Lin, stating that caylee disappeared ini 2007 isn't an opinion. It is mistating a fact and if the poster is corrected by another that should be sufficient. if 20 people correct that person it gets a little bullying in nature and pretty much unecessary. If the poster corrects themself it is all good.Oh the tangled web we weave when all we're trying to do is set some simple guidelines, huh? Just want to make sure I understand -- claiming 'opinion' isn't an absolute reason to not report, correct? Like if I keep insisting 'imo Caylee disappeared in 2007' others should correct the date, providing whatever documentation they can to me and if I keep repeating this, though couched as my opinion, it should be reported to the moderators so it isn't carried forward as fact by someone else, correct?
I haven't had a chance to read the last thread so this has probably been mentioned but if KC gets her charges dismissed because her lawyers and their experts didn't get to physically examine every aspect of the crime scene, while the investigators did...wouldn't almost every murderer in jail today be eligible to have their sentences reversed??
Geragos didn't get to examine the crime scene or remains.I can't think of a single defense team that has.
First they have to find a rabbit... then they have to catch it... then they have to get it into the hat in order to be able to pull it out. I'm not seeing any indication they even know what a rabbit is; or even a hat for that matter!
That's the reason I found this motion to be downright offensive. It makes no sense. I know the defense must be zealous, but this is just pulling stuff out of nowhere and essentially trying to circumvent the system. It's really disturbing that this kind of thing goes on.
I wonder how Judge Strickland reacts in private to JB's Motions; especially this one. Does he laugh, cry, or both?
I have the utmost respect for Judge Strickland. He conducts himself professionally while dealing with JB. I know I couldn't do it!
Lin, thanks for giving this another chance. It almost begs for a poll (although there could be a lot of multiple choice answers)...
I also just wanted to add OT to JBean's great parameters for quoting, etc. that we should all remember that, due to circumstances beyond our control sometimes - some posters end up being "drive-by" