Procedure and legal questions

[NocturnalLady]

If I were the SA, I would be hoping that CA and GA would display the same behavior in front of the judge and jury that they displayed in the deposition. In fact, I would be looking for any hook possible to play those depo tapes to the jury.

If the A's say anything other than what they said on the depo tapes then the tapes can come in right? Because it's sworn testimony and if they give differing testimony at the trial then the state can bring the depo tapes in to impeach them - yes?

 

[Themis]

Have I told you lately?---> :nluv:

Thank You so much for being with us wid all your smarts.:blowkiss:

Awww. :blowkiss: You're what it is all about, MAMABEAR. Rock solid common sense. :blowkiss:

 

[Themis]

If the A's say anything other than what they said on the depo tapes then the tapes can come in right? Because it's sworn testimony and if they give differing testimony at the trial then the state can bring the depo tapes in to impeach them - yes?

Yes.

A depo is given under oath. That makes it a "prior sworn statement." A prior sworn statement can be used to impeach a witness (show they are lying about something or just not credible -- not worthy of belief -- in general).

 

[akashana]

At this point it almost goes without saying that th e As are not credible witnesses, especially Cindy. I still believe that George will be broken on the stand, if indeed it gets that far. Cindy will go to her grave not acknowledging that KC killed Caylee. Perhaps it's his LE past, but I think that George wants to come forward with th truth, mybe even subconsciously. I think having to live with the great lie for so long was a huge factor in his suicide drama. Family lies take a terrible toll on the family as a whole and its individual members.

"You are only as sick as your secrets."

 

[MADJGNLAW]

From LA transcript PG 67: http://www.wftv.com/download/2008/0923/17540065.pdf

Lee claims that Baez asked Cindy for some receipts and Cindy gave them to Baez. (What I don't understand is why Cindy would hold back from giving LE receipts, but yet she gives some to Baez. Is that not withholding evidence?
Is that ethical of Baez to take receipts from Cindy and not share them with the SA office? They could prove a lot about where Casey was and items bought. Wouldn't that be tampering with evidence as well?)

Please and Thank You!:blowkiss:

 

[nephers]

From LA transcript PG 67: http://www.wftv.com/download/2008/0923/17540065.pdf

Lee claims that Baez asked Cindy for some receipts and Cindy gave them to Baez. (What I don't understand is why Cindy would hold back from giving LE receipts, but yet she gives some to Baez. Is that not withholding evidence?
Is that ethical of Baez to take receipts from Cindy and not share them with the SA office? They could prove a lot about where Casey was and items bought. Wouldn't that be tampering with evidence as well?)

Please and Thank You!:blowkiss:

The defense has the same rules of discovery as the prosecution. If they are going to use it at trial then it has to be turned over. If they don't turn it over and try to introduce it as evidence the judge would not allow it because they didn't follow the rules of discovery. The only way that would be different is if evidence is discovered after the trial has started (ex:if after the trial starts, someone who has been living on the moon for the last year turns on the tv, sees a photo of KC and says "hey, I saw her dump a trash bag in those woods. they could then introduce that if the judge agrees)

 

[nephers]

Does anybody know if Body Farm evidence has been used in any previous trials?

I was just thinking about wheither or not it would be admissable in court and if it hasn't been used before it could be tough to get the judge to allow it.

 

[Chezhire]

Does anybody know if Body Farm evidence has been used in any previous trials?

I was just thinking about wheither or not it would be admissable in court and if it hasn't been used before it could be tough to get the judge to allow it.

Yes, it has. Check out the discussion here: http://askthewhiffguys.com/research/case-studies/forensic-pathology-device-sniffs-out-dead-air/
and here: http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2007/12/body_farm
and UTenn's site here: http://web.utk.edu/~fac/

Also, if you do a search for body + farm, select posts option (not threads) here at WS and you'll get a bunch of posts on the subject. I know we discussed it as early as August in the Caylee Anthony Gen. Discussion threads, starting with #79-81 or so... also here: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=69714&highlight=body+farm+evidence

Moreover, testing with gas spectrometer testing, which is what the air testing done by the Body Farm was, has been admissible for years and years (e.g., arson cases, etc) It's just a newer application of established science.

 

[NocturnalLady]

The defense has the same rules of discovery as the prosecution. If they are going to use it at trial then it has to be turned over. If they don't turn it over and try to introduce it as evidence the judge would not allow it because they didn't follow the rules of discovery. The only way that would be different is if evidence is discovered after the trial has started (ex:if after the trial starts, someone who has been living on the moon for the last year turns on the tv, sees a photo of KC and says "hey, I saw her dump a trash bag in those woods. they could then introduce that if the judge agrees)

I hope I'm not being a big dope here but...how would this work if the evidence in question (the receipts) are something that incriminates Casey? Of course the defense won't be using that at trial. So if the defense has incriminating evidence do they have to turn it over?

