| NEWS FLASH!!!! The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals has ruled Judge Glenn Thompson has three weeks to "respond to the allegations" against him. The ruling was 4 to 1, with Sue Bell Cobb dissenting. This means the CCA was not prepared to give dwm a new trial, and hold the old one for naught--at least not yet. They're giving Thompson a chance to explain himself--which he didn't do in his "new trial" ruling. It appears this is an unusual ruling. Since Judge Cobb (Alternate Chief Justice of the Court of the Judiciary) argued the CCA might not even have the authority to do it, I wonder if it means she's never seen it happen before in her 9 years on the CCA, and 12 years prior to that in District Court. Thompson's response should be VERY interesting. It's not what he was expecting, that's for sure. And I wonder how the press will cover this... I'll bet most of the "outlets" won't find it newsworthy at all, and those that cover it will present it as a minor technicality...that everything is normal when a trial judge has to respond in writing to fifty pages of articulate allegations in a petition against him and the defense lawyers by the State of Alabama. |
| Pursuant to the provisions of Rule 21 (a), Alabama Rules of Appellate Procedure, the respondent is hereby granted twenty-one (21) days to respond to the allegations contained in this petition for writ of mandamus. McMillan, P.J., and Baschab, Shaw, and Wise, JJ., concur. Cobb, J., dissents with opinion. Done this the 8th day of July, 2003. |
| "hateful busybody with an unrequited case of jail house love..." -Yecnor P |
| Never interrupt your enemy when they're making mistakes... -Anonymous |
| Diane Murphy got three front-page stories in the Daily. The five members of the Court of Criminal Appeals got ignored. I guess this is part of their alleged unbiased, ethical, professional journalism... |
| I submit that Catherine Halbrooks presented her case in court with the same dignity and intelligence that is currently displayed on the dwm fan club's forum... |