"If my decision remains the same, I will not let Mr. Klein speak and further jeopardize the judicial process."

Once Judge Hinrichs was done explaining the rules and the plea bargaining, she opened her remarks with, "This case is a tragedy." She said the Court had read and reviewed all documents presented and these were from all the attorneys and Probation and the victim's family.

She then said her tentative decision was to set the pleas aside. She explained why and read post 1 for those details.

"If counsel says anything that causes me to change my tentative decision, I will hear from Mr. Klein. If my decision remain the same, I will not let Mr. Klein speak and further jeopardize the judicial process." This should give a clear idea of where the Judge stands and as indicated by other comments, many people do, including Klein's peers.

Mr. Gallegos was not present earlier when the People addressed the Court, so Ms. Neel spoke for the People. She did not challenge Judge Hinrich's tentative decision. What she did say was, "One concern I have is misrepresentation of wounds. We are happy to proceed (to trial). The evidence will show differently (than what has been represented in the media) and we will refile with different charges."

The three defendants attorneys spoke in the following order: Mr. Reavis, Mr. Okin and Ms. Dixon.

 In addition to the comments in post 1, Mr. Reavis pointed out that the "entire history between Mr. Anderson-Jordet and Mr. Ferrer was less than 1 minute. Reavis said Anderson-Jordet inititiated and was antagonistic. Ferrer was "frightened." This was not intended or expected, out of character for Mr. Anderson and Jordet and Mr. Ferrer. He said while he was ready to take the matter to trial, both sides came to negotiated plea which was reviewed by Probation.

Reavis described Ferrer as a gentle man, a member of the LGBT community, a Buddhist. I thought Mr. Reavis did an excellent job of defending his client and showed sensitivity to the fact that the victim's family was in the courtroom. So did Mr. Okin and Ms. Dixon.

Mr. Okin said, "There are 2 sides to a story; in Ms. Rocheleau's case there is only 1 side of facts. It was clear Mr. Jordet was the agressor and intoxicated. He said a plea bargain was negotiated, he asked if the Court was rejecting his client's plea as a part of a package and asked that the Court accept her plea.

Ms. Dixon said she "appreciated the comments of both her colleagues." She spoke about her client's plea, brought up the same point of package deal and basis for rejection. "Mr. Stoiber plead exactly as charged. He took responsibility."

Ms. Dixon said Stoiber struck Anderson-Jordet "One time causing laceration of the lip" and that he did so to protect Rocheleau. Ms. Dixon said Stoiber was not aware Ferrer had a knife or that Mr. Jordet had been struck.

Judge Hinrichs suggested the District Attorney could refile charges and even suggested that they be more appropriate to what the plea reflected and re-evaluate if they had overcharged the case which might have led to the perception that the plea deal was inappropriate. She explained to the public again, court process and why she came to her decision. She pointed out in a trial, all the defendants could be found not guilty. Mr. Reavis had earlier mentioned the different type of murder charges a defendant cxan be charged with and that in Ferrer's case there was no intent to kill. It was evident that the Judge was restrained in her remarks of how she felt about being put in the spotlight. She said at least 3 times that she was setting the pleas aside "in the interest of justice." And was clear why she made her original plea ruling.

Mr. Gallegos asked to speak again once the defendants' attorney concluded their statements. He said, "The role of the Court is to look at plea bargains; there is a system of checks and balances." He again expressed the concern that inaccurate information and misinformation had been put out in the public.

Intervention has been set for May 8 at 3 p.m. and Preliminary Hearing May 28 at 8:30 a.m. The date set was based on attorney schedules and after Mr. Gallegos consulted with the family when they could be back in town.

Arnie left before the dates were set. And it was Mr. Gallegos who spoke with the family and requested to the Court that he get their input before a date was set.

Arnie was sick according to the press release he sent out to select media; he used the wheelchair sometimes today. He could have requested a continuance from the Court to rest and get better and given that he represented the family, the Judge would have probably granted that request. Theatrics such as introducing himself as "Arnie Klein for the People; I mean the family" in a case and handing out pleadings that were not approved by the Judge to select press in a case where emotions are so high were tacky and highly inappropriate.