Procedure and legal questions

[AZlawyer]

If you don't mind Daisy, let me rephrase your question with an example:

The search warrant for the Dec 19 search at the Anthony home mentioned the outline of a perfect heart from a heart sticker in the document dump. This was information provided to OCSO by the FBI via telephone. Not a lab report or even email.

To date we have not seen a report from the FBI that describes this. All we have seen are reports that say fragments or pieces of a sticker have not been found on the tape. But something is on the tape.

I am wondering, would the FBI possibly sit on issuing a report - possibly with the agreement of OCSO and the SA - as part of a little gamesmanship with the defense? I am wondering where this is where some of Baez's frustration comes from that is resulting in his inept attempts to get information from the FBI. They are sitting on certain reports that put the nail in his client, he knows it, and he wants the reports. Instead, he gets reports back that don't really point the finger at his client at all.

Is it possible that is happening, and if so, is it unusual or somewhat normal?

The thing is, LE did not ask the FBI to look for sticker residue, so they
may not issue a report on it at all, unless LE decides at some point to
request one. In other words, the reports are done in response to an
official request for findings, so with no official request, no one's to-do
list says "prepare report re: heart sticker residue." The FBI examiner can
still testify about the heart sticker residue without issuing a report, as
long as the information has been disclosed in some manner to the
defense--which it was, because it appeared in other (LE) reports.

I really don't see the motive for the State to hide incriminating
information from the defense. If the State hides the information, it can't
be used at trial. They wouldn't have wanted JB to know about the heart
sticker residue BEFORE they got into the house to search for 3/4" heart
stickers, for obvious reasons--but once they've scoured the place, there's
no reason not to give him the information.

 

[RevCrim]

I recall that KC had signed over Caylee's remains to JB- but has KC signed over her own "Power of Attorney" to JB, or any other form to handle any and all of her financial affairs, or do the A's have "Power of Attorney" for KC. (I doubt this very much.)
So, if JB does have "Power of Attorney" for KC, and she get Life in Prison, or the DP- does JB get whatever money they recieved for the pictures, etc, before she is convicted.

 

[WholeLottaRosie]

I asked the question below in another thread, but, maybe it should be here.


I have a question. Somewhere, it was mentioned that JB told one (or more) of KC's friends to either buy a prepaid cell phone, or, he gave them one to use to talk to her during the time she was out on bond (presumably so that the calls wouldn't be traceable). If he did either, told or gave, would this not be illegal - the attorney is making an effort to obstruct LE's investigation?

 

[white_envelope]

Why wouldn't a prepaid phone be traceable?

 

[WholeLottaRosie]

Why wouldn't a prepaid phone be traceable?

Maybe the correct term isn't prepaid. There are some kind of cell phones you buy that come with minutes and a number, and, may or may not be refillable, that are hard to trace because you set up no bill, and I have read and seen on various tv shows that these phones are used a lot by criminals cause they can't trace them.

 

[static]

Maybe the correct term isn't prepaid. There are some kind of cell phones you buy that come with minutes and a number, and, may or may not be refillable, that are hard to trace because you set up no bill, and I have read and seen on various tv shows that these phones are used a lot by criminals cause they can't trace them.

They might simply toss them down the sewer or in a dumpster or smash them up when they are done with them. They do not require any sort of contract so no personal information could be traced as far as address, etc.

 

[white_envelope]

I asked the question below in another thread, but, maybe it should be here.


I have a question. Somewhere, it was mentioned that JB told one (or more) of KC's friends to either buy a prepaid cell phone, or, he gave them one to use to talk to her during the time she was out on bond (presumably so that the calls wouldn't be traceable). If he did either, told or gave, would this not be illegal - the attorney is making an effort to obstruct LE's investigation?

I don't think it would help Casey out any in the long run to have calls coming in or going out to "dead end" phone numbers, if in fact this IS how those phones work.

 

[Spangle]

They might simply toss them down the sewer or in a dumpster or smash them up when they are done with them. They do not require any sort of contract so no personal information could be traced as far as address, etc.

No need to do all that. The same phone can be re-used. A new number can be assigned to it for a fee.

The main thing is, with out billing, there really is no way to figure out who owns a phone number at a given time. My phone is one of these things. I've used it now for 2 years. I'm very happy with it.

However, among the phone bills that the LE have gone over, they can notice if there is a number that is one of these unknowns. The person calling that number, most likely has the person listed in their contacts with that number. Mystery solved.

Which is why they were told to call HER phone, using one of those type of phones. So NO one would show up on record. It would just take one, and when that phone number file shows up, the other numbers would be known, etc, etc.

I don't think it would help Casey out any in the long run to have calls coming in or going out to "dead end" phone numbers, if in fact this IS how those phones work.

IF the LE didn't have Casey's 'dead end' phone that she was using, they will not know she is sending/recieving calls from other 'dead end' phones. This suppose to have happened while she was out on bail.

 

[amethyst221]

This is a follow-up to a question posed in another thread (that was closed for some reason) about the Florida statute on qualified lawyers in a death penalty case. I read the statute again and it does answer a question people had. It specifically states that "immediately" upon being retained in a DP case, a lawyer "shall" (that means it is required, not optional) file a notice of appearance setting out his or her qualifications that comply with the requirements. So, by now, given that the change to seek the DP was made some time ago, there should be filings on the record. I imagine any of the lawyers who qualify as lead counsel will have so indicated.

 

[ThoughtElf]

I haven't really been following the change of venue thread, so forgive me if this has been answered, but if the COV is granted, how does this effect the SA attorneys? Do they pack up and stay in the new locale venue for the duration of the trial? Will additional local resources be assigned?

TYIA

 

[WholeLottaRosie]

I haven't really been following the change of venue thread, so forgive me if this has been answered, but if the COV is granted, how does this effect the SA attorneys? Do they pack up and stay in the new locale venue for the duration of the trial? Will additional local resources be assigned?

TYIA

Maybe. Or the judge could have them all go to the new venue only to pick the jury, then bring the jury and alternates back to Orlando, keep jury in hotel there and just do the trial.

 

[ThoughtElf]

Maybe. Or the judge could have them all go to the new venue only to pick the jury, then bring the jury and alternates back to Orlando, keep jury in hotel there and just do the trial.

I hadn't even thought of that alternative option. Thanks.

 

[JWG]

I am pulling this over from the Diary thread to see if one of our legal experts can weigh in.

We would need one of the attorneys to weigh in on this, but it was my belief that because diaries / journals / books were not included in the search warrant, it could not be seized. The search warrant was very specific. However, LE can and did photograph it for reference. Thus if a future need for a search warrant came up they could potentially ask the court's permission to seize it.

Releasing the photo in discovery was a smart move, IMHO. It sent a clear message to the Anthony's and the defense that LE knew of its existence. If it then disappeared it would look very, very bad for KC's defense and any testimony the Anthony's gave that tried to protect KC. It would be just one more cover-up to add to the pile. Conway took the diary into possession to protect his clients from themselves.

Now, Brad was playing fast and loose with the facts last night, claiming the prosecution was leaking discovery (it was actually being released under Florida Law), and his comments regarding the heart sticker and duct tape danced poorly around the findings. So I think we can broadly interpret what he meant by showing the state's attoney office the diary and them not wanting it because it is not evidence.

Given that he offered it up for forensic testing on national TV, perhaps they will take him up on that offer? :waitasec:

 

[Marina2]

I am pulling this over from the Diary thread to see if one of our legal experts can weigh in.

We would need one of the attorneys to weigh in on this, but it was my belief that because diaries / journals / books were not included in the search warrant, it could not be seized. The search warrant was very specific. However, LE can and did photograph it for reference. Thus if a future need for a search warrant came up they could potentially ask the court's permission to seize it.

Releasing the photo in discovery was a smart move, IMHO. It sent a clear message to the Anthony's and the defense that LE knew of its existence. If it then disappeared it would look very, very bad for KC's defense and any testimony the Anthony's gave that tried to protect KC. It would be just one more cover-up to add to the pile. Conway took the diary into possession to protect his clients from themselves.

