Sgeo wrote: > On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 9:58 AM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 2:47 AM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Proposal: Fix OVERLOOKED >>> (AI = 1.7, please) >>> >>> Ivan Hope and Pavitra are co-authors of this proposal. >>> >>> Amend Rule 1504 (Criminal Cases) by replacing this text: >>> >>> * OVERLOOKED, appropriate if the alleged act allegedly occurred >>> at least 200 days before the case was initiated >>> >>> with this text: >>> >>> * OVERLOOKED, appropriate if the initiating announcement alleged >>> a rule breach at least 200 days before the case was initiated >>> >>> [Closes the loophole where the defendant can force OVERLOOKED by >>> falsely alleging that the breach occurred a long time ago.] >>> > What if the initiating announcement alleges a rule breach, but doesn't > specify when it happened, but it is referring to something that > happenened 200+ days ago?
Rule 1504 requires pointing out a "specific action". Either the action didn't actually occur at all (in which case INNOCENT is appropriate) or it did (in which case specifying the action also implicitly specifies a time).
