I'll never understand law or lawyers.
The DA and Judge both agreed/determined that "Van Houten cannot obtain evidence after her conviction, because she does not face a sentence of death or life without parole".
Okay cool.
If that's "the law", then that's the law.
Game over.
Case closed.
But what confuses me, is this:
Richard Pfeiffer is a lawyer.
It's safe to assume, that Pfeiffer knows the law (just like the DA and Judge).
So...
Why would Pfeiffer even bother trying to get the tapes released, when he knows darn well, what the law states? He certainly must know, that Leslie is not entitled to the tapes (because she does not face a sentence of life or life without parole).
Restated another way:
If the law clearly states, "Van Houten cannot obtain evidence after her conviction because she does not face a sentence of death or life without parole", then WHY THE HELL did Pfeiffer even bother petitioning for the tapes (in the first place)???
Are lawyers like Pfeieffer just trying to "slip one by" the DA and Judge?
Was Pfeiffer just hoping that the DA and Judge wouldn't know, or look-up the applicable laws???
Dilligaf described Pfeiffer's petition (for the Tex Tapes), as a "Hail Mary".
Jeez. I guess so...
It seems to me, if "the Law" was against Pfeiffer from the very start (and he knew it), then it was more of a "complete waste of everyone's time", than a "Hail Mary". LOL
Am I missing something?
In retrospect, the whole thing seems like a stupid exercise in futility to me.