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

[MADJGNLAW]

:snooty:To me these motions were filed out of desperation, in hopes one of the motions to get by, and to waste tax payers money because the defense has backed themselves into a corner with their "The Nanny did it" defense.
With the amount of evidence that the Prosecution has against Casey the dense is up chitts creek with out a paddle.
Now that the state have asked them to produce "Evidence" that clearly does not exists. and asked for the Defense to turn over their evidence of ”Casey’s proclaimed innocence”" . The defense turns around and claims their evidence was based on documents, pictures and video provided by the state. Well, how lazy can they get? TES said they were in the area but did not come back and completely search the area due to it being under water. That does not mean the body was not there - it just means the area was not searched. So,the Defense files a motion to dismiss the case because they cannot challenge the 33+ searchers, they will claim that since the area was not searched that it is "Possible" the body was not there put the reasonable doubt on the table. And lets not forget the famous Joy W. that claims the area was searched, that may of been their "Key" witness. LOL

However, these are not grounds to just dismiss the murder case "IMO", it just means the area could not be searched. There have been many cases where remains have been found years later in an area that was previously search and it did not mean that the body was not there originally, it just means it was missed, and that is very possible with all the foliage in that area.

The “Motion To Dismiss Due To Spoliation Of Evidence” has the defense saying the state failed to preserve any evidence that could clear Casey by not allowing defense experts to be present where Caylee’s remains were found in December while investigators were processing the area will not hold up either "IMO". The defense was out there watching and I do recall that the area was blocked off and being monitored. The only thing the state is guilty of is being competent and thorough. The experts were out there on their hands and knee's for days making sure they could recover all of Caylee's remains that were out there after being destroyed by animals, after someone threw her little body out there like trash. The state found evidence that tied back to the Anthony home and a child's skull with duct tape. So, if Casey didn't kill Caylee it would of been Cindy or George since they are the only other people that live in the home. The area was turned over to the defense around Dec 19th and after all the whining they did not bother to go out there and conduct their own investigation. The soil is and was still there and well as all the foliage and landscaping. The remains were also turned over and did they not also complete their own autopsy? They held on to the remains and later turned them over to CA and GA and then the remains were cremated, "IMO" it was done so that other further testing could not be performed, how ever that is not the states fault. That is the fault of the defense and the Anthony's. They could of sent their experts out there to see if the state missed anything and they chose not to, that is not the states fault. So, is this an open window for Casey to say her defense is negligent? She has been to many of the hearing and had her chance to stand up and tell the judge she is not happy with her defense and she has not done so. So, that opportunity is out the window.

The defense also issued a response to the state’s request to “compel reciprocal evidence” and asked that attorney visits with Casey not be videotaped. Does this not go against the Jail's rules and Regulation? Why would the judge grant a motion that goes against the jails Regulations?
I can understand that they don't record the conversations between Casey and her defense team, but the video is needed to not only protect the inmate but the staff and attorney's.Casey Anthony’s attorneys say she wants to visit with her family — without the meetings being recorded and those recordings being released to the media. “Because all the videos have all been released in their entirety, many “”blogs”", newspapers and radio stations have analyzed every detail of their conversations,”

Her defense team argues that she needs her family support and releasing videos of their meetings could be an attempt to punish her and it hinders her trial preparation.


"IMO" the reason the defense wants the jail videos destroyed is because of the video of Casey's reaction the day the remains where found? I know the judge did not allow the media to publish it, but it could be that the prosecution is going to use it at trial and it's pretty damming "IMO".
I also feel the reason they want future video to be destroyed is because they are trying to come up with their strategy of what will be said on the stand and they need for Cindy,George, and Lee to be on the same page as Casey.
If the family is going to visit Casey to give her the support she needs and tell her the "I love you and Miss you" what is there to analyzed? There have been many murder cases where the family will go visit their family member regardless. There is nothing stopping them from going to visit Casey to tell her they love her. Nothing! Unless they want to visit for other reasons, maybe Casey wants to ditch her defense team and they fear she will ask the family to find her new representation. Regardless, as far as I know Orange County Jail has set rules for all the inmates and Casey should not be allowed to have special treatment, even though she already has said they bring her extra food and treat her so special, so how is it that she is being mistreated?

 

[seagull65]

Most inmates know enough to be careful talking to anyone other than their attorneys. There are signs all over warning that inmates may be held accountable for what they say during "visits". It doesn't mean KC couldn't tell her parents she loved them and vice versa. Other inmates surely manage to see friends & family, get support and not get into discussions any prosecutor could use against them.

I'm not seeing any hardship to KC.

I wasn't talking about any hardship, Jolynna, I was just responding to someone's post asking why the defense have now requested the videos be destroyed and that destroying them would be some kind of special treatment. I said it could be the opposite, that normally the jail videos are routinely taped over within a certain time frame but hers haven't been.

 

[coco puff]

I did always think it was strange if the defense was not allowed to have an expert look at and photograph the remains site and evidence in situ and so on earlier on. Seemed like the state told them after all the evidence had been removed from the site and so on, after razing the place, that now the defense could have their experts onto the site, come in and photograph etc. What good would that do? Basically, the defense would be in the position of just having to take the state's experts' interpretation on the whole scene. I was surprised at the time, but I don't know how these things are usually done.

Isn't that the way most crime scenes are processed. typically you don't have a legal team for the defense already assembled with a crime is discovered. I would think the norm would be that most defense teams don't get to "look" at a crime scene while LE is still processing it.

 

[sumbunny]

I wasn't talking about any hardship, Jolynna, I was just responding to someone's post asking why the defense have now requested the videos be destroyed and that destroying them would be some kind of special treatment. I said it could be the opposite, that normally the jail videos are routinely taped over within a certain time frame but hers haven't been.

That is a lot of assuming. I believe that KC's jail tapes hold some form of evidence. She clearly didn't look like a grieving mother. In fact she was quite rude and obnoxious to her parents.

Cindy was just in pieces, and KC smirked at her mothers despair.
If these tapes are allowed in court (which I hope they are) It will show the jury a side of KC that the defense is trying to hide..imo

 

[lin]

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

Thanks for looking up the civil cases and finding the checklist of requirements including an underlying civil action! I wrote to PattyG that she had done more studying on this than did the defense...

 

[lin]

I wasn't talking about any hardship, Jolynna, I was just responding to someone's post asking why the defense have now requested the videos be destroyed and that destroying them would be some kind of special treatment. I said it could be the opposite, that normally the jail videos are routinely taped over within a certain time frame but hers haven't been.

If no one requests the tapes, such as the state for evidentiary value or the media under the Sunshine laws, yes, they are routinely taped over. That does not apply in this case. To not allow the state or the media access to those tapes under the existing laws, regulations, protocols, would be special treatment, plain and simple. Otherwise, there'd be a totally different motion pending.

 

[Sprout]

Wasn't there a court hearing right after the remains were found where the Defense requested access but was denied since the identity of the remains had not been verified?

 

[Balthazar]

Wasn't there a court hearing right after the remains were found where the Defense requested access but was denied since the identity of the remains had not been verified?

Yes you are right.

The problem I see with this decision is that the defense attorneys are going to say that LE requested and were granted a search warrant for the Anthony house almost immediately after the remains were found. So, logically, the defense will hold, it had already been concluded by LE and by a judge that the remains were those of Caylee Anthony. Otherwise, there would be no probable cause for issuing a search warrant for the Anthony home in conjunction with the discovery of the remains. I'm sure this issue will be brought up by the defense. I've been expecting this since their emergency request for access to the site.

 

[Sprout]

Princess Rose,
That makes perfect ssense. Thanks!

 

[lin]

Wasn't there a court hearing right after the remains were found where the Defense requested access but was denied since the identity of the remains had not been verified?

IIRC, the defense request was denied but not solely because the remains had not yet been identified. As I remember it, the court ruled that it did not have the authority to tamper with the investigation. What I think you're remembering is the court didn't allow the defense at the autopsy because at that time it wasn't confirmed it was Caylee. Does anyone else remember it this way?

 

[Patty G]

Wasn't there a court hearing right after the remains were found where the Defense requested access but was denied since the identity of the remains had not been verified?

Yup, I think this is the day of that court hearing - "I could be WRONG!"

January 30, 2009

Motion to Inspect Crime Scene dated: January 20, 2009
http://www.cfnews13.com/uploadedFiles/Stories/Local/Motion to Inspect Crime Scene.pdf

First motion heard:
YouTube - Motions Hearing 1/30/09 Part 1

Reading material here:
Motions Hearing - Fri., Jan. 30, 2009 @8:30 AM - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

Full motions hearing here for reference:
Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Official Documents-Audio-Arrest Updates No Discussion

 

[snow_walker]

All this legal manouvering pre-trial is like watching the trial itself play out, but in slow motion.
I can't see any judge in their right mind dismissing the case at this point.. and a change of venue seems useless and unlikely as well..

as for the evidence tampering.. why would the police do that? At the time they were processing the area, they had no way of knowing what evidence would be useful to either side. All they could do was take pictures and collect what was there. I dare say that in clearing out the underbrush (which they HAD to do) they may have inadvertantly moved some of the exhibits about a bit.. but how else could it be done? You would never find all those little bones and such if you didn't clear out the vegetation first. That is a long way from deliberate tampering. and I am sure there are pictures of the site before the brush was cleared away.. a laundry bag and 2 garbage bags.. and a little skull... 3 pieces of duct tape across a little girls face..

That evidence tells a clear enough story.

 

[Spangle]

I did always think it was strange if the defense was not allowed to have an expert look at and photograph the remains site and evidence in situ and so on earlier on. Seemed like the state told them after all the evidence had been removed from the site and so on, after razing the place, that now the defense could have their experts onto the site, come in and photograph etc. What good would that do? Basically, the defense would be in the position of just having to take the state's experts' interpretation on the whole scene. I was surprised at the time, but I don't know how these things are usually done.

