent, for which BOTH the State an complaining witness would be jointly and severally responsible. I would require regular re-hearings (e.g every 6 months), at which the burden of proof word CONTINUE to lie with the State to establish that the respondent CONTINUES to constitute a risk.

That would be a good start
This post was edited on 8/8/19 at 7:58 am
Posted by Walkthedawg
Dawg Pound
Member since Oct 2012
11466 posts
Posted on 8/8/19 at 8:48 am to
quote:


I would require that all complaining witnesses appear at the first hearing (no Orders based upon affidavits or hearsay), so the judge can assess credibility, and I would preclude the State from presenting ANY evidence at the second hearing which was not presented at the first. “Clear and convincing” should be the evidenciary standard at the first hearing.

I would require that the second hearing take pace in 3-7 days (not 14), and I would appoint counsel for the Respondent. I would give the Respondent and counsel “open file” access to EVERYTHING in the prosecutor’s file, and require that copies be delivered along with service of the Order. (including a recording or an electronic transcript of the first ihearing). I would require the State to have all complaining witnesses present at the second hearing and mandate a ruling against the State if the prosecutor fails to do so.



This worked well in the fisa court
Posted by cokebottleag
I’m a Santos Republican
Member since Aug 2011
24028 posts
Posted on 8/8/19 at 9:01 am to
This is actually acceptable to me.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram