The court is likely to hear arguments in two weeks on whether to grant an emergency stay, according to sources close to the case.
The ruling could come as soon as Tuesday or Wednesday, with the trial scheduled to begin in the next two weeks.
The ruling could put at risk the defense of a key witness, and potentially a key prosecution witness, who has testified to the importance of using probative evidentiary rules.
The state’s attorney in this case, Stephen A. Ropes, is the prosecutor in a case in which two men were convicted on federal gun charges, and are being prosecuted on similar charges by state prosecutors.
In this case the state is arguing that Ropes should not have to show the government was not a party to the shooting because the two defendants are innocent.
In that case, the state’s prosecutors also claim Ropes was not given a fair trial.
The case against the defendants stems from a 2009 incident that happened outside a McDonald’s restaurant in New Orleans.
The two men had just returned from a hunting trip, and were driving through the city’s east side when they saw a vehicle on the side of the road with its lights flashing.
The men stopped to let the vehicle pass, and saw the occupants of the vehicle get out.
The victims said the men began firing at them, wounding one man.
The police arrived and found the men in the back seat, suffering from gunshot wounds.
Ropes, who was driving the car, said he pulled over to help a friend of one of the victims get out of the car.
Rope told the officers he believed the man who was hit was the shooter, according the state.
He then said he did not know why the victim was injured, and told them he did have his own gun and that he fired at the man because he was reaching for it.
The New Orleans Times-Picayune reported that Rope said the man had a gun and the two men did not have their hands up.
Ropes also told the Times- Picayune that he was unsure whether the victims believed they were shot at first, or whether they believed the shooters were still in the car with them.
The prosecutor, however, said Ropes never had a weapon and the incident was completely accidental.
Rodes also said that he had not seen the vehicle in question, according this article.
Rodes has denied the state prosecutors claims.
The state has argued that Rodes should not be forced to testify at the trial because he is not a witness.
However, a federal judge has ruled that Rutes testimony at trial must be excluded, because he has not been a party in the case, and because the state does not have a valid case.
Last week, the judge issued a ruling that Rides testimony should be excluded.
Rides’ lawyers said Rope’s testimony was relevant to the issue of the reliability of the state evidence.