- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
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 Jjdoc
Posted on 8/8/19 at 7:23 am to Jjdoc
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
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 on 8/8/19 at 8:48 am to AggieHank86
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
![](https://images.tigerdroppings.com/Images/Icons/Iconcheers.gif)
![](https://images.tigerdroppings.com/Images/Icons/Iconrolleyes.gif)
Posted on 8/8/19 at 9:01 am to AggieHank86
This is actually acceptable to me.
Popular
Back to top
![logo](https://images.tigerdroppings.com/images/layout/TDIcon.jpg)