 

[ThoughtElf]

Are civil case jurors put through the same in-depth voir dire questions as potential jurors in criminal cases are?

 

[SoCalSleuth]

Are civil case jurors put through the same in-depth voir dire questions as potential jurors in criminal cases are?

Yes, although in a death penalty case there will be additional voir dire on death penalty issues.

 

[Chezhire]

Are civil case jurors put through the same in-depth voir dire questions as potential jurors in criminal cases are?

Depth of voir dire is same, but focus can be entirely different, depending upon the particular attorney's focus...

 

[Seebra]

Along the lines of releasing discovery, I too was wondering if the defense can "throw away" incriminating evidence that they won't be using for trial.

Also, does the defense have to turn over depositions to the state? And if so, are those released under the sunshine law? And if so, how come none of Jose's depositions of witnesses have not been released?

 

[carrie]

Along the lines of releasing discovery, I too was wondering if the defense can "throw away" incriminating evidence that they won't be using for trial.

Also, does the defense have to turn over depositions to the state? And if so, are those released under the sunshine law? And if so, how come none of Jose's depositions of witnesses have not been released?

This questions was just addressed a couple of posts back here:

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3762496&postcount=426"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Procedure and legal questions[/ame]

Hope that helps.

 

[Seebra]

This questions was just addressed a couple of posts back here:

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Procedure and legal questions

Hope that helps.

Actually, I did read that post - but mine was about the sunshine law specifically - we've seen all transcripts that the state released to the defense, because they were released to the media as well.

My question specifically is - does the defense, under the sunshine laws, also have to release the depos and other information to the media, or is this specifically a law for government/LE release and does not require the same procedure from the defense?

Anyone familiar with FL sunshine law know?

 

[carrie]

Actually, I did read that post - but mine was about the sunshine law specifically - we've seen all transcripts that the state released to the defense, because they were released to the media as well.

My question specifically is - does the defense, under the sunshine laws, also have to release the depos and other information to the media, or is this specifically a law for government/LE release and does not require the same procedure from the defense?

Anyone familiar with FL sunshine law know?

Oh gotcha, sorry.

My understanding of the Sunshine Law is that anything released to the defense is available to the media, private citizen, etc. IOW, when it's released to the defense, there are searchable public records created. I thought it worked the other way around as well, but maybe not. I'd like to know the answer to this myself.

Hopefully one of our lawyers will weigh in to confirm or refute this.

 

[trixi491]

Oh gotcha, sorry.

My understanding of the Sunshine Law is that anything released to the defense is available to the media, private citizen, etc. IOW, when it's released to the defense, there are searchable public records created. I thought it worked the other way around as well, but maybe not. I'd like to know the answer to this myself.

Hopefully one of our lawyers will weigh in to confirm or refute this.

Still waiting on that 700 page doc dump released to the defense 16 days ago!!

 

[Seebra]

Still waiting on that 700 page doc dump released to the defense 16 days ago!!

I read somewhere (trying to find the article - if someone beats me to it, thanks!!!) that this 700 page doc dump is actually just copies of previously released information - meaning nothing new - and the defense was peeved that the state kept giving them what they already had.

 

[trixi491]

I read somewhere (trying to find the article - if someone beats me to it, thanks!!!) that this 700 page doc dump is actually just copies of previously released information - meaning nothing new - and the defense was peeved that the state kept giving them what they already had.

I thought that's what they said about the previous dump before 5/5 (that we already have this stuff and never got her autopsy report, etc) and then the SA dropped this off afterwards. A lot of people were speculating whether this had her autopsy reports b/c the defense kept going on interviews and complaining they didn't have it. I remember thinking this d-dump had something juicy b/c ever since it was given to them JB has not said a single word and even dodged the cameras that one time after the depo.

 

[nephers]

I thought that's what they said about the previous dump before 5/5 (that we already have this stuff and never got her autopsy report, etc) and then the SA dropped this off afterwards. A lot of people were speculating whether this had her autopsy reports b/c the defense kept going on interviews and complaining they didn't have it. I remember thinking this d-dump had something juicy b/c ever since it was given to them JB has not said a single word and even dodged the cameras that one time after the depo.

I found the article you were talking about http://www.wftv.com/news/19381929/detail.html It's dated May 6th so it is refering to the May5th doc dump that we havent seen yet.

"Casey's attorneys also got access to more documents. However, all of the information had already gone public.

The documents included copies of the Anthony family's depositions in the Zenaida Gonzalez defamation lawsuit. It also included Orange County dispatch records from when meter reader Roy Kronk discovered Caylee's remains. "