Annie

[AZlawyer]

OK, there seems to be a lot of confusion about the interaction between the Sunshine Law and the disclosure rules and what can/cannot be withheld from the defense/the public.

Florida Rule Crim. Procedure 3.220 (disclosure to defense): http://www.cobblawfirm.com/Rules_Discovery.htm

Handbook for Law Enforcement re: Sunshine Law (public records disclosure):
http://myfloridalegal.com/webfiles.nsf/WF/MRAY-7E8QJ6/$file/2008LEGuide.pdf

It seems to me that, pursuant to Rule 3.220, the state would have to turn over to the defense lots of the documents we are assuming are being withheld--for example, any written statement or summary of an oral statement from Annie, who is on the state's witness list. In addition, based on the Handbook for LE compliance with the Sunshine Law, p. 37, it seems to me that once a document is identified as having to be turned over to the defense, it also has to be turned over to the public (with rare exceptions that I don't think apply here).

Is anyone aware of any orders from this judge limiting release of information to the public or to the defense? If not, I don't see how the state could be withholding any "bombshell" documents for use at trial.

 

[Broderick]

OK, there seems to be a lot of confusion about the interaction between the Sunshine Law and the disclosure rules and what can/cannot be withheld from the defense/the public.

Florida Rule Crim. Procedure 3.220 (disclosure to defense): http://www.cobblawfirm.com/Rules_Discovery.htm

Handbook for Law Enforcement re: Sunshine Law (public records disclosure):
http://myfloridalegal.com/webfiles.nsf/WF/MRAY-7E8QJ6/$file/2008LEGuide.pdf

It seems to me that, pursuant to Rule 3.220, the state would have to turn over to the defense lots of the documents we are assuming are being withheld--for example, any written statement or summary of an oral statement from Annie, who is on the state's witness list. In addition, based on the Handbook for LE compliance with the Sunshine Law, p. 37, it seems to me that once a document is identified as having to be turned over to the defense, it also has to be turned over to the public (with rare exceptions that I don't think apply here).

Is anyone aware of any orders from this judge limiting release of information to the public or to the defense? If not, I don't see how the state could be withholding any "bombshell" documents for use at trial.

I think they can withhold information they are still investigating and researching. Baez has had to motion for much of the stuff which makes it appear the State is dragging its heels at times. jmo.

 

[It's Not the Nanny]

Pink - She must be keeping up on her Annie thread here at WS.

 

[Pink Panther]

OK, there seems to be a lot of confusion about the interaction between the Sunshine Law and the disclosure rules and what can/cannot be withheld from the defense/the public.

Florida Rule Crim. Procedure 3.220 (disclosure to defense): http://www.cobblawfirm.com/Rules_Discovery.htm

Handbook for Law Enforcement re: Sunshine Law (public records disclosure):
http://myfloridalegal.com/webfiles.nsf/WF/MRAY-7E8QJ6/$file/2008LEGuide.pdf

It seems to me that, pursuant to Rule 3.220, the state would have to turn over to the defense lots of the documents we are assuming are being withheld--for example, any written statement or summary of an oral statement from Annie, who is on the state's witness list. In addition, based on the Handbook for LE compliance with the Sunshine Law, p. 37, it seems to me that once a document is identified as having to be turned over to the defense, it also has to be turned over to the public (with rare exceptions that I don't think apply here).

Is anyone aware of any orders from this judge limiting release of information to the public or to the defense? If not, I don't see how the state could be withholding any "bombshell" documents for use at trial.

AZLawyer - Does this mean that the documents are not available (to the public) because the defence has not filed for them???

 

[AZlawyer]

AZLawyer - Does this mean that the documents are not available (to the public) because the defence has not filed for them???

I don't think so. Lots of things (like witness statements and any document that the state plans to use at trial) would have to be turned over whether the defense asked for them or not.

 

[BaileyandBella]

Here is a link for a slide show of items taken from the trash, the hat, letter with the sender's name cut out and other.
http://www.wftv.com/slideshow/news/17429672/detail.html

Wow...isn't this illegal? Did that woman turn over the trash to LE?

Also, who is Amy?

 

[AZlawyer]

I think they can withhold information they are still investigating and researching. Baez has had to motion for much of the stuff which makes it appear the State is dragging its heels at times. jmo.

Combining the disclosure rules with the Sunshine Law, it looks to me like they can only withhold such information if it does not fall within one of the categories of documents listed in the disclosure rule. So, for example, ordinarily they could withhold a witness statement if they were still using it in a criminal investigation, but once they put the witness on their witness list they have to turn it over to both the defense and the public.

 

[Pink Panther]

Combining the disclosure rules with the Sunshine Law, it looks to me like they can only withhold such information if it does not fall within one of the categories of documents listed in the disclosure rule. So, for example, ordinarily they could withhold a witness statement if they were still using it in a criminal investigation, but once they put the witness on their witness list they have to turn it over to both the defense and the public.

So then, with her name on the witness list, why would Annie's interview not be released yet???

 

[AZlawyer]

So then, with her name on the witness list, why would Annie's interview not be released yet???

Good question. I can't figure out an exception that would reasonably apply. Perhaps there is a Florida criminal lawyer "in the house"?

 

[Z-sleuth]

Combining the disclosure rules with the Sunshine Law, it looks to me like they can only withhold such information if it does not fall within one of the categories of documents listed in the disclosure rule. So, for example, ordinarily they could withhold a witness statement if they were still using it in a criminal investigation, but once they put the witness on their witness list they have to turn it over to both the defense and the public.

At what point is the state required to correct the spelling of Annie's last name on their witness list? It's my understanding that the "L" should be replaced with an "N." It just seems to me that there is at least an appearance that the state is trying to hide the ball where she is concerned. I'd like to know why.

 

[Broderick]

Combining the disclosure rules with the Sunshine Law, it looks to me like they can only withhold such information if it does not fall within one of the categories of documents listed in the disclosure rule. So, for example, ordinarily they could withhold a witness statement if they were still using it in a criminal investigation, but once they put the witness on their witness list they have to turn it over to both the defense and the public.

If I recall correctly, she has been on the witness list from the beginning. I wonder if there is a rule to the extent of time they have to release certain things. If being on the witness list is the ultimate trigger, it surely should be about time for that release. Maybe it got "lost" like the August 14th visit release.

 

[Pink Panther]

Good question. I can't figure out an exception that would reasonably apply. Perhaps there is a Florida criminal lawyer "in the house"?

I'm starting to think that maybe the "media" is missing the boat on some of this information...That it's there and available but that no one is requesting it. Is that possible?

 

[AZlawyer]

At what point is the state required to correct the spelling of Annie's last name on their witness list? It's my understanding that the "L" should be replaced with an "N." It just seems to me that there is at least an appearance that the state is trying to hide the ball where she is concerned. I'd like to know why.

I don't know...there are quite a few mistakes on the list, so I kind of assumed it was carelessness by a clerical employee. I mean, how did they not notice Dante was on there twice--once with the correct last name and once with the wrong last name?

So, if your boss calls from her cell phone and says, "hey, the witness list is due today, make sure Annie Dowling is on there"--because she's driving and doesn't have the name written down in front of here--and you don't have any document with her name in front of you either--you would probably just type it in the document, hit print, and file it. :crazy:

 

[TripleA]

Not sure if this has been thought of, but I don't think that the hat was Annie's. I think that it was Casey's hat and Annie was just wearing it in the car that day. I don't think that the hat has anything to do with Annie in the case, but that it may have something to do with Casey, and maybe the hat had decomp smell still on it from being in the car.

 

[Z-sleuth]

I don't know...there are quite a few mistakes on the list, so I kind of assumed it was carelessness by a clerical employee. I mean, how did they not notice Dante was on there twice--once with the correct last name and once with the wrong last name?

So, if your boss calls from her cell phone and says, "hey, the witness list is due today, make sure Annie D****** is on there"--because she's driving and doesn't have the name written down in front of here--and you don't have any document with her name in front of you either--you would probably just type it in the document, hit print, and file it. :crazy:

That might explain why it was misspelled the first time it was released several months ago. At some point, it seems to me that someone should update and edit the list. I have to wonder if the problem is shoddy work or an intentional effort to throw people off-track. The fact that her name is repeatedly misspelled AND they don't release her interview transcripts is highly suspect, IMO.

 

[AZlawyer]

I'm starting to think that maybe the "media" is missing the boat on some of this information...That it's there and available but that no one is requesting it. Is that possible?

Good point. I wonder exactly what the media has asked for in their requests. I would think it would be, "all documents released to Defendant," but maybe not. Do we have access to these requests?

 

[stilettos]

(Bold by me)

This seems to have been common practice "back home" in my mother-in-law's day (and she wondered why her son was a full-fledged alcoholic by the time he was 18). (Thank Gawd I breastfed). I caught her a time or two rubbing bourbon on my son's gums when he was teething. And I had a couple of friends my age who thought nothing of putting a wee nip in the bottle or doing the bourbon-on-gums "remedy" either.

Thank goodness my daughter-in-law is savvy and health-conscious!

I breast fed my daughter and had natural childbirth. My pediatrician recommended drinking a large glass of whiskey and then breastfeeding when my daughter had been up 3 full days with colic. This was 25 years ago.

 

[Pink Panther]

That might explain why it was misspelled the first time it was released several months ago. At some point, it seems to me that someone should update and edit the list. I have to wonder if the problem is shoddy work or an intentional effort to throw people off-track. The fact that her name is repeatedly misspelled AND they don't release her interview transcripts is highly suspect, IMO.

I've seen much more "shoddy" work than I ever expected to so, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if the misspelling is by some clueless clerk who then just typed the name twice with different spelling. I have to say, generally - I really haven't been the least bit impressed with LE's documentation so far.

 

[Broderick]

I've seen much more "shoddy" work than I ever expected to so, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if the misspelling is by some clueless clerk who then just typed the name twice with different spelling. I have to say, generally - I really haven't been the least bit impressed with LE's documentation so far.

I think a lot of the work done has been very good, but I am concerned that the defense isn't getting disclosure as it should. Too big of a case to make mistakes like "forgetting" or "losing" items.

 

[sua_sponte]

I think a lot of the work done has been very good, but I am concerned that the defense isn't getting disclosure as it should. Too big of a case to make mistakes like "forgetting" or "losing" items.

I agree. I really hope the prosecution doesn't try to win this by playing games. I think they could easily have the case in the bag, but they can really screw it up by trying to be clever.