No. of Recommendations: 2
No - I remember this one too. The judge discovered a broad grant (crimes still under investigation, crimes not yet discovered, that sort of thing) of immunity for Hunter deep in the fine print of some supporting document, something she apparently wasn't supposed to find. When she questioned the attorneys about support, ie precedent, for such a broad grant, they couldn't cite any. Hunters attorney's thought they had agreed to broad immunity but the prosecutors couldn't defend that to judge, so it was out. Hunter would not agree to the plea agreement without it meeting his understanding of granting broader immunity, so they parties were at an impasse and Hunter rather than pleading guilty under plea agreement entered a plea of not guilty.
That's the difference between our sources, eh? Hunter's attorney's did think he was getting that, but the interpretation I read was she seemed to think the prosecutors couldn't grant that, and that Hunter would agree to something that couldn't be done. But somehow the fact that the crew investigating HB had screwed up came out ( don't remember how this came up), and Me no like that part. Don't like it also because I could not figure out at the time how investigators could screw up in the 6th amendment area, and I assume something in the case is tainted and lost, but had and still have no idea - unless somehow he was denied counsel. But I scratch my head over that. Where is Albaby? :) I'll post a Mueller She Wrote summary on Weiss.