It always seemed to me that LE was going by the book. Crime scenes are always closed to everyone but LE approved persons.

What I thought strange was that JB thought his crew should be allowed in there. They were demanding what they KNEW they would not get.

That they were demanding it, was a red flag that it was Caylee and they knew it was Caylee. Didn't need Dr. G to confirm it. THEY didn't need her to Confirm it.

That they didn't "take' the site after LE was finished with it, shows they really didn't need or want the site. They just wanted to be told they couldn't have it.

As for what good it would do to 'take' the site after the LE was finished.. Most defense lawyers dont' to get to see the site 'fresh.' Before other people get it. The point of getting the site, was to see if anything might have been forgetting by the LE. Something that might prove their client is innocent. Which would have to be turned over to LE. Proving that handling ALL EVIDENCE is LE's job.

LE did such a good job, that JB's people didn't feel the need to check up on their work.

For the most part, the SA rely s on the photos', etc.. from the crime seen as well.

 

[Spangle]

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.

I would LOVE for the court to deal with the fact that the defense and her family have been all in the media.. constantly. And that they fought against the gag order. Making sure the info is in ALL markets, not just Orlando.

It is a problem of the defense's own making. And can not be resolved by moving the trial. Basicly making it that she will get just as fair trial in Orlando, as any place else. I think the state can now argue such and it hold up.

 

[celticthyme]

That is a lot of assuming. I believe that KC's jail tapes hold some form of evidence. She clearly didn't look like a grieving mother. In fact she was quite rude and obnoxious to her parents.

Cindy was just in pieces, and KC smirked at her mothers despair.
If these tapes are allowed in court (which I hope they are) It will show the jury a side of KC that the defense is trying to hide..imo

BBM
YUP! There is so little out there of what Casey did or said,( post arrest) but there are the tapes & conversations from her family. Damning in terms of her behavior, cavalier attitude & temper tantrum. We do not know what is in the JB stuff, but no doubt, that should nevercome to light if the defense can help it. If they are trying so desperately to prevent this stuff, there is some THERE . . . THERE ( Lord, I hope so!)

Me thinks Andrea Lyon is pulling lots of that hair out by now, between her guilty client and clueless co-counsel,to say nothing about the EVIDENCE:boohoo:

 

[Trapshooter]

I just checked the Daily Thread by Angel Who Cares and I feel MUCH better after listening to Attorney Richard Hornsby regarding the dismissal of this case. Ain't gonna happen folks!

 

[Patty G]

I just checked the Daily Thread by Angel Who Cares and I feel MUCH better after listening to Attorney Richard Hornsby regarding the dismissal of this case. Ain't gonna happen folks!

Just in case no one has seen it, I recorded it off the Internet.

YouTube - Casey Anthony's Attorneys Want Case Dismissed

 

[lin]

Hal quotes Bill Shaeffer:

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/en...legal-analyst-rips-defenses-latest-moves.html

 

[Balthazar]

All this legal manouvering pre-trial is like watching the trial itself play out, but in slow motion.
I can't see any judge in their right mind dismissing the case at this point.. and a change of venue seems useless and unlikely as well..

as for the evidence tampering.. why would the police do that? At the time they were processing the area, they had no way of knowing what evidence would be useful to either side. All they could do was take pictures and collect what was there. I dare say that in clearing out the underbrush (which they HAD to do) they may have inadvertantly moved some of the exhibits about a bit.. but how else could it be done? You would never find all those little bones and such if you didn't clear out the vegetation first. That is a long way from deliberate tampering. and I am sure there are pictures of the site before the brush was cleared away.. a laundry bag and 2 garbage bags.. and a little skull... 3 pieces of duct tape across a little girls face..

That evidence tells a clear enough story.

Change of venue and motion to dismiss are pretty standard in this type of case. There is no reason to expect the motion to dismiss to be granted. Change of venue is more likely to be granted.

The evidence tampering is more concerning since the defense claims that the state provided them with photographic evidence of this. I hope evidence tampering did not occur, but there is no way to judge if it did or not without seeing the evidence.

 

[Spangle]

The spoilage Motion.
The court all ready dealt with them demanding to be at the scene before it was processed. And was told it wasn't their 'right' to be there there.

Now they want that same court to throw the case out, because they were not allowed to be there.. by that same court. ~ Right.. sure..

They claim the ID'ing of the body was delayed to keep them from the crime scene. They are trying to say that it was because of the unknowing, that they were not allowed. Knowing the body was Caylee's didn't change wither they were allowed back there. Knowing it was Caylee only meant that they knew that it was THE crime scene that was important to their case. It did not give them automatic right to be on the crime scene while it's being processed by the LE.

I dont' see this holding up on appeal. It would mean that NO case would be able to go forward, if the criminal states that they were not allowed access to the scene while it was being processed. Just don't see this defense team putting together a decent enough argument that will sway the court and hold up against counter arguments on this issue.

They would have to prove the spoilage issue. What exactly was spoiled, etc. Processing the crime scene will NEVER be considered spoilage.

This motion is making a joke. A totally court time waster.