arora. mr.rora: what ip able to rebut -- what i be able to rebut -- would i be able to rebut -- judge mcafee: let's see how it goes. >> the case against ms. powell is in a slightly different procedural posture than mr. chesebro and i thought it would be appropriate to start with -- mr. spero -- mr. chesebro and we did not receive a ruling or anything else about when the trial of ms. powell will occur in my experience as a former federal -- federal prosecutor, in situations where you have multiple defense like this, if one defendant makes a motion for a speedy trial, the court has a discretion under a speedy trial to push the case down because other defendants have said they are not ready for trial. in a state court, looking at the state law and the state state -- speedy trial act, five virtue of demand -- i think ms. powell has to be separate out on the remaining 17 so the question for today is whether the trial of ms. powell will be joined with -- jointly mr. chesebro or not. based on on -- the

arora? >> sorry. >> fine. >> with regard to the scheduling order there is a 20th deadline and once we get it, we have ten days to respond, and so i don't know what they have, and i know that we are on a compressed time schedule, and we all turn it over on the same day it would not make sense, because i am not sure what it is that i need to address as far as the case goes? >> well, i have not heard that one before. the intent of the scheduling order is that there is a mutual exchange by that date, and if there is supplemental discovery, because it is newly discovered or newly relevant in good faith, then it is turned over within five days is the general guideline there. so based on the indictment, you have a good idea of the case against your client, and you could turn over the bulk of the discovery at that time, and if the state is not satisfied with the time line, then we will deal with it. >> i don't want to have to pay for the experts if i don't need to. >> and experts are classified diff

arora stated, there is no grand jury secrecy here in the state of georgia.cy in the federal courts as your honor knows. that does not apply here. prior to there were certain legislative changes and there was a time my understanding is in the state of georgia where there was similar rules as to federal court, and that is no longer the case. so there's no secrecy. now, there is confidentiality, of course, and main -- the only part that's truly secret and confidential is the deliberations, and i want to make sure it's clear that we are not asking to speak to the grand jurors about their deliberations. we will not do that. we're officers of the court. we know we can't. we won't do it. now, mr. wade laid out certain factors of the purposes of grand jury confidentiality. i think he named five, but the olson case named four. i'm sure there's different formulations. so i'm just going to go through four. prospective jurors would be hesitant to come testify. actual witnesses would be less likely to testify fully and frankly if the grand jury was open to others. the su

arora. >> yes, your honor. and will i be able to rebut if the government chooses -- >> let's see where we go. >> okay. >> good afternoon, your honor. the case against miss powell is in a slightly different procedural posture than against mr. cheseboro and i just thought it would be appropriate to start with the fact we filed the speedy trial demand within a day or two of the speedy trial demand of mr. cheseboro and we have not yet received a scheduling order or ruling or anything else about when the trial of miss powell will occur. my experience as a former federal prosecutor and in federal court under the speedy trial act is in situations where you have multiple defendants like this if one defendant makes a demand for a speedy trial or two, as we have here, the court has the discretion under the speedy trial act in federal court to still push the case down because some other defendants as we have in this case have said they're not ready for trial. that's ordinarily what happens in federal court. but here in st