So many people keep saying they
hope the SA is holding back the real evidence so I had to go looking for the discovery rules for Florida. The demand for discovery was properly filed on October 15, 08 so the state is obligated to abide by these rules.
http://www3.fdle.state.fl.us/OGC/Legal_Bulletins/lb9602_9-24.html
RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 3.220. DISCOVERY
(b) Prosecutor's Discovery Obligation.
(1) Within 15 days after service of the Notice of Discovery, the prosecutor shall serve a written Discovery Exhibit which shall disclose to the defendant and permit the defendant to inspect, copy, test, and photograph the following information and material within the state's possession or control:
I won't list all that follows here to save space excepe a few sections.. The entire discovery rule can be read at the above link. Have they ever acted within 15 days? The first notice of supplimental discovery was 14 days after the 10/14 arrest but even then Baez had to motion to compel, begging the judge to force them to release discovery and allow them to inspect. But he was refused or the SA was given a huge amount of time over the normal limit to abide by the discovery rules.Look at the dates on various documents and compare to when they wee actually handed over to defence. This batch is the first time I've seen a recent date on anything.
(H) whether there has been any electronic surveillance, including wiretapping, of the premises of the defendant or of conversations to which the defendant was a party and any documents relating thereto;
I guess we can assume they didn't tape the Anthony home?
(j) Continuing Duty to Disclose. If, subsequent to compliance with the rules, a party discovers additional witnesses or material that the party would have been under a duty to disclose or produce at the time of the previous compliance, the party shall promptly disclose or produce the witnesses or material in the same manner as required under these rules for initial discovery.
(k) Court May Alter Times. The court may alter the times for compliance with any discovery under these rules on good cause shown.
(l ) Protective Orders.
(1) Motion to Restrict Disclosure of Matters. On a showing of good cause, the court shall at any time order that specified disclosures be restricted, deferred, or exempted from discovery, that certain matters not be inquired into, that the scope of the deposition be limited to certain matters, that a deposition be sealed and after being sealed be opened only by order of the court, or make such other order as is appropriate to protect a witness from harassment, unnecessary inconvenience, or invasion of privacy, including prohibiting the taking of a deposition. All material and information to which a party is entitled, however, must be disclosed in time to permit the party to make beneficial use of it.
(2) Motion to Terminate or Limit Examination. At any time during the taking of a deposition, on motion of a party or of the deponent, and upon a showing that the examination is being conducted in bad faith or in such manner as to unreasonably annoy, embarrass, or oppress the deponent or party, the court in which the action is pending or the circuit court where the deposition is being taken may (1) terminate the deposition, (2) limit the scope and manner of the taking of the deposition, (3) limit the time of the deposition, (4) continue the deposition to a later time, (5) order the deposition to be taken in open court, and, in addition, may (6) impose any sanction authorized by this rule. If the order terminates the deposition, it shall be resumed thereafter only upon the order of the court in which the action is pending. Upon demand of any party or deponent, the taking of the deposition shall be suspended for the time necessary to make a motion for an order.
This is most likely why the Anthony's felt they had the legal right to refuse certain questions and stop the deposition at a certain point. It's a matter of the judge's opinion on what constitutes unnecessary, frivilous, annoyance, oppression, etc.
The only time the SA seems to have handed anything over within 15 days was at the beginning and then only handed over part. The word promptly has never been applied with any of the later items that are proper discovery materials as it should be. And they seem to be releasing the same thing over and over again, cluttering up the defense's desk and taking his time sorting through all the redundant materials. Is that justice? I'm beginning to understand why there are so many innocent convicted.
If they tested the shoes from the car, they were sent long before the ones taken in December from the closet, weren't they?
