04/14/14 Order Regarding Defendant’s Motion to Reconsider Findings Made in Order P-68 (D-200) Denied
Big News: In this Court Order the defense are essentially quoted as saying the report favors them.
It’s safe to say the court ordered sanity exam concluded that James Holmes was INSANE during the the July 20th, 2012 theater shootings.
This Court Order is in response to the defense’s motion for the Court to reconsider it’s ruling on P-68.
In P-68 the court ruled -at the prosecution’s request- that James Holmes undergo another (partial) sanity exam.The prosecution originally alleged that the first doctor was biased, and said their experts had noticed “numerous deficiencies” in the first eval.
Judge Samour found that the first doctor was NOT biased at the time of the exam, but that the report was “incomplete and inadequate” so he ordered another exam (but only like a additional, partial exam- the new exam is only to be focused on one of the three main areas that were evaluated during the first exam).
The defense then asked Samour to reconsider the additional exam in a undisclosed, suppressed motion, but, in this Order, Samour quotes what the defense previously said in that motion in order to respond to the allegations.
From this Order:
"Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Court did not conclude, "essentially"or otherwise, “that a sanity examination is inadequate or unfair unless it satisfies every area of interest identified by the prosecution’s experts.”
“The defendant erroneously implies that the Court understood the insanity statutory scheme to require it "to give the prosecution the guaranteed ability to rebut the insanity defense if the results of the examination favor the defendant.”
“It is equally inaccurate to insinuate that the Court believed it had "cart blanche to continue to order additional examinations"indefinitely”until a sanity examiner finally produces a report that is immune from criticism by people who are paid to find fault in it.”
“Although the defendant posits that the Court took "a role which [gives] the impression of partiality" and an Order that creates an "appearance of partiality", the Court agreed with each party in part and disagreed with each party in part. The Court agreed with the prosecution that a further or other examination was warranted, but agreed with the defendant that the prosecution’s experts should not be allowed to conduct it.”
(^Oh, please. Look at Samour trying to act like that was siding with the defense. It’s bullshit - there’s NO WAY he could have agreed with the prosecution fully in their request or else it would have looked something like this: Judge Samour: Up next we will go over the second court-ordered, totally neutral, not-biased-in-any-way examination
conducted by the prosecution’s hand picked experts…. There was zero chance of that motion ever being granted in full, and everyone knows that, so he shouldn’t act like he was throwing them a bone then, just to be able to claim impartiality now.)
And there’s more about why the original doctor, Dr. Metzner, wasn’t choosen to conduct the new additional exam. (Spoiler alert: It’s basically, “even though Dr. Metzner says he could still work with us [the prosecution], it’s only naturalthat he would be biased against us now.
From the closed hearings:
(Keep in mind that this is alleged bias was completely caused by the prosecution calling a shady meeting with the Dr. under false pretenses and then trying to twist his words against him to allege he was biased at the time of the report.) See below:
- After the evaluation was complete and Metzner had written his report, prosecutors asked to speak with him. Although Samour’s order doesn’t say what that discussion entailed, it does say that Metzner was “surprised” by it. According to the order, he testified at a closed-door hearing in January that he felt “blindsided” and “set up” by the prosecutors, who used what he told them to allege that he had an “unfair bias.” Metzner didn’t feel the meeting was “fair” since he wasn’t informed of its purpose ahead of time. [Source]
(Also keep in mind Judge Samour later found Dr. Metzner was NOT biased during the exam. So the prosecution’s initial allegations of bias stemming from the meeting were BS)