Andrea Lyon New DP Atty

[lin]

Lin, do you think that maybe some of our sleuthers are thinking about the statements that were taken in CA from Tracy and the soldier who is stationed out there and who talked with KC while Caylee was missing? SA may be holding up those statements to protect them from being ripped apart by speculation. Hey, it happens. But JB has access to KC so anything she may have said to them she should have been able to share with JB when they were identified as being witnesses. Their statements are important but holding up on releasing them may not be in their best interest at this time and they obviously had nothing to do with the crime. Not sure how that would work. And can't JB specifically ask for those statements.....unless he already has them?

I agree with you; unless and until I have some reason to believe the state has withheld anything from the defense, I won't make that assumption. I haven't even seen JB whine about those transcripts. Available evidence, the fact that JB is so upset about release of those transcripts from TMc, leads me to believe he has at least those. That he hasn't to my knowledge made any requests for those others leads me to conclude he either has them or isn't interested in them. If I had to bet, I'd bet the former. I doubt there is any reason for holding them up.

The state has an excellent case; maybe better than they've ever had against any other defendant. I highly doubt they'll indulge in childish and possibly damaging discovery games and certainly not to the degree of violations.

On the other hand, JB withheld evidence in another trial, so I hear, planning to spring it on the state at trial. It wasn't allowed and his client was convicted. (We frown on trial by ambush here.) Did you ever notice that someone who is known to lie a lot seems to accuse others of lying? Thieves think everyone steals? And so on.

IF and that should be a lot bigger IF, JB has any sincere concerns about discovery, I would suggest it's his own guilty conscience applying his actions/motivations/modus operandi to others.

 

[Balthazar]

While I agree that KC is a liar, you totally lost me with this post; I don't understand your meaning at all. I asked if you could cite a case wherein discovery violations other than withholding exonerating info was successful grounds for appeal. The case you presented indicated "favorable" evidence was withheld rather than what I requested, "other than" exonerating evidence being withheld.

It is my position that there is nothing credible to support the defense's complaints that the state has withheld evidence and there is so far no ruling by the court to indicate same, despite repeated (trumped up, whiny) complaints filed by the defense.

It is also my position that the state has so far failed to be less than forthright or dishonest in any way of which I am aware.

It is further my position that the exact opposite applies to the defense and I have referred to them as "credibility challenged."

Therefore, it is my position that the state has not played "hide the ball with the defense" until I see some evidence of same. A pleading filed by someone who is very credibility challenged and who has made repeated accusations that were found to be without basis in fact is not evidence of any wrong doing by the state, imo.

Finally, it is my position that folks really don't need to worry about an appealable issue regarding any discovery issues thusfar presented in the instant case. I have seen nothing untoward; all rulings have favored the state; but instead this seems to be a defense ploy to elicit sympathy from the public. It appears to be working because some here, such as I understand your posts to represent, have expressed concern that there may be an appealable issue regarding discovery violations.

1. If there have been any discovery violations, please list them or please concede that your concern is merely "prospective" and explain why you have this "prospective" concern.

2. If there have been any rulings adverse to the state, please show them or give enough of a description so that others may find them. Otherwise, see #1 about conceding prospective concern.

3. Finally, while I appreciate that you are giving a fair and accurate representation of your memory of events, that doesn't mean it will accurately track the actual events of the hearing or the interpretations others may draw from the same information. If you insist on referencing this hearing as some sort of support for what appears to be your position, please explain how it supports your position and if you can't link to it, please at least give a better description of the motion(s) heard so that others may reference the transcript/video to determine for themselves the accuracy of your representation(s).

PS to #3 - if you can't accurately describe the hearing, please explain how you are so certain about the portion you seem to remember so vividly. TIA

I was talking about the Gell case and the girl (witness) whose testimony was known to likely be a lie by the prosecution (because she said she was making it up.) Gell's verdict was overturned because the jury was presented with this testimony that the prosecution knew to be lies as truth. This is NOT favorable to Gell's defense at all. However, it is grounds for a new trial. This evidence only indicates that the girl was lying, however, it proves absolutely nothing about the defendant Gell's guilt or innocence. Therefore it cannot be described as favorable to the defense in any way, shape or form.

 

[AZlawyer]

I was talking about the Gell case and the girl (witness) whose testimony was known to likely be a lie by the prosecution (because she said she was making it up.) Gell's verdict was overturned because the jury was presented with this testimony that the prosecution knew to be lies as truth. This is NOT favorable to Gell's defense at all. However, it is grounds for a new trial. This evidence only indicates that the girl was lying, however, it proves absolutely nothing about the defendant Gell's guilt or innocence. Therefore it cannot be described as favorable to the defense in any way, shape or form.

PR, your initial post on this case said "prosecutors withheld valuable evidence that might have cleared Gell." That is the definition of exonerating evidence (i.e., evidence favorable to the defense). The evidence that was withheld was that a key witness AGAINST the defendant had lied; this evidence (that the key witness lied) was VERY favorable to the defense.

 

[Brini]

I was talking about the Gell case and the girl (witness) whose testimony was known to likely be a lie by the prosecution (because she said she was making it up.) Gell's verdict was overturned because the jury was presented with this testimony that the prosecution knew to be lies as truth. This is NOT favorable to Gell's defense at all. However, it is grounds for a new trial. This evidence only indicates that the girl was lying, however, it proves absolutely nothing about the defendant Gell's guilt or innocence. Therefore it cannot be described as favorable to the defense in any way, shape or form.

So... you think the state is deliberately withholding evidence of a witness' lie?

On what grounds?

 

[marspiter]

Technically I don't think anyone can claim the state is with holding evidence given how far away from trial we are.

They may be continuing to investigate certain evidence. Which the state has been rather up front about. Take for example the 3d computer modeled crime scene. That took some time to compile and make.

Also remember the defense is also required to hand over their evidence. So where is all this evidence they said would exonerate Casey?

 

[lin]

During the hearing, the judge ordered the prosecution to get the large format printout to the defense immediately and verbally admonished them that their excuse of not being able to print it out was not acceptable.

Below, is but one of many cases that have been successfully appealed due to the prosecution withholding important discovery from the defense. This one is especially pertinent since it involves someone who was originally given the death penalty for murder, but his conviction was overturned on appeal and on second trial, he was acquitted:

Alan Gell North Carolina Convicted: 1998, Acquitted: 2004
Alan Gell was arrested for a 1995 robbery and murder of a retired truck driver named Allen Ray Jenkins. The two key witnesses presented by prosecutors were Gell's ex-girlfriend and her best friend, who were both teenagers. Both girls, who were at Jenkins' house and pled guilty to involvement in the murder, testified that they saw Gell shoot Jenkins on April 3, 1995. However, prosecutors withheld valuable evidence that might have cleared Gell in the initial trial, including an audio tape of one of the girls saying she had to "make up a story" about the murder. (News and Observer, December 10, 2002) In 2002, a State Superior Court Judge found that the prosecutors withheld evidence "favorable" to Gell, and vacated Gell's conviction. (North Carolina v. Gell, No. 95 CRS 1884, Order (Superior Court of Bertie County, December 16, 2002) (Vacating conviction and granting new trial.) Gell was re-tried in February 2004. The defense team was able to present evidence that Gell was out of state or in jail at the time of Jenkins' murder, which was placed closer to April 14th. This refuted the April 3rd claim by the original prosecutors. Also challenging the state's timetable was a series of statements by as many as 17 witnesses who told investigators that they had seen Jenkins alive between April 7th and April 10th. The most important new evidence was the taped conversation mentioned above, in which the state's key witness referred to making up a story about the murder. Gell was originally convicted in 1998 and spent the next four years on death row until a new trial was ordered. On February 18, 2004, a jury found Gell not guilty on all counts, and he left the court with his family.(News and Observer, February 18, 2004)

(emphasis with change of font color to red added)

I was talking about the Gell case and the girl (witness) whose testimony was known to likely be a lie by the prosecution (because she said she was making it up.) Gell's verdict was overturned because the jury was presented with this testimony that the prosecution knew to be lies as truth. This is NOT favorable to Gell's defense at all. However, it is grounds for a new trial. This evidence only indicates that the girl was lying, however, it proves absolutely nothing about the defendant Gell's guilt or innocence. Therefore it cannot be described as favorable to the defense in any way, shape or form.

