Procedure and legal questions

[AZlawyer]

If the state is holding information because the investigation into the evidence they have is ongoing..such as waiting for results, followup statements, or continuing to have leads come in on such evidence, doesn't this excuse them from turning it over to the defense? Wouldn't their work have to be completed first?

As far as I can tell from the disclosure rules and manual for LE that I linked to earlier in this thread, they would have to turn over certain categories of documents--including statements of witnesses, expert reports, and documents intended to be used at trial--whether or not they were still investigating.

 

[AZlawyer]

They can't hold onto documents which they have just because their investigation is ongoing or they want a supplemental statement. If they have a forensic report in they have to turn it over. If they have a statement from someone on their witness list they have to turn it over. They do not have to turn anything over that is not yet completed or hasn't been put in written form. For instance, if they took notes of their interview with Annie they don't have to turn those over. If they wrote those notes up into a report then they have to turn it over.

Good point--could they purposely have interviewed Annie without making any recording, and kept only "raw" notes, so that there would be nothing to turn over?

JB could still depose her (and actually I think someone said earlier that he did).

 

[SoCalSleuth]

Good point--could they purposely have interviewed Annie without making any recording, and kept only "raw" notes, so that there would be nothing to turn over?

JB could still depose her (and actually I think someone said earlier that he did).

My guess is that they did not write a report of their interview with her.

 

[mydailyopinions]

They can't hold onto documents which they have just because their investigation is ongoing or they want a supplemental statement. If they have a forensic report in they have to turn it over. If they have a statement from someone on their witness list they have to turn it over. They do not have to turn anything over that is not yet completed or hasn't been put in written form. For instance, if they took notes of their interview with Annie they don't have to turn those over. If they wrote those notes up into a report then they have to turn it over.

Thank you!

 

[Mamabear1963]

I have a question about the motions flying right now...

Specifically JB wanting the prosecutors removed from the case...

Is this really a normal volley in our court system?



IMO, Judge Strickland must feel like he is running a kindergarten.

 

[AZlawyer]

I have a question about the motions flying right now...

Specifically JB wanting the prosecutors removed from the case...

Is this really a normal volley in our court system?



IMO, Judge Strickland must feel like he is running a kindergarten.

IMHO it is not only abnormal but silly. :crazy:

 

[Mamabear1963]

Thanks!

 

[SCSam]

Snipped and bold by me~

Caca.....funny!
Since the majority of work coming out of JB's office is caca, will this alone be grounds for appeal after all is said and done?

Sorta OT but why in Heaven's name would any recognized institution of higher education want JB to teach anything except how NOT to do something?? Does anyone know what he was hired to teach, when he starts and how he will managed to do that in the midst of (how did he describe it) the biggest case ever handled by an Hispanic attorney in Florida?

 

[SoCalSleuth]

Sorta OT but why in Heaven's name would any recognized institution of higher education want JB to teach anything except how NOT to do something?? Does anyone know what he was hired to teach, when he starts and how he will managed to do that in the midst of (how did he describe it) the biggest case ever handled by an Hispanic attorney in Florida?

Are you sitting down???? Pretrial Procedure--yep, the very thing he is apparently inept at.

 

[mydailyopinions]

Lets say the man on TV was right when he slipped and said that Caylee was dismembered. Although I don't even want to go there, how horrible that is, I am curious.
If this was to be true, would we know before trial or is this something that would not be made public before hand?
If it is true, would the SA put the death penalty back on the table in order for Casey to plea for a LWOP sentence, just to keep this information from getting out?

 

[Kathy1964]

They can't hold onto documents which they have just because their investigation is ongoing or they want a supplemental statement. If they have a forensic report in they have to turn it over. If they have a statement from someone on their witness list they have to turn it over. They do not have to turn anything over that is not yet completed or hasn't been put in written form. For instance, if they took notes of their interview with Annie they don't have to turn those over. If they wrote those notes up into a report then they have to turn it over.

I wondered why the detectives were told to give JB a copy of the calender where they were keeping a timeline. That seems to me to be more of a work product, like notes, and not a report?

 

[Kathy1964]

Sorta OT but why in Heaven's name would any recognized institution of higher education want JB to teach anything except how NOT to do something?? Does anyone know what he was hired to teach, when he starts and how he will managed to do that in the midst of (how did he describe it) the biggest case ever handled by an Hispanic attorney in Florida?

Are you sitting down???? Pretrial Procedure--yep, the very thing he is apparently inept at.

That's very interesting!! When TV reporter was interviewing a student at that school, the student said that JB was looking for students to help with this case. Maybe they are "helping" by writing all these pre-trial motions that are being filed?

 

[SoCalSleuth]

That's very interesting!! When TV reporter was interviewing a student at that school, the student said that JB was looking for students to help with this case. Maybe they are "helping" by writing all these pre-trial motions that are being filed?

Although a lawyer signed the motion as is required, I would be very surprised if a lawyer wrote it.

 

[SoCalSleuth]

Lets say the man on TV was right when he slipped and said that Caylee was dismembered. Although I don't even want to go there, how horrible that is, I am curious.
If this was to be true, would we know before trial or is this something that would not be made public before hand?
If it is true, would the SA put the death penalty back on the table in order for Casey to plea for a LWOP sentence, just to keep this information from getting out?

I think he may have been referring to Caylee's skull being separated from her spine--I'm not sure that he meant intentionally dismembered. In any event, the facts of the murder are the facts of the murder. SA has to prosecute no matter what happened. They may very well want KC to cop a plea, but it would be because trials are always a crap shoot, the cost to taxpayers, etc., it wouldn't have anything to do with the facts of the murder being disclosed. If anything, they would want the grisly facts to be disclosed because it would put pressure on her to cop a plea, not the other way around.

