3. actionnetwork.org/events/shop-...

4. actionnetwork.org/events/shop-...

5. actionnetwork.org/events/panid...

We covered it all today. That’s it.

See you in December!

Previous incidents (there are none) involving Dr. Borrenpohl in front of the jury.

All in all, this was a good pretrial hearing.

We definitely know what the defense will be arguing based on what was said today.

Tomorrow’s pretrial conference scheduled for tomorrow has been cancelled.

Motions in Limine went mostly in favor of the prosecution.

The defense will not be able to do nefarious things like call Dr. Borrenpohl an activist. They will not be allowed to impeach her character by claiming this was a stunt for financial gain, and they will not be able to talk about…

Jury instruction negotiations have concluded. I think they went well and the jury will have what they need to make their decisions without confusion.

Motion to limine are up next.

This is a pretrial request to exclude evidence.

Prosecutor is arguing that if the sheriff doesn’t testify that the affirmative defense argument (they were just following orders) will be based on hearsay.

Judge says that will be determined by the evidence at trial.

While we were in the hallway, LEAR’s team mentioned that instructions regarding “engaged in the business of” would be the “nail in the coffin” for this case.

The LEAR defense did not get their way on this clutch instruction.

We’re back. Still negotiating instructions.

The entourage of LEAR supporters are in the hallway claiming they can arrest people without the sheriff right now. This includes defendants.

It’s wild to listen to.

Time mark 1:50 PM for my future public information request.

I wonder if the cameras have sound here. 🤷🏼‍♀️

Off to lunch. Will return at 2 PM.

Defense is up again arguing that disobeying the command the security guards could have been charged. 🫠

Prosecutor can’t charge the Sheriff as a result of the AG’s determination. It’s not up to the prosecutor.

Argues that the logic of the defense would exonerate anyone committing crimes at the command of a police officer. #idpol

“False imprisonment is okay if you’re doing it in one of these circumstances”

Is the most wild sentence I’ve heard in a hot minute.

Next defense attorney is bringing up issues of the uncharged co-defendant (sheriff Norris).

This attorney is claiming there may have been consequences to this security team if ignored the orders. JFC.

So, the entire trial is going to be “I was just following orders”

What these lawyers are arguing is that if a police officer asks you to shoot someone, there should be no consequences if you do so. 🤯

That’s quite an argument.

Jurors need to understand if there was even a removal offense happening according to prosecutor.

Defense’s response? It’s unreasonable for security officers to know what a removable offense is. 🤦🏼‍♀️

Prosecutor: “I was just following orders” has never been a valid defense.

This is all part of the affirmative defense instructions. We’re negotiating what the jury will hear in the instructions.

Prosecutor wants more detail for jurors.