{"id":268,"date":"2018-01-27T15:13:56","date_gmt":"2018-01-27T20:13:56","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/update-hamm-v-alabama\/?p=268"},"modified":"2018-01-27T15:13:56","modified_gmt":"2018-01-27T20:13:56","slug":"january-26-2018-doyle-hamm-files-his-evidence-with-the-federal-court-in-birmingham-alabama","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/update-hamm-v-alabama\/2018\/01\/27\/january-26-2018-doyle-hamm-files-his-evidence-with-the-federal-court-in-birmingham-alabama\/","title":{"rendered":"January 26, 2018 | Doyle Hamm Files his Evidence with the Federal Court in Birmingham, Alabama"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>On January 26, 2018, counsel for Doyle Hamm submitted to the federal court the list of exhibits and exhibits that he intends to introduce at the evidentiary hearing on Wednesday, January 31, 2018, in the federal district court. Counsel included 44 exhibits, listed in the following pleading:<\/p>\n<div class=\"ead-preview\"><div class=\"ead-document\" style=\"position: relative;padding-top: 90%;\"><div class=\"ead-iframe-wrapper\"><iframe src=\"\/\/docs.google.com\/viewer?url=https%3A%2F%2Fblogs.law.columbia.edu%2Fupdate-hamm-v-alabama%2Ffiles%2F2018%2F01%2F23-Hamm-Evidence-for-Hearing-STAMPED.pdf&amp;embedded=true&amp;hl=en\" title=\"Embedded Document\" class=\"ead-iframe\" style=\"width: 100%;height: 100%;border: none;position: absolute;left: 0;top: 0;visibility: hidden;\"><\/iframe><\/div>\t\t\t<div class=\"ead-document-loading\" style=\"width:100%;height:100%;position:absolute;left:0;top:0;z-index:10;\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"ead-loading-wrap\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"ead-loading-main\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"ead-loading\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/update-hamm-v-alabama\/wp-content\/plugins\/embed-any-document\/images\/loading.svg\" width=\"55\" height=\"55\" alt=\"Loader\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<span>Loading...<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"ead-loading-foot\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"ead-loading-foot-title\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/update-hamm-v-alabama\/wp-content\/plugins\/embed-any-document\/images\/EAD-logo.svg\" alt=\"EAD Logo\" width=\"36\" height=\"23\"\/>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<span>Taking too long?<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<p>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"ead-document-btn ead-reload-btn\" role=\"button\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/update-hamm-v-alabama\/wp-content\/plugins\/embed-any-document\/images\/reload.svg\" alt=\"Reload\" width=\"12\" height=\"12\"\/> Reload document\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<span>|<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/update-hamm-v-alabama\/files\/2018\/01\/23-Hamm-Evidence-for-Hearing-STAMPED.pdf\" class=\"ead-document-btn\" target=\"_blank\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/update-hamm-v-alabama\/wp-content\/plugins\/embed-any-document\/images\/open.svg\" alt=\"Open\" width=\"12\" height=\"12\"\/> Open in new tab\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div><p class=\"embed_download\"><a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/update-hamm-v-alabama\/files\/2018\/01\/23-Hamm-Evidence-for-Hearing-STAMPED.pdf\" download>Download [136.11 KB] <\/a><\/p><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>On January 26, 2018, counsel for Doyle Hamm submitted to the federal court the list of exhibits and exhibits that he intends to introduce at the evidentiary hearing on Wednesday, January 31, 2018, in the federal district court. Counsel included 44 exhibits, listed in the following pleading:<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1641,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-268","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-uncategorized","7":"czr-hentry"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/update-hamm-v-alabama\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/268","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/update-hamm-v-alabama\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/update-hamm-v-alabama\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/update-hamm-v-alabama\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1641"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/update-hamm-v-alabama\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=268"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/update-hamm-v-alabama\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/268\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/update-hamm-v-alabama\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=268"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/update-hamm-v-alabama\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=268"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/update-hamm-v-alabama\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=268"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}