Now, Brad was playing fast and loose with the facts last night, claiming the prosecution was leaking discovery (it was actually being released under Florida Law), and his comments regarding the heart sticker and duct tape danced poorly around the findings. So I think we can broadly interpret what he meant by showing the state's attoney office the diary and them not wanting it because it is not evidence.

Given that he offered it up for forensic testing on national TV, perhaps they will take him up on that offer? :waitasec:

Though I'm not an attorney I do know that if the item is contraband or evidence of a crime they can lawfully seize it even if it's not listed.

I'd like to add the following questions to your question to an attorney.

The fact that they didn't take it may answer the question of what the diary contained, i.e. missing pages, what the dates were, etc. Did they leave it behind because it wasn't clear evidence of a crime? Does the item have to obviously be evidence of a crime, e.g. a marijuana cigarette in the ashtray, or can they take it on a suspicion that it's evidence of a crime?

 

[AZlawyer]

Though I'm not an attorney I do know that if the item is contraband or evidence of a crime they can lawfully seize it even if it's not listed.

I'd like to add the following questions to your question to an attorney.

The fact that they didn't take it may answer the question of what the diary contained, i.e. missing pages, what the dates were, etc. Did they leave it behind because it wasn't clear evidence of a crime? Does the item have to obviously be evidence of a crime, e.g. a marijuana cigarette in the ashtray, or can they take it on a suspicion that it's evidence of a crime?

Somewhere in between those two options. The standard is "reasonably likely to be evidence of a crime" or something like that.

 

[zoey]

This is a follow-up to a question posed in another thread (that was closed for some reason) about the Florida statute on qualified lawyers in a death penalty case. I read the statute again and it does answer a question people had. It specifically states that "immediately" upon being retained in a DP case, a lawyer "shall" (that means it is required, not optional) file a notice of appearance setting out his or her qualifications that comply with the requirements. So, by now, given that the change to seek the DP was made some time ago, there should be filings on the record. I imagine any of the lawyers who qualify as lead counsel will have so indicated.

I to am curious as to how long they have to produce the lawyer........I'm thinking that they needed it like yesterday....:waitasec:

 

[AZlawyer]

I to am curious as to how long they have to produce the lawyer........I'm thinking that they needed it like yesterday....:waitasec:

There are lots of times as a lawyer when you have "deadlines" but there is no real consequence for missing them, as long as everything is worked out in plenty of time for trial. On the other hand, even assuming JB manages to get someone on board in time to satisfy the court, KC might later claim "ineffective assistance of counsel" because he skipped merrily along screwing up her case before then. If I were the judge, I would bend over backward to satisfy any requests of the new DP qualified attorney, even if it turns back the clock on trial prep, to make sure that doesn't happen.

 

[white_envelope]

I to am curious as to how long they have to produce the lawyer........I'm thinking that they needed it like yesterday....:waitasec:

Hmm...good question! IS there a date by which they have to secure a qualified attorney before the courts step in? In which case the defense will probably hold off to the last possible second so they have reason to prolong this mess as long as they possibly can.

Oops! AZLawyer posted the same time I did....thanks!

 

[cecybeans]

Good grief - by the time this gets to trial (if BC's Feb 2010 is a benchmark) - KC will have spent nearly half of little Caylee's life lounging in an Orange County cell stuffing her face with commissary treats and slathering herself with cocoa butter.

Since JB dragged his feet and decided not to petition for a speedy trial, and the taxpayers are footing the bill for his delay - couldn't they get a little something out of her work-wise while she basically gets to lie about and repeat what she did at home, sans texting and social networking? I've heard it costs on average at least $40K annually to house inmates in general population; I'm sure all of her protective seclusion and attendant security measures cost even more.

 

[akashana]

Just what - in legal terms - does "hostile witness" mean? Does it help or hurt the state to declare witnesses his way? Does it aid the defense in any way? What are the reasons for making that designation?

Legal eagles, where y'at? :chicken: