2011.06.07 TRIAL Day Twelve (Afternoon Session)

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
OMG...JB tried to trick Forgey by saying she was a suspect...he fell into the trap a little bit. Now he'll say that he influenced the dog because he presumed her to be a suspect.
 
Okay..folks..The mere fact Gerus did a final alert to the specific spot in the Anthony Backyard..clears up a few things for me..
1) that Caylee's remains had started to decompose in that backyard..NOT just died and was removed immediately (ala coverup by GA)

2) that Caylee's decomp was not alerted to anywhere near the pool..which meant Caylee was not hidden in that area at all for a period of time to leave Decomp. odour

3) IF GA indeed found Caylee drown in that pool, he would never ever leave her long enough to start decomping in his backyard!! NO WAY..NO HOW!! IMO

TY Gerus!! "Wonder Nose"..ya did a good job!!..You ROCK!!
 
I doubt they will get to Lee today...it is 4pm and this could go on a while here with this cross...probably will be the end of the day after this or shortly thereafter...
 
You aren't familiar w/ forensics bay ARE YOUUUUUUU...

(why should he be, his job is a dog handler)
 
IIRC - In the Frye Hearings, JB was insinuating something about the bay where the car was. It seems like he is "going there" :twocents:
 
OT I hate the way JB leans over the podium. It seems disrespectful and condescending to me.

OT again Forgey looks just like my BIL
 
Sheriff spokesman says he's (Gerus) living at home - just a bit slower. #CaseyAnthony

by cfnews13casey via twitter at 3:01 PM
 
During the March trial Baez made different explanations as to what could cause the dogs to alert to an area, and he gave general ideas and then said "what other explanations could there be" and Forgey said "If a dead body had been placed there and decomposing..." Baez is carefully wording his question so the witness doesn't say that in front of the jury
 
Just a quick note guys on Harris v. State (Florida Supreme Court, 21 April 2011,SC08-1871) which was the Florida Supreme Court case being referred to by JB and HHJP.

Harris was concerned with the circumstances when a drug-trained dog's alert or "trigger" would be sufficient to provide probable cause to justify a law enforcement officer to conduct a search of an automobile.

In short, the Florida Supreme Court held that in order to establish probable cause based upon a drug detection dogs "alert", a predicate of the dog's (and the handler's) reliability must be laid. The Court in Harris held that it would not be sufficient to simply enter into evidence the dog's "certification". It was stated that the dog's training, certification and field performance records and more must be provided by the state.

We hold the fact that a drug-detection dog has been trained and certified to detect narcotics, standing alone, is not sufficient to demonstrate the reliability of the dog. To demonstrate that an officer has a reasonable basis for believing that an alert by a drug-detection dog is sufficiently reliable to provide probable cause to search, the State must present evidence of the dog‘s training and certification records, an explanation of the meaning of the particular training and certification, field performance records (including any unverified alerts), and evidence concerning the experience and training of the officer handling the dog, as well as any other objective evidence known to the officer about the dog‘s reliability. The trial court must then assess the reliability of the dog‘s alert as a basis for probable cause to search the vehicle based on a totality of the circumstances.

Page 40 , Harris v. State (Florida Supreme Court, 21 April 2011,SC08-1871)
Click to expand...

Now, I am assuming that the principles in this judgement would apply for determining the reliability of a cadaver dog in the guilt-innocence phase of a trial. This would explain why the State spend so long laying the predicate for this witness and the evidence he was to provide about his cadaver dog. However, I am still unsure why Perry relied upon this judgement as to why this evidence about the dog's reliability (being adduced for the purpose of the admissability of the principle evidence) should be heard in front of the jury.

On a related note, the Opinion gives a good summary of the various issues involving detection dogs (including false positives and handler "cuing") along with quotes of relevant published opinion on the topic.

Given that at least one of the dogs involved in this case however was a "dual purpose" dog and subjected to formal state-wide certification it is possible (although doubtful) that a different conclusion would be reached on the facts of this case.

We conclude that when a dog alerts, the fact that the dog has been trained and certified is simply not enough to establish probable cause to search the interior of the vehicle and the person. We first note that there is no uniform standard in this state or nationwide for an acceptable level of training, testing, or certification for drug-detection dogs. In contrast to dual-purpose drug-detection dogs, which are apparently certified by FDLE, no such required certification exists in this state for dogs like Aldo, who is a single-purpose drug-detection dog.
Click to expand...
 
JB wasn't expecting these videos to become evidence, so he probably didn't bother to watch them. I believe that Baez thought that the SA would toss the case after his opening statement and be satisfied of Casey's admission that Caylee drowned. jmo
 
Why is Casey handing things to her attorney?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 184 more.
Total: 2,134 (members: 185, guests: 1,949)

Online statistics

Members online
185
Guests online
1,949
Total visitors
2,134
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
602,516
Messages
18,141,710
Members
231,417
Latest member
cyclic8
Back
Top