Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pretrial Motions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Court denies defense motion to dismiss in McKinney gun-possession case; other pretrial motions remain pending
Summary
In State v. Raymond Lee McKinney, the court denied a defense motion to dismiss a felony indictment charging unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon. Defense counsel argued the indictment conflicted with Second Amendment precedent; the court recorded the denial and several other pretrial motions were raised but not resolved at the hearing.
The court denied a defense motion to dismiss an indictment charging Raymond Lee McKinney with unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon, and other pretrial motions remained pending after a pretrial hearing and the start of jury selection in the 187th District Court.
The denial came after defense counsel raised constitutional arguments challenging the indictment under recent Second Amendment precedent. Defense counsel said the challenge relied on U.S. Supreme Court reasoning in Bruen and related decisions and asked the court to “parse the indictment, in light of the defendant’s Second Amendment rights.” The court stated on the record that the motion would be denied; the transcript records the court’s ruling but does not identify a written order at that hearing.
Defense counsel also said he had filed a motion to pause the indictment and a motion to suppress evidence; those motions were raised in court but were not resolved during the portion of the proceeding captured in the transcript. The defense announced co-counsel Megan Galloway would appear for the state’s side shortly; the state’s on-the-record presence included Andrew Harris Adelman and Megan Galloway for the prosecution.
The charge, as stated in court, is unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon. The court and counsel discussed discovery; defense counsel confirmed receipt of discovery and the court confirmed an acknowledgement of discovery was on file.
After addressing pretrial motions, the court proceeded with voir dire. No final written rulings on the paused-indictment or suppression motions were recorded in the transcript excerpts provided.
Next steps: the hearing moved into jury selection and voir dire; the court indicated additional proceedings would continue with voir dire and later resolution of outstanding pretrial motions if needed.
