This is a waste of time trying to explain this, but I'm going to try one more time -
First, read the motion.
Second, I did not claim that the prosecution is making a motion to withhold evidence, in fact, I said just the opposite.
Third, what this motion is doing in effect, is placing undue restrictions and a burden on the defense to prepare a proper defense for their client. In the real world, both defense and prosecution send reports and copies of reports to agencies to seek expert opinion. This happens every single day of the week. Evidence in this case was sent to various outside entities to seek expert opinion. This evidence is still being evaluated by outside entities and reports written. By restricting the right of the defense in any way in seeking expert advice, reports or evaluation is to set a precedent that the state is entitled to dictate to the defense who he can call as a witness, who he can claim is an expert witness and how he can disseminate that information to those expert witnesses. Now I'm not making this up, this is a constitutional matter which has established a body of rulings establishing this right. The confrontation clause of the 6th amd. has been interpreted broadly by the USSC to include physical evidence and the right of the defendant to a zealous defense.
Fourth, this isn't anything remotely like protecting the identity of the victim as they do in sex abuse cases and/or *advertiser censored*. The victim's identity is known. The release of the photos to the public may be distasteful, but it doesn't meet the exception rule of protection of the victim's identity.
Fifth, the burden is placed inordinately on the defense to protect the restrictions on this evidence - it could be just as easily passed from the prosecution to the press or others by their dissemination of evidence and information. The defense has no ability to protect this evidence when it is in the possession of others, including prosecution witnesses.
Sixth, there is zero evidence to support the claim by the prosecution that any photos were sold by the defense or anyone else for that matter. There has to be some basis for making an extraodinary motion to prevent something that may happen in the future without providing evidence that it happened in the past and will happen in the future. The prosecutor may suspect that it has been done, but the state needs more than suspicion with which to establish a precedent in the restriction of evidence or placing undue burdens and responsiblities on the defense which they themselves do not share.
Now I know that you hate KC, you hate Jose Baez, you hate the As, you hate the P.I. or anyone else for that matter who happens to be connected in any way, shape or form with the defense, but this is the reality of our system - we are ALL entitled to the best defense and in the centuries of common law, constitutional and legislative law we are all entitled to the same zealous defense on behalf of the client that the defendant would do for himself. This has been our common law since the Greek states and the days of the Roman empire. If one person's rights are abridged, that means that a precedent has been set that allows the state to abridge ALL our rights. This is the true reality of the law.
