I am getting confused here. Are you saying that the state has put in a motion for reciprocal discovery from the defense? Are they actually saying that the defense is withholding discovery? If so, I wonder when the hearing on that will be.
From what I gathered today, it is the defense asking for discovery and that is what is on the table. I heard no discussion of the defense withholding discovery. I hope that is on the table for another day.
I agree with you in that the defense should turn over all discovery, what is fair is fair.
I think there is something missing with the sunshine law. I do not believe for one second that the state turns over everything. I think they can keep it if they are still looking into it. I will give an example. Yuri mentioned in one of his reports that Rk's boss gave him Rk's employment records and routes. Yuri stated that Rk had ran his route in Sept and October, but Rk stated that it was August and November. Clearly a contradiction. Due to what went on on October 9th with the screaming child, I went to look for Rk records. It is not there and they have not turned it over. That is just one example.
There is an entire thread on what evidence is missing.
I think this tit for tat on discovery is tiresome. The state and its experts will have to eventually turn over all discovery in the end. What a waste of time and money. IMO
The state doesn't have to present a motion. The defense is required by law to disclose any evidence it plans to present in court. You seem to be over looking or completely ignoring that fact. Evidence that is part of a current investigation does not have to be released via sunshine laws. However once the state gives it to the defense that information is then able to be reviewed by the public via sunshine laws. So if the defense turned in any evidence to the state the state can't "hide" it unless there was a hearing to have the info sealed and we would know of such a hearing as it would show on the court docket. To me you are trying to imply there is some nefarious dealings going on by the state. That is not the case. The state thus far has released it's evidence in a prudent manner imho. The state can't comply with JB's request when they don't know what he's asking for....in fact he doesn't know what he's asking for. That is why the judge ordered him to redo his motion with specifics. As JSR and others have pointed out there are some things that are not covered in discovery or items that may be held by third parties that are out of the courts jurisdiction. That's been pretty well established I think.
To answer some of your sunshine questions you really should study the law. Here are some samplings from the FAQ at
http://www.myflsunshine.com/sun.nsf/pages/FAQs#2
# Does an agency have to explain why it denies access to public records?
A custodian of a public record who contends that the record or part of a record is exempt from inspection must state the basis for that exemption, including the statutory citation. Additionally, when asked, the custodian must state in writing the reasons for concluding the record is exempt.
# When does a document sent to a public agency become a public document?
As soon as a document is received by a public agency, it becomes a public record, unless there is a legislatively created exemption which makes it confidential and not subject to disclosure.
# Are public employee personnel records considered public records?
The rule on personnel records is the same as for other public documents ... unless the Legislature has specifically exempted an agency's personnel records or authorized the agency to adopt rules limiting public access to the records, personnel records are open to public inspection.
There are, however, numerous statutory exemptions that apply to personnel records.
The bolded may be why RK's personnel records have not shown up in your example.
