Create New Comment

 

Comments to Proposed UTCR Rules
Previous Page


Hide details for GeneralGeneral
4.060(2) (01/14/2014) - Rule 4.060(2) should not be amended to require the non-moving party to file a response to a motion to suppress within 7 days for the following reasons: 1)prosecutors receive numerous motions to suppr...
4.060 (01/15/2014) - I am opposed to this suggested rule change for numerous reasons. The lack of time due to enormous caseloads and not enough resources is paramount. Additionally, I believe requiring DDA's to write wri...
UTCR 3.170(5) (04/18/2014) - I support this proposal wholeheartedly. Legal services desperately need funding....
Hide details for Chapter 4Chapter 4
Newly proposed UTCR 4.060(2) (01/10/2014) - Re the new UTCR 4.060(2) as currently proposed: Extremely minor and nonsubstantive comment, but wouldn't the rule read more smoothly if the wording were rearranged to say, instead: "Whenever the burd...
4.060 (2) motion to suppress (01/14/2014) - I respectfully comment in opposition to the proposed change requiring a written response to motions to suppress. As a deputy district attorney in a busy misdemeanor unit I have a lot of exposure to t...
4.060 (01/15/2014) - I am writing to comment against this proposed rule. The response required of the non-moving party will provide minimal information while adding a substantial and difficult to meet filing deadline....