 

[gitana1]

I am curious what evidence the legal eagles think will come in at trial, and what will not. What possible objections or other obstacles could there be for each piece the proescution wants, such as relevance, more prejudicial than probative, prior bad acts, etc.? I think many people on Websleuths assume that the jury will hear pretty much everything we have heard or know about. They won't, but I wonder what people think they will or won't be able to hear about. Here's some evidence that I am curious about, regarding its potential admissibility:
1. The 7-3-08 myspace message from Cindy
2. casey's police interview
3. The 911 calls from Cindy
4. The recorded jailhouse visitations and calls
5. Cindy's statement to one of casey's friends that casey is a sociopath
6. casey's theft of her mother, grandparents' and friend's monies
7. The crazy icons on casey's facebook pages. I really wonder if the judge will let all of those in. All the hearts, all the narcissistic and prophetic sayings, etc.

Opinions? Who wants to play devil's advocate for the defense? I want opinions on how they will try to keep things out.

 

[BondJamesBond]

If, among the receipts Lee gave to Jose, is found a receipt from CVS or Walgreen's 6/16 for OTC's that would be suitable for sedating Caylee, would Jose be compelled to divulge these receipts to SA?

Since said receipt would certainly be incriminating evidence...for those in practice...how likely is it in your opinion that said receipt would be produced?

...or would it more likely be *cough* lost?

 

[elfie]

Lets say the man on TV was right when he slipped and said that Caylee was dismembered. Although I don't even want to go there, how horrible that is, I am curious.
If this was to be true, would we know before trial or is this something that would not be made public before hand?
If it is true, would the SA put the death penalty back on the table in order for Casey to plea for a LWOP sentence, just to keep this information from getting out?

In this case I've only heard the term disarticulation, which would refer to the natural processes following complete loss of soft tissue. Dr. G 's comment was that there was no visible trauma to the bones (after her examination).

 

[AZlawyer]

I wondered why the detectives were told to give JB a copy of the calender where they were keeping a timeline. That seems to me to be more of a work product, like notes, and not a report?

I think it was because Jesse, not LE, created the calendar (with help from KC's other friends).

 

[Searchfortruth]

I am curious what evidence the legal eagles think will come in at trial, and what will not. What possible objections or other obstacles could there be for each piece the proescution wants, such as relevance, more prejudicial than probative, prior bad acts, etc.? I think many people on Websleuths assume that the jury will hear pretty much everything we have heard or know about. They won't, but I wonder what people think they will or won't be able to hear about. Here's some evidence that I am curious about, regarding its potential admissibility:
1. The 7-3-08 myspace message from Cindy
2. casey's police interview
3. The 911 calls from Cindy
4. The recorded jailhouse visitations and calls
5. Cindy's statement to one of casey's friends that casey is a sociopath
6. casey's theft of her mother, grandparents' and friend's monies
7. The crazy icons on casey's facebook pages. I really wonder if the judge will let all of those in. All the hearts, all the narcissistic and prophetic sayings, etc.

Opinions? Who wants to play devil's advocate for the defense? I want opinions on how they will try to keep things out.

I am no legal expert, but would really like to see some of the knowledgable on this site answer this or give their opinions. I had just assumed, as a non legal professional, that most of this evidence would be admitted. The defense will argue that admission of course. I would guess that Cindy's My Space message would be admitted because it speaks to Caylee's absence in early July ? KC's police interview, I believe, will be admitted. Looking forward to other opinions on this question.

 

[SoCalSleuth]

I am curious what evidence the legal eagles think will come in at trial, and what will not. What possible objections or other obstacles could there be for each piece the proescution wants, such as relevance, more prejudicial than probative, prior bad acts, etc.? I think many people on Websleuths assume that the jury will hear pretty much everything we have heard or know about. They won't, but I wonder what people think they will or won't be able to hear about. Here's some evidence that I am curious about, regarding its potential admissibility:
1. The 7-3-08 myspace message from Cindy
2. casey's police interview
3. The 911 calls from Cindy
4. The recorded jailhouse visitations and calls
5. Cindy's statement to one of casey's friends that casey is a sociopath
6. casey's theft of her mother, grandparents' and friend's monies
7. The crazy icons on casey's facebook pages. I really wonder if the judge will let all of those in. All the hearts, all the narcissistic and prophetic sayings, etc.

Opinions? Who wants to play devil's advocate for the defense? I want opinions on how they will try to keep things out.

A lot of this depends on what the SA's theory of the case is going to be and who is called to testify and what their testimony is. That said, from an evidentiary point of view and assuming relevant to the theory of the case:

#1. Yes. To establish the timeline and to establish KC's state of mind.
#2. Yes. To discredit KC; to establish KC state of mind (lack of remorse and emotion); to establish the bs statements were made; to establish no job;to establish no nanny and hence no kidnapping; to establish consciousness of guilt.
#3. Yes. To establish timeline, to establish smell of decomp in car, to establish CA called to report and not KC; (And to impeach CA's later statements re pizza, if necessary)
#4. I have only seen one awhile back so I can't really comment. But they should be admissible.
#5. Only if Cindy denies having said it while testifying in court.
#6. Yes. To show that she wasn't employed; to show she had no steady income to pay a nanny; possibly to show motive--fight with CA and being kicked out because of the same; to show she's a pathological liar.
#7. I have no idea what icons you are referring to because I haven't seen them. Re the diary of days--yes; re: the anti-death penalty pix-yes.