Tory Lanez‘s attorneys have requested a postponement in their clients’ request for a retrial because they need more time to prepare.
The Los Angeles Times dispatched their court reporter, James Queally, to the Los Angeles County Superior Court, where he began tweeting live from the hearing.
AD LOADING...
Queally, who confirmed that the embattled rapper (real name Daystar Peterson) is still in custody after his conviction for shooting Megan Thee Stallion, revealed that much of what happened today (April 10) is a post-conviction formality “so I wouldn’t expect any fireworks today.”
Queally later confirmed that Lanez’s attorneys — led by Suge Knight’s former attorney David Kenner — requested, and received, a continuance (which is when a court date gets postponed to give attorneys more time to prepare) on their clients’ behalf.
AD LOADING...
Both sides are due to appear back in court on April 17, but Queally said not to expect any fireworks on that day, either.
“Given the timing and possible need to respond to defense’s supplemental motion — prosecutors do not expect to retrial motion to be heard next Monday either, but hopefully a date will be scheduled,” he wrote.
Check out his live thread below.
Though Tory Lanez’s attorneys have frequently claimed that their client was denied the right to a fair trial, prosecutors in the case have trashed their efforts, claiming that they “lack substance.”
A copy of the prosecution’s Response to the Defendant’s Motion for a New Trial which was filed on April 6 revealed that attorneys Alexander Bott and Kathy Ta filed the opposition on behalf of the District Attorney’s office.
The prosecutor’s position is that Lanez’s attorneys have filed a “baseless” claim and that there are a number of reasons why their client (real name Daystar Peterson) wouldn’t be entitled to a new trial.
For one, a new trial may only be granted if the defendant can “demonstrate a reversible error or other defect.” The prosecution argued that Lanez’s arguments for a new trial are based on facts that they didn’t dispute in the original trial — so, by definition, there was no “defect.”
AD LOADING...
Secondly, Lanez wasn’t denied the right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment, and neither was any of the evidence — including the admission of the DNA evidence — improper. Moreover, the alleged “improper” evidence wasn’t objected to at trial, making it “proper” by the letter of the law.
Finally, the prosecution believes Lanez’s claim that he wasn’t allowed to testify at trial — and that his rights to due process were violated — were also false.
