Posted: July 1, 2020
Rules Governing the Utah State Bar – Comment Period Closed August 15, 2020
USB14-0205. Board.
USB14-0206. Officers.
Proposed changes update Bar Commissioner and Officer election procedures and remove obsolete procedures.
Utah Court Rules – Published for Comment
The Supreme Court and Judicial Council invite comments about amending these rules. To view the proposed amendment, click on the rule number.
To submit a comment or view the comments of others, click on “Continue Reading.” To submit a comment, scroll down to the “Leave a Reply” section, and type your comment in the “Comment” field. Type your name and email address in the designated fields and click “Post Comment.”
Comments cannot be acknowledged, but all will be considered. Comments are saved to a buffer for review before publication.
Posted: July 1, 2020
USB14-0205. Board.
USB14-0206. Officers.
Proposed changes update Bar Commissioner and Officer election procedures and remove obsolete procedures.
The rule, as amended, is a landmine field for prosecutors and an absolue shield from discovery for defense attorneys. It raises from consitutional standards of failure of the prosecution to disclose, to virtually everything as an assertion of failure to disclose. I can’t imagine any prosecutor could meet this standard in cases other than the most simple matters like a traffic ticket. A defense attorney could always find something in investigators notes, or comments, or reports, or emails, or texts that was ommitted and regardless of relevance or prejudice move to complain, strike, dismiss or appeal, On the other hand, the defense counsel need disclose virtually nothing to the prosecutor. This rule is not intended to promote the interests of justice, but to be a “get out of jail free card” for the criminals. It not funamentally fair, achieveable or balanced. It is not in the public’s best interest, the appellate court’s best interest, or in the interst of anyone other than those committing crimes and looking looking for a loophole to escape responsibility, and in that regard, this is a cafeteria plan of loopholes with no reciprocal disclosure to the Prosecution . Could it have possible been drafted more one sided? I can’t imagine how.