I believe there are some pieces of "discovery" (evidence) that the SA and the defense may have that does not have to be released to the public under the sunshine law. So, I believe it is very possible the SA has something more, that even the defense already knows about, that we have just not seen.
I remember reading this article by Wendy Murphy on the Sunshine Law a while back, when I was discussing this very thing and worrying the SA may not have much more.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-...1/the-evidence-yoursquore-not-allowed-to-see/
Respectfully clipped from article by Wendy Murphy:
Despite everything I just said, Casey will probably be convicted because I believe the state has much more evidence than any of us are privy to.
It is highly likely that a mountain of evidence is being withheld from public view under one or more exceptions to Florida's "Sunshine Law," a statute that presumptively requires disclosure of all government-held information, such as evidence in criminal cases. Sounds great—except that the law is so fraught with exceptions, it's a wonder we've been allowed access to anything.
Continued at the link above.
So, with this in mind, I am thinking there is more we haven't seen. So, I agree it is premature to think KC will get a not guilty. I just don't see these prosecutors be so vehement on going for the DP, IF the discovery we have seen, is all they have.
Mr. Hornsby, can you inform me on this? Am I totally off base in my understanding of this? And also, let me state, I am aware this may be only Ms. Murphy's opinion, as it is a blog. So, I am not stating it as fact. I am rather, asking if this is, in fact, accurate?
Mods: I hope this was done correctly. I wasn't sure if I could post a link to the article, since it is to anothers blog or if I did this correctly. Please feel free to modify if I did anything incorrectly.