Did you read the case you cited? Even the summary posted contradicts your 2nd post on this issue, above.

Will you please explain whether your concern about discovery issues is current or prospective?

ETA: from this example, I really must question your legal interpretation of the hearing on the "calendar blotter" issue.

Here's the link for anyone so inclined:

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3143296&postcount=84"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Official Documents-Audio-Arrest Updates No Discussion[/ame]

The first 3 are HLN chit chat and also, to jog the memories of others, the hearing starts out with state's demand KC be present. Thanks to AZlawyer for providing link and Patty for the videos!

 

[lin]

PR, your initial post on this case said "prosecutors withheld valuable evidence that might have cleared Gell." That is the definition of exonerating evidence (i.e., evidence favorable to the defense). The evidence that was withheld was that a key witness AGAINST the defendant had lied; this evidence (that the key witness lied) was VERY favorable to the defense.

Thanks! I missed that one and will re-edit to include. Wow. It's not there now.

ETA: It's in the citation; found it! Thought you meant in the poster's comments on the issue.

 

[MissJames]

(emphasis with change of font color to red added)



Did you read the case you cited? Even the summary posted contradicts your 2nd post on this issue, above.

Will you please explain whether your concern about discovery issues is current or prospective?

ETA: from this example, I really must question your legal interpretation of the hearing on the "calendar blotter" issue.

Here's the link for anyone so inclined:

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Official Documents-Audio-Arrest Updates No Discussion

The first 3 are HLN chit chat and also, to jog the memories of others, the hearing starts out with state's demand KC be present. Thanks to AZlawyer for providing link and Patty for the videos!

Is there a transcript for the hearing? I don't have audio,but I'd very much like to see the section Princess Rose was talking about.Did JS admonish the SA? I'm just not remembering that.

 

[lin]

For some reason the system is failing to quote PR so I am copying her post here:

Posted by PrincessRose:

"When a witness lies in court it cannot be construed as favorable or unfavorable to the defense. It is simply regarded as a lie which is prejudicial - but proves NOTHING about the defendant's guilt or innocence. It ruined the trial, but not the charges against the defendant. The exonerating and favorable evidence in the Gell case was the timeline, not the lies told by the girl. The lies proved nothing either way. The Gell case was tried a second time without the lies and with the timeline information that had not been available in the first case. The timeline information proved that Gell could not have committed the crime. Therefore the case was originally overturned by evidence of prosecutorial malfaesance, not by evidence that exonerated the defendant. Otherwise, the state would not have tried Gell for a second time. "

The case you cited specifically finds that the evidence was favorable to the defense. Proving that a witness lied regarding the guilt of the defendant is obviously favorable to that defendant. One doesn't need a law degree to see that; it's plain common sense.

The issue under discussion was whether or not there are discovery issues in the KC case that may be grounds for appeal. What goes on at the trial level after an appeal succeeds is not relevant to the appeal itself. The timeline was not ground for an appeal in the Gell case, but instead the prosecution withholding discovery favorable to the defendent, in this case, proof a key witness lied; I think we agree on this much.

So is there any evidence of any prosecutorial discovery malfeasance in the KC A case that may rise to the level of an appealable issue that may cause the state to have to retry KC? If so, what is that evidence?

I don't know how to put it any more simply or with less jargon. Either there are discovery issues in the instant case that may for the basis for a successful appeal or there are not. If there are any, please list them. If your concern is prospective, please state so and give your reasoning to expect this from a heretofore completely honorable, professional prosecution?

 

[lin]

Is there a transcript for the hearing? I don't have audio,but I'd very much like to see the section Princess Rose was talking about.Did JS admonish the SA? I'm just not remembering that.

Hiya!

PR conceded there is no ruling to that effect so I can only surmise this is instead her interpretation of what she saw when viewing the hearing.

I'm in the process of going through the youtube vids that PattyG was so kind as to record for us and when I get there, will let you know my interpretation and give some direct quotes from the judge on the issue, if any are made.

 

[Balthazar]

So is there any evidence of any prosecutorial discovery malfeasance in the KC A case that may rise to the level of an appealable issue that may cause the state to have to retry KC? If so, what is that evidence?

I don't know what you're talking about and it has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted. It appears to me that you are trying to prove that the defense is "all bad" and the prosecution is "all good" in the Casey Anthony case and anyone who disagrees with this is wrong. But that's just not reality in or out of court.

 

[AZlawyer]

I don't know what you're talking about and it has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted. It appears to me that you are trying to prove that the defense is "all bad" and the prosecution is "all good" in the Casey Anthony case and anyone who disagrees with this is wrong. But that's just not reality in or out of court.

PR, I believe what Lin was talking about was your original post on this issue, which said:

"The prosecution's actions need to be beyond reproach. Either this is game playing or SA Ashton is inexperienced/disorganized. Neither possiblity is good. What an embarassment."

I can't speak for Lin, but I assume in a case like this there will be mistakes of "disorganization" made by both sides. As long as all the evidence gets out in plenty of time for everyone to respond, nothing like that would be an appealable issue. But what concerns me (and perhaps Lin also) is your suggestion that there is evidence of "game playing" by the prosecution. Do you know of any specific acts or omissions by the prosecution that would support such a conclusion?

 

[marspiter]

I don't know what you're talking about and it has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted. It appears to me that you are trying to prove that the defense is "all bad" and the prosecution is "all good" in the Casey Anthony case and anyone who disagrees with this is wrong. But that's just not reality in or out of court.

lin was asking you in what way you felt the prosecution was with holding evidence.

Princess Rose, You clearly stated in your post #416

"There is no reason not to turn discovery that the defense is entitled to over to them, except for the prosecution to try to gain an advantage at trial by not revealing information that can be questioned until they absolutely have no choice but to reveal it giving the defense less time for testing and considering the evidence to make their case. That is my perception of what the prosecution is doing here while simultaneously protesting that they ARE coooperating" (snipped and not sure how to double quote)

To me it seems to indicate that you are trying to say the SA is purposely trying to with hold evidence from the defense which as stated in many post from lin and others is not the case. Plus I seriously doubt the SA is going to jeopardize this case by doing something of that nature.

lin is asking you for cited examples of where the SA purposely and maliciously is trying to with hold evidence as to have an advantage over the defense as you stated that is what the SA is doing.

Also the prosecution and the judge have no jurisdiction over the FBI. So how is JB not getting evidence from the FBI the SA's fault? JB has to make the proper requests for the info from them. With out the proper requests in the proper format they can't just hand it to him. The judge was very clear with JB on all of that. Also the SA was cooperative and asked the FBI to handle any requests from the defense as though it where a request from the SA.

Further more has JB finally paid the clerks office for his outstanding balance?

 

[MissJames]

I don't know what you're talking about and it has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted. It appears to me that you are trying to prove that the defense is "all bad" and the prosecution is "all good" in the Casey Anthony case and anyone who disagrees with this is wrong. But that's just not reality in or out of court.

Just speaking for myself ,it's very obvious to me that the prosecution team is far more experienced and prepared than the defense team. I can't imagine why the defendent has stuck with JB .I'm sure she could have done much better.There are defense attorneys that actually know how to write contracts and motions. JMO

 

[lin]

The prosecution's actions need to be beyond reproach. Either this is game playing or SA Ashton is inexperienced/disorganized. Neither possiblity is good. What an embarassment.

So you believe the prosecutions' contention (made in a courtroom) that the defense can request and receive documents directly from the FBI EVEN THOUGH the FBI's representative actually wrote a letter stating that was not so? Or are you implying that the letter the defense received from the FBI is a forgery?

Sorry, but I don't have time to go back through court video's to find this -however, this occurred in a hearing that was either just before Andrea Lyon was introduced - which was in May I believe - or it may have even been at the hearing where Andrea Lyon was introduced. Since there have not been that many hearings, it should be easy enough to find. It was also commented on here at Websleuths and the consensus was it was a lame excuse. A little research on your part and you should be able to find it easily.

The thing is, the defense is entitled to ALL of the discovery, so any discovery they request from the prosecution is a REASONABLE request. There is no reason not to turn discovery that the defense is entitled to over to them, except for the prosecution to try to gain an advantage at trial by not revealing information that can be questioned until they absolutely have no choice but to reveal it giving the defense less time for testing and considering the evidence to make their case. That is my perception of what the prosecution is doing here while simultaneously protesting that they ARE coooperating - however, the discovery has still not been passed on to the defense and it's been 5 months. I think anyone here knows that it does not take 5 months to make copies on a copy machine. I would be much more comfortable and confident with the prosecution, if the prosecution just made 2 copies of everything as a matter of course and handed one copy right over to the defense when they requested the discovery five months ago. But the prosecution has not done that. If the prosecution withholds any piece of discovery and it is later determined that that happened, it creates grounds for an appeal. I DO NOT want that to happen in this case.

During the hearing, the judge ordered the prosecution to get the large format printout to the defense immediately and verbally admonished them that their excuse of not being able to print it out was not acceptable.

Below, is but one of many cases that have been successfully appealed due to the prosecution withholding important discovery from the defense. This one is especially pertinent since it involves someone who was originally given the death penalty for murder, but his conviction was overturned on appeal and on second trial, he was acquitted:

Alan Gell North Carolina Convicted: 1998, Acquitted: 2004
Alan Gell was arrested for a 1995 robbery and murder of a retired truck driver named Allen Ray Jenkins. The two key witnesses presented by prosecutors were Gell's ex-girlfriend and her best friend, who were both teenagers. Both girls, who were at Jenkins' house and pled guilty to involvement in the murder, testified that they saw Gell shoot Jenkins on April 3, 1995. However, prosecutors withheld valuable evidence that might have cleared Gell in the initial trial, including an audio tape of one of the girls saying she had to "make up a story" about the murder. (News and Observer, December 10, 2002) In 2002, a State Superior Court Judge found that the prosecutors withheld evidence "favorable" to Gell, and vacated Gell's conviction. (North Carolina v. Gell, No. 95 CRS 1884, Order (Superior Court of Bertie County, December 16, 2002) (Vacating conviction and granting new trial.) Gell was re-tried in February 2004. The defense team was able to present evidence that Gell was out of state or in jail at the time of Jenkins' murder, which was placed closer to April 14th. This refuted the April 3rd claim by the original prosecutors. Also challenging the state's timetable was a series of statements by as many as 17 witnesses who told investigators that they had seen Jenkins alive between April 7th and April 10th. The most important new evidence was the taped conversation mentioned above, in which the state's key witness referred to making up a story about the murder. Gell was originally convicted in 1998 and spent the next four years on death row until a new trial was ordered. On February 18, 2004, a jury found Gell not guilty on all counts, and he left the court with his family.(News and Observer, February 18, 2004)

In what way does proof of the girls' lies exonerate the defendant? I don't see any way this proof could exonerate the defendant nor is it necessarily favorable to the defendant - it only puts the girls behavior into question. The only thing this evidence does is indicate is that the girl lied and since her lies were a part of the original court testimony that the jury heard and likely believed, it puts the verdict into question. The additional evidence that exonerated the defendant was found prior to his second trial when it was discovered that his location and timeline could not fit with that of the victim to establish an opportunity to commmit this crime.

As to the large format document, the judge verbally admonished the prosecution to make a copy of it and give it to the defense. He did not issue a court order, nor did I say he did. However, this would be a part of the courtroom transcript.

I was talking about the Gell case and the girl (witness) whose testimony was known to likely be a lie by the prosecution (because she said she was making it up.) Gell's verdict was overturned because the jury was presented with this testimony that the prosecution knew to be lies as truth. This is NOT favorable to Gell's defense at all. However, it is grounds for a new trial. This evidence only indicates that the girl was lying, however, it proves absolutely nothing about the defendant Gell's guilt or innocence. Therefore it cannot be described as favorable to the defense in any way, shape or form.

I don't know what you're talking about and it has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted. It appears to me that you are trying to prove that the defense is "all bad" and the prosecution is "all good" in the Casey Anthony case and anyone who disagrees with this is wrong. But that's just not reality in or out of court.

For ease of reference, above is what you posted, bbm and font colored changed to red for added emphasis.

You have made repeated assertions regarding the state and discovery issues. I have repeatedly asked you to describe any discovery violations that you feel will be grounds for an appeal later on, font changed to red for extra emphasis on this being your posted concern.

Again in the last post above, you indicate the prosecution cannot be "all good" and describe my assertions to the contrary as "not reality."

As you continue to make these assertions, please explain the specific discovery violations you're referring to when making these allegations or in the alternative, please let us know that your concern is prospective and why you have such prospective concerns if there are no such violations to date.

Regardless of your perception of "reality" in or out of a courtroom, for a legal basis to exist, some violation must have occurred. Either one did or it didn't or one may have concern that a violation may occur at some time in the future. I'm simply asking for you to explain and verify your assertions. TIA

 

[lin]

Just speaking for myself ,it's very obvious to me that the prosecution team is far more experienced and prepared than the defense team. I can't imagine why the defendent has stuck with JB .I'm sure she could have done much better.There are defense attorneys that actually know how to write contracts and motions. JMO

No doubt in my mind that's why the state insisted on her presence in the courtroom. Wonder if the performance of her team, AL included, was the cause of some of her upset at the last hearing?

 

[elementary]

I don't know what you're talking about and it has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted. It appears to me that you are trying to prove that the defense is "all bad" and the prosecution is "all good" in the Casey Anthony case and anyone who disagrees with this is wrong. But that's just not reality in or out of court.

I've been reading this thread with interest. All others are asking you to do is back up your assertions with fact. All you need to do is provide the links. It's not a conspiracy. In reasonable debate, that's what people do. Otherwise, your argument hasn't a leg to stand on, IMO.

 

[lin]

PS: I'm also still waiting for a case to support the assertion made by Princess Rose, "If the prosecution withholds any piece of discovery and it is later determined that that happened, it creates grounds for an appeal."

It is my position that "any" piece of evidence wouldn't necessarily be a successful appellate issue. There is such a thing as "harmless error." The only time a discovery issue would be successful in my experience would be if the discovery was likely to have affected the outcome. If the state has evidence that all TES volunteers got hot dogs for lunch but failed to turn it over, it is very, very unlikely any appellate panel would send a case back to be retried. The defense would have to show how having this knowledge may have affected the outcome at the trial level, imo and experience.

 

[Balthazar]

http://www.cfnews13.com/uploadedFiles/Stories/Local/Renewed%20Motion%20to%20Compel%20Bench%20Notes,%20Standards,%20Data,%20and%20Communications%20with%20Law%20Enforcement,%20et%20al.PDF

I NEVER said there was any violation by the prosecutor so far, but after the above renewed motion to compel, the prosecution is now walking a fine line, IMO. Giving false information in court and passing the wrong name of whom to get the information from to the defense has the appearance of game-playing, ignorance or lying. (Page 2, paragraph 2.) Of course, I'm sure Ashton will plead ignorance - but is the rest of the prosecution team also ignorant? They allowed this misinformation to stand and made no attempt to correct it in court or to the defense.

 

[Balthazar]

PS: I'm also still waiting for a case to support the assertion made by Princess Rose, "If the prosecution withholds any piece of discovery and it is later determined that that happened, it creates grounds for an appeal."

It is my position that "any" piece of evidence wouldn't necessarily be a successful appellate issue. There is such a thing as "harmless error." The only time a discovery issue would be successful in my experience would be if the discovery was likely to have affected the outcome. If the state has evidence that all TES volunteers got hot dogs for lunch but failed to turn it over, it is very, very unlikely any appellate panel would send a case back to be retried. The defense would have to show how having this knowledge may have affected the outcome at the trial level, imo and experience.

Why would TES volunteers having hot dogs for lunch be discovery? By definition:

DISCOVERY - Part of the pre-trial litigation process during which each party requests relevant information and documents from the other side in an attempt to "discover" pertinent facts. Generally discovery devices include depositions, interogatories, requests for admissions, document production requests and requests for inspection.

If a piece of information is not relevant, by definition, it cannot be discovery. The word relevant implies a traceable, significant, logical connection.