Hughes Case Brings News

For the many of our readers and followers who have been inquiring as to what went on in the Pre-Trial of the Hughes criminal case in Oakland County Michigan, we do have some news to share with you. As you know, the Hughes, along with their co-defendants were scheduled into Circuit Court in Oakland County, Michigan on the morning of September 12th 2018 which was just yesterday.

DEFENSE MOTION IN LIMINE TO BE RE-PRAECIPED

This was first noted in the Hughes case when on 08/28/2018 their attorney's filed a: "MTN MOTION FILED LIMINE/BRF DISCLOSE" on behalf of their clients. Turning to Webster's Dictionary, this is what we find as a definition as to this "RE-PRAECIPED" to mean (and they do Not have anything under Re-Praeciped" just so you're aware) the following: "Definition of praecipe: 1: any of various legal writs commanding a person to do something or to appear and show cause why he or she should not 2: a written order requesting a clerk or prothonotary of a court to issue a writ and specifying the contents of the writ."

Now the next word needing definition in that motion is the word "LIMINE" which again turning to Websters Dictionary defines it to mean: "Definition of in limine: on the threshold : as a preliminary matter —used for motions regarding the admissibility of evidence brought up at a pretrial hearing." Now, we turn to an attorney firm for more clarification and what we find is this: "A motion in limine is a motion filed by a party to a lawsuit which asks the court for an order or ruling limiting or preventing certain evidence from being presented by the other side at the trial of the case. Generally, this motion is filed in advance of the trial, but a motion may be entertained by the court during a trial, before the evidence in question is offered. The purpose of this motion is to prevent the interjection of matters which are irrelevant, inadmissible or prejudicial.Most objections to the admissibility of evidence are made when the evidence is offered at trial. Thus, the jury usually hears the question and the witness’ answer before the objection is made or hears the other lawyer discuss this evidence in his opening statement. The reason these motions are filed in advance of the trial is to prevent the other party from offering the evidence in front of the jury. Once the evidence is offered, the “cat is out of the bag” and cannot be put back in."

Many of you may remember we had reported that back on 08/28/2018 "MTN MOTION FILED SEPARATE TRIAL"

In regards to the motion that was entered by what was both Hughes "attorney team" but now apparently Jacob Jay Hughes "Attorney team" alone which was petitioning the courts to allow he and his wife to stand trial separately for their drug trafficking scheme, Judge O'Brien decided "DEFENSE MOTION FOR SEPARATE TRIALS TO BE RE-PRAECIPED" and what we understand this to mean is that

Then we come to our final bit of news o share, but before we do, we want to first take a quick moment and pre-explain it so those of you unfamiliar with the term will have a better understanding of what it means and such Before we tell you Judge O'Brien's decision as to their request. What the Hughes filed was a "Motion to Quash" their case. Now, a motion to quash is a specific type of request that asks the court to render the decision of a previous lower court ruling invalid. This is often filed at the beginning of a trial or appeal as a pretrial motion. It is somewhat similar to a motion to dismiss, except it asks the court to nullify a previous ruling rather than the current filing.

Reflecting back in the court notes, we find that the defendants attorney filed the following:

9/07/2018 PRF PEOPLES RESP FILED TO MTN QUASH BINDOVER

9/07/2018 BRF BRIEF FILED SUPPT RES TO MTN QUASH BINDOVER

If you remember, back on 08/28/2018 the defense team of Jacob and Mary Hughes had filed a "MTN MOTION FILED /BRF QUASH BINDOVER/DISMISS" so it sounds like the September filings were in follow-up to that August motion though we are waiting confirmation of that as of this time. In the meantime, as was explained to us is that like other motions, motions to quash are part of a larger body of rules called civil procedure rules. These can differ by state and are also different for federal cases as opposed to state civil cases. Motions to quash are available in personal injury cases and many other types of civil proceedings. Fortunately for the wheels of Michigan Justice, from the courts notation in the case we'd say Judge O'Brien shot them down, here is what Exactly was noted: "DEFENSE MOTION TO QUASH DENIED"

Now, a few other points to note include the following:

9/07/2018 "PRF PEOPLES RESP FILED TO MTN DISCLOSE IDENTITY" along with a "BRF BRIEF FILED SUPPT RES TO MTN DISCLOSE IDENTITY" which at the moment we remain unsure as to what this is regarding or whom i is about though we are working on finding out and of course will promptly let you know as soon as we hear anything.

Also we feel it's important to also let you know that the defense had also filed the following motion request with the court as well:

09/05/2018 "MPR MOTION PRAECIPE FILED FOR 09122018 JUDGE 08" which we took to be in reference to Judge O'Brien. At the moment we don't know that this motion was addressed nor decided upon, we are still waiting for more details.

Again, as soon as we get more information including their next court date, we will do our best to promptly get the information to you, until then, thank you and we hope you will stay tuned.