Uploaded April 2024 | Updated September 2026, 2 hours ago
I took a look at the docket for the appeal, and reviewed the motion. It's largely the same as the earlier 4/1/24 motion before Judge Zimmerman. The motion leaves a lot to be desired. No recent Constitutional authority, and no compelling reasons for bail to be issued. Chille's last name continues to be misspelled (e.g., "Castro"). It may be strategy by his current lawyers to play coy with the cases to prevent the DA from having advanced time to do counter legal research. I really don't know. This is just my perspective from California. It is not a legal opinion and I am not saying that any of the lawyers have made any mistakes or did anything wrong. No attorney client relationship is created. Trial strategy is kept close to the vest. Nothing herein can be relied upon, and all defenses are reserved for commenting on a public issue, including California's anti-SLAPP laws, most notably, CCP 425.16(e). My interest is in the Constitution, not the participants. This cases raises Constitutional questions.
I took a look at the docket for the appeal, and reviewed the motion. It's largely the same as the earlier 4/1/24 motion before Judge Zimmerman. The motion leaves a lot to be desired. No recent Constitutional authority, and no compelling reasons for bail to be issued. Chille's last name continues to be misspelled (e.g., "Castro"). It may be strategy by his current lawyers to play coy with the cases to prevent the DA from having advanced time to do counter legal research. I really don't know. This is just my perspective from California. It is not a legal opinion and I am not saying that any of the lawyers have made any mistakes or did anything wrong. No attorney client relationship is created. Trial strategy is kept close to the vest. Nothing herein can be relied upon, and all defenses are reserved for commenting on a public issue, including California's anti-SLAPP laws, most notably, CCP 425.16(e). My interest is in the Constitution, not the participants. This cases raises Constitutional questions.
