Liz said:

]Liz submitted a new resource:
Earl David Worden Motion In Limine 1986-01-21 – Motion in limine for the 1986 aggravated sexual assault case against Earl David Worden.

Read more about this resource…

Continue reading...

Click to expand...

Worden's attorney, Mr. Hardy, may have made a mistake in the motion. Does Hardy mean in the last paragraph to write "admissible" rather than "inadmissible." The prosecutor would be the one wanting the jury to hear the unfounded allegations, the founded but extremely prejudicial allegations, or the dismissed allegations against Worden.

Danyell said:

Worden's attorney, Mr. Hardy, may have made a mistake in the motion. Does Hardy mean in the last paragraph to write "admissible" rather than "inadmissible." The prosecutor would be the one wanting the jury to hear the unfounded allegations, the founded but extremely prejudicial allegations, or the dismissed allegations against Worden.

Click to expand...

First, his attorney was M. Gabriel Nahas, Jr. not "Hardy".

Secondly, "inadmissible" would be the correct "prayer" to the Court. The allegations enumerated in the Motion are elements or evidence that could be used against Worden in the pending criminal trial. His attorney is asserting that presenting that information would taint the jury, since those issues are not directly related to the case for which he is filing the Motion. In other words, the vehicle theft is not relevant to the rape case. This is quite common. A defendant is entitled to not have his "prior bad deeds" influence a jury's decision on the case at hand. An easy example would be if somebody is standing trial for an armed robbery that he truly didn't commit, but has a prior conviction for the same crime, it is not prudent to allow the jury to know about the prior conviction. Knowing that could sway the jury's judgment on the present case.

I hope that helps to explain things.

Earl has a court appearance today, any news?

FattMatt said:

Earl has a court appearance today, any news?

Click to expand...

Judging by his sudden "absence" from even his channel, I suspect that EDW has been advised by counsel to cease responding to those "attacking" him. He's doing more harm than good in vociferously defending himself in the court of public opinion. As I always told my clients - you have the right to remain silent, so STFU.

Cassano said:

Judging by his sudden "absence" from even his channel, I suspect that EDW has been advised by counsel to cease responding to those "attacking" him. He's doing more harm than good in vociferously defending himself in the court of public opinion. As I always told my clients - you have the right to remain silent, so STFU.

Click to expand...

We'll see how long he can stay quiet. I would bet his attorney advised him to stfu each time they spoke.

The Frog has posted on YouTube, but very little information.

Though EDW/NNH appears to have followed some good advice and STFU, many of his minions and blind followers continue to spread the lies he shared previously and attack those that attempt to set the record straight by providing factual evidence. When will they realize they have been lied to and mislead for far to long?

Earl forgot to stfu Click here for The Frog's video

Not in defense of EDW/NNH, but the comments appeared to be from an older video, which the Frog had saved as a result of the email. I looked closely at the video to see if a date and time were visible, but I did not see them.

Earl's been busy building a second YouTube channel ' one he claims a "family member" created and runs for him. I saw the first vid Earl uploaded to his new NEWS NOW COMMUNITY" channel a day or so ago. The written narration added to the video seems to me to be Earl mode.

Earl claims in his latest video on his new channel, he had a bodyguard at his last court appearance, can anyone who was present verify that?