Casey defense team files motion to dismiss case--Could KC walk!

[The World According]

In the motion to destroy the jail video tapes, I noticed Baez forgot to sign and date the second page in the spaces provided. Andrea signed, but it is not dated.

Is that a big deal, considering that this is the filed copy? This isn't the first time it's happened..

He did sign and date the third page, the certificate of service.

His documents could fill a semester of law school, they are always a mess. You on the other hand are amazing M, we appreciate all that you do here! All these motions are the "Many, many motions I will be filing in this case" Andrea mentioned early on, so they are no shock. On one hand they say they were unable to explore the crime scene, on the other hand they say the photos and info. released to them by the state was enough for them to claim in court that the body was laid there after Casey was put in jail. It is like Baez's document for Padilla to be an extension of the defense team all the while specific to set out "There is no relationship" and they do not work for him. All of their documents and arguments contradict one another. It is downright silly.:banghead:

 

[nanny1]

Yeah...they claimed even then there was no point in analyzing the scene after LE got through with it. Seems that LE were just too darn thorough.

Who do they think they are doing thier jobs...the LE should be held in contempt for doing thier job..I say lock them up with a chocolate key and eat it..

 

[nanny1]

IIRC the FBI lab had its own scandal several years ago.

Crystal Ball says LKB will beat this to death and beyond, letting the jury assume that this was (a) recent and (b) ongoing at this time.

Didn't she already try to bring it up on the talk shows..

 

[nanny1]

No worries Christee. here is the link. the reason it is important is because after the broken quote gets carried, it starts to show as a person saying something that they didn't. Then everyone goes nuts that they are being misquoted and all heck breaks loose and so I just have to delete all the broken quoted posts and it is a real mess.
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=76874\

thanks

Sorry Jelly,I'm probably also guilty:angel:

 

[Valhall]

Good catch. However, I don't think that "chained around her stomach" could be classified as physical abuse or cruel and inhumane treatment. Maybe if they had duct taped her mouth and nose they would have an argument.

Wish I could thank you twice for that one.

 

[Valhall]

Okay, the defense wants Casey's videos destroyed and future visits with the family are necessary for her well-being. They shouldn't be kept either?

Fact is, jailhouse communications are frequently used at trial to convict. Inmates and their families know they are being monitored. They mess up, it's their problem.

There is no way that Casey will get special treatment.

If, as the motion says, it's for Casey's well-being, what harm is their in videotaping the meetings? They would only be there to offer her emotional support and comfort in her distress.

Oops! I forgot, we are talking about a very dysfunctional family here. They can't keep their agendas hidden from the world. They could never have the lovey-dovey kind of meeting Ms. Lyon would like.

This reminds me of the motion Baez filed when Casey was bonded out the second time. He wanted to take Casey places to help in the "investigation". Oh, and no monitoring!

That went over like a lead balloon. This motion will as well.

I think you touch on what the dealio is here. IF KC's family wanted to see her for emotional support, they would have already done it. IF that meeting was just to be able to see each other and say "I love you...I miss you...I'm praying for you." It matters not that a camera will catch it.

BUT...what is going on here is JB/AL's witness list looks like this:

GA
CA
LA
"anti-junk-science expert" #1
"anti-junk-science expert" #2
"anti-junk-science expert" #3
etc.

KC canNOT get on the stand and therefore the only "mouth" she has to get whatever new "this is what really happened" story out is through Larry, Curly and Moe up there. They need to "get the story straight"...and they can't have cameras filming that.

 

[pferrin]

LKB tried to "educate" Judge Fidler in the Spector trial also..yet Judge Fidler turned out to be in charge of that classroom. Don't think this will turn out any differently.

When the money runs out the nonsense will slow down. They are not the 1st folks to try all this kind of stuff nor will they be the last. The gravy train is still feeding all these attorneys and the more motions they file the more gravy they get.

Looking forward to next doc dump to see what is really up..also looking forward to defense info to see what they don't have.

If the big media networkks would stop their payments for lawyers and "licensing" aka interviews...this case would be in court before the jury in no time. As long as KC's attorneys can make a few more bucks from deep pockets they will keep up the carp..doesn't matter to them what they are costing the taxpayer.

 

[AnotherGladysKravitz]

I haven't read all thirty-eleven pages but change of venue is what thought came to my mind when I saw the article in the Florida Today newspaper about Brad Conway. Could Brevard county be on their mind?

 

[lin]

Just want to stick this info in this thread for reference.

Spoliation of Evidence Can Spoil Litigation

All too often, a party's position in litigation is impaired by the destruction, alteration or loss of crucial evidence during -- and sometimes even before -- litigation has begun. This is commonly referred to as "spoliation" of evidence.

Under Florida law, spoliation of evidence can lead to: 1) a cause of action in tort for either the intentional or negligent loss of evidence; 2) a defense to recovery; 3) the basis for a negative evidentiary inference or presumption; and 4) sanctions.

From a defense perspective, spoliation is a rapidly growing area of the law because if the defendant did not spoliate the evidence, it can act as a complete bar to a recovery by the plaintiff. In that regard, the court may dismiss the case on the grounds that the defendant is deprived of the opportunity to adequately defend itself absent the evidence. Alternatively, it may strike the plaintiff's pleadings as a sanction if he/she is the spoliating party.

From the plaintiff's perspective, if the defendant or a third-party is the spoliating party, it can lead to a simple cause of action -- or to the imposition of sanctions so severe that it can obviate the need for the trial of a complex product liability lawsuit.

A spoliation cause of action arises when it is alleged that a crucial piece of evidence is unavailable at the time of trial due to action or inaction by one or the other of the parties.


More info within article.

http://www.law.com/jsp/legaltechnology/pubArticleLT.jsp?id=1182935157632

Thanks, PattyG but this is for civil cases. It really doesn't apply to crime scene investigations, imo. There was a case I read not too long ago where the defendant wanted the case thrown out because evidence (drugs) was totally lost before trial. Didn't happen. The evidence had been examined and re-examined and the court let the experts testify to what they examined. The court didn't feel it was necessary to parade the actual drugs through the courtroom to prove the guilt of the defendant. More importantly, the court didn't think the defendant should be relieved of the drug charges due to a technicality such as this when there was plenty of evidence the drugs existed, what they were, how much, etc.

 

[lin]

I haven't read all thirty-eleven pages but change of venue is what thought came to my mind when I saw the article in the Florida Today newspaper about Brad Conway. Could Brevard county be on their mind?

They're looking for more liberal and/or hispanic communities. JB thinks his winning Latino ways will overcome KC accusing a Latina. As for COV, I think the new media tour by the A's should help put that to rest; especially as the defense refused a gag order. They opened the barn door and shooed the horse out. Now they want to whine the horse is gone.

 

[Valhall]

To be earnest in reviewing these docs, the references to the waist chain is not to imply she is being abused by said chain, but to reference all security measures that are already being employed during her attorney/client meetings (i.e. chains, manned security stations, etc.) in the argument that the videoing of the attorney/client meetings is overkill and unnecessary.

To be quite honest - I really don't think they are out of line on this motion. I'm not saying they are going to get it (in fact, I don't think they will, primarily because it is a measure to prevent contraband being passed during a meeting), but I don't think it's an "over the top" request, and I do believe they have presented a good argument (for once) in support of their request.

 

[Patty G]

Thanks, PattyG but this is for civil cases. It really doesn't apply to crime scene investigations, imo. There was a case I read not too long ago where the defendant wanted the case thrown out because evidence (drugs) was totally lost before trial. Didn't happen. The evidence had been examined and re-examined and the court let the experts testify to what they examined. The court didn't feel it was necessary to parade the actual drugs through the courtroom to prove the guilt of the defendant. More importantly, the court didn't think the defendant should be relieved of the drug charges due to a technicality such as this when there was plenty of evidence the drugs existed, what they were, how much, etc.

I know the examples in the article appear to be "civil" but the term "Spoliation of Evidence" definition may apply to both "criminal" and"civil". I am no legal expert, just looking for information regarding "Defining Spoliation of Evidence".

In law, spoliation of evidence is the intentional or negligent withholding, hiding, alteration or destruction of evidence relevant to a legal proceeding. It is a criminal act in the United States under Federal and most State law. Spoliation has two consequences: first the act is criminal by statute and may result in fines and incarceration for the parties who engaged in the spoliation, secondly case law has established that proceedings which might have been altered by the spoliation may be interpreted under a “spoliation inference”. The spoliation inference is a negative evidentiary inference that a judge can draw from a party's destruction of a document or thing that is relevant to an ongoing or reasonably foreseeable civil or criminal proceeding: The judge can review all evidence uncovered in as strong a light as possible against the spoliator and in favor of the opposing party.

http://www.asginvestigations.com/co...uter_forensics_and_spoliation_of_evidence.php

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoliation_of_evidence[/ame]

http://www.gburnette.com/articles_evidence.php

http://www.law.fsu.edu/Journals/lawreview/downloads/294/Peltz.pdf

 

[believe09]

Tempest, meet teapot IVHMO. It is worth a shot for sure. I think they will get the change of venue they are asking for but my fallback is the belief that Hispanics might not take kindly to the fact that she chose a non white as her "fall guy."

 

[Sdavidson11]

Ok. So let me see if I have this straight.

The state basically accused Jose of doctoring documents and the court demanded those documents be produced for examination by the state.

The defense spewed off some nonsense about the "evidence" they had uncovered which PROVED their clients innocence, in court, in front of the cameras for all the world to see and hear.

The state, in turn, called this bluff, and called on the 15 day discovery requirement, which the defense is well behind on already...

The state turns over a small supplemental discovery release of one page and one cd with photos of Caseys tattoo.

The defense asks for the charges to be dropped because (now here is where I go a little fuzzy)
1.) The state found and moved the remains of a child that was found in the woods.
2.) The child had been scattered by wildlife so it took longer than expected.
3.) In order to look inside the bag where some of this childs remains were, they had to untangle the bag and the bones from a root mass that had grown through everything.
4.) Because this root mass was not "preserved" and the defense did not have a chance to examine it then it is spoiled evidence.
5.) Somewhere in that root mass was all the evidence that the defense needed to prove their case, but alas it is all gone now.
6.) Furthermore while the FBI and LE were CRAWLING ON THEIR HANDS AND KNEES for days on end collecting every little tiny piece of this baby that they could find and any other thing that they happened upon, they neglected to collect the very evidence that would have cleared Casey, and they did this on purpose and only collected evidence that would make her appear as guilty.
7.) The state was not neat enough while they were CRAWLING ON THEIR HANDS AND KNEES sifting though bucket after bucket after bucket of earth to FIND Caylee's remains and so the defense did not get to examine the crime scene in its original condition.

So all the charges against Casey should be dismissed?

Are these people right in the head? What the ????:banghead::banghead::banghead:

A click of the thank you button is not enough for your post. We also have to remember that these folks that were crawling on there hands and knees were doing so in the rain, under lights with mosquito's and god knows what other little creatures biting them, and in my opinion went above and beyond the call of duty to try to make sure whoever the skeletal remains were identified as was made whole and they were eventually identified as Caylee. All I can say is shame on them and why do they feel as though they are so special. Once LE and the FBI were finished with there collection, the defense was offered to go through all of the muck and if I remember correctly all of the removed plant life was stored on the road or the easement before being removed that the defense would have acess to and they declined. I can no think of one case that the defense helped the medical examiner and LE with a crime scene. This is just insane. Justice for Caylee.

 

[lin]

Remember how stunned Mitnik was when DC was claiming he was working for the defense when he was poking around in the woods? Mitnik couldn't believe the defense wanted any part of DC in the woods; a gift to the prosecution if DC claimed privilege. Well, that's kind of my feeling about the Motion to Dismiss. In terms of public opinion, this is definitely a gift to the prosecution. That the defense team even showed up at the remains site was bad, imo. They should have stuck to their stories of sitings until it was confirmed the remains belonged to Caylee. In essence, by showing up, they admit they knew it was Caylee immediately. Put that with the perp's reaction on video... Add in DC being in the area a month before while working for the perp...

Surprise! I agree with the state regarding COV. Good of 48 hours to give the state more ammunition. The defense and gp's have caused the media sensation, not the state. The taxpayers should not be penalized. I predict the court will at least try to empanel a jury in Orlando.

I am a bit annoyed with the references to "leaks" in the defense pleadings and hope the state calls them on it. I'm petty that way.

I predict the taping will still happen with family and attorney visits. The best the defense can hope for, imo, is that the tapes will be sealed unless and until used at trial. The state won't oppose sealing the tapes. Hopefully, the media will vigorously oppose sealing the videos. If they do, I believe the law is on the side of the media. The defense cited no cases on point. None. Yes, there are cases that stand for the finding that death penalty cases are different, blah blah blah. There are none that stand for stopping taping because of a death penalty possibility or of stopping taping due to "punishment" of which I'm aware.

I read all of the Appendices and once again, imo, they don't seem to indicate what the defense wishes they did. Did you see anything in the attachments to indicate the state tried to manipulate KC into having a private visit with her father? The transcript they included shows the opposite, imo. It shows she wrote a letter requesting it and LE simply provided transportation; repeatedly stating it was up to her. There was no discussion of Secret Agent 00George reporting back the contents of the meeting or anything else. I hope the state calls them on this too.

 

[lin]

I know the examples in the article appear to be "civil" but the term "Spoliation of Evidence" definition may apply to both "criminal" and"civil". I am no legal expert, just looking for information regarding "Defining Spoliation of Evidence".

