Dixon arraigned? Not exactly
What if they held an arraignment and no one came?
That’s what happened in court this morning, when Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon was to be arraigned on charges of theft, perjury and misuse of office resulting from a state prosecutor’s probe of City Hall corruption.
Dixon wasn’t at the Baltimore court house. Neither were her lawyers. Nor were developer Ron Lipscomb or City Councilwoman Helen Holton, indicted as a result of the same probe. Their attorney? Not there. The prosecutors? Not there.
Today’s hearing was a technical affair. It seems defense attorneys, as well as the prosecutors, want to consolidate the three cases so that they are heard by the same judge, although separate trials would still be held. Baltimore City Circuit Court Judge John Philip Miller is considering the request, and is to decide in about a week.
Dixon, Holton and Lipscomb won’t enter their pleas until the consolidation takes place.
So after last month’s sensational headlines about indictments and gift cards and relationships and bribery, now comes the grind of the legal system.
Here's video from WJZ:
name="cbsplayer">
Comments
Can any attorneys out there explain the pros and cons of trying these corrupt people together?
----------------------------
David responds: Watcher, sorry for any confusion, and we're clarifying the story and blog posting: The request is for the same judge to preside over all three cases; there would still be separate trials. Our initial blog posting and web story provided an incorrect description.
Posted by: AnotherWatcher | February 3, 2009 2:01 PM