In law, spoliation of evidence is the intentional or negligent withholding, hiding, alteration or destruction of evidence relevant to a legal proceeding. It is a criminal act in the United States under Federal and most State law. Spoliation has two consequences: first the act is criminal by statute and may result in fines and incarceration for the parties who engaged in the spoliation, secondly case law has established that proceedings which might have been altered by the spoliation may be interpreted under a “spoliation inference”. The spoliation inference is a negative evidentiary inference that a judge can draw from a party's destruction of a document or thing that is relevant to an ongoing or reasonably foreseeable civil or criminal proceeding: The judge can review all evidence uncovered in as strong a light as possible against the spoliator and in favor of the opposing party.

http://www.asginvestigations.com/co...uter_forensics_and_spoliation_of_evidence.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoliation_of_evidence

http://www.gburnette.com/articles_evidence.php

http://www.law.fsu.edu/Journals/lawreview/downloads/294/Peltz.pdf

Clearly you've done more research on this than has the defense. They may try to hire you cos you seem to understand more about law than do they.

I just did a quick search of Florida case law and didn't find the word "spoilation" in any criminal cases. Zero. Likewise, no criminal results using the search parameter "spoil* w/7 eviden*" This isn't to suggest it can't apply in other jurisdictions.

Even so, it appears the intent is the deliberate or negligent destruction or withholding of evidence. None of that applies to the instant case, imo. The best attorneys in the world, (which are not on the defense, imo), would be hard pressed to show how processing a crime scene is deliberate or negilgent destruction of evidence.

 

[sleutherontheside]

Of course they do. And I want a Porsche.

I bet JB could file a motion for you. Although his track record isn't that great and he may fail to cite appropriate vehicle info he would probably have a better chance in winning you that Porche then at winning any motions for KC.

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

Florida
NO INDEPENDENT CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FIRST PARTY SPOLIATION The Florida Supreme Court determined in Martino v. WalMart Stores Inc. , 908 So.2d 342 (Fla. 2005), that the remedy against a first party defendant for spoliation of evidence is not an independent cause of action for spoliation of evidence. This holding clarified a split regarding the tort of spoliation between the Third and Forth District Courts of Appeals.

THIRD PARTY TORT OF SPOLIATION The holding in Marino is limited to first party spoliation. Florida Appellate Courts have recognized an independent claim for spoliation against third parties. Townsend v. Conshor, Inc. , 832 So. 2d 156, 167 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2002); Jost v. Lakeland Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc. , 844 So.2d 656 (Fla.2d DCA 2003). Third party spoliation claims, however, do not arise until the underlying action is completed. Lincoln Ins. Co. v. Home Emergency Servs., Inc. , 812 So. 2d 433, 434-435 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.. 2001). In order to establish a cause of action for spoliation, a party must show:
(1) the existence of a potential civil action,
(2) a legal or contractual duty to preserve evidence which is relevant to the potential civil action,
(3) destruction of that evidence,
(4) significant impairment in the ability to prove the lawsuit,
(5) a causal relationship between the evidence destruction and the inability to prove the lawsuit, and
(6) damages. Jost v. Lakeland , 844 So. 2d 656, 657- 685 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)

SANCTIONS In Public Health Trust v. Valcin , 507 So.2d 596, 599 (Fla. 1987), the Court held that when evidence was intentionally lost, misplaced, or destroyed by one party, trial courts were to rely on sanctions found in Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.380(b)(2), and that a jury could well infer from such a finding that the records would have contained indications of negligence. If the negligent loss of the evidence hinders the other party's ability to establish a prima facie case, then a rebuttable presumption of negligence for the underlying tort will be applied. This presumption and sanction were upheld in Martino v. WalMart Stores Inc. , 908 So.2d 342, 346-47 (Fla. 2005).
http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=sp...4&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=732ad145,bad6818f

 

[The Eunice Burns]

Good catch. However, I don't think that "chained around her stomach" could be classified as physical abuse or cruel and inhumane treatment. Maybe if they had duct taped her mouth and nose they would have an argument.

:clap: Love it!

Regarding the "chain around her stomach".....w/ all the blathering about her "well being" and that b/c this is a capital case, blah, blah, I just wonder if they will try to claim that *this well mannered young lady who caused jail officals no trouble, was ill treated and chained like you wouldn't even chain an animal!* I know, it's out there, but considering how this defense team is operating, I wouldn't put it past them.

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

:clap: Love it!

Regarding the "chain around her stomach".....w/ all the blathering about her "well being" and that b/c this is a capital case, blah, blah, I just wonder if they will try to claim that *this well mannered young lady who caused jail officals no trouble, was ill treated and chained like you wouldn't even chain an animal!* I know, it's out there, but considering how this defense team is operating, I wouldn't put it past them.

I can understand if other inmates were not chained around her waist but this is procedure, protocol. What makes Baez think he can rewrite the way the jail conducts their own business...:furious:

Each inmate is chained around their waist. It's a safety measure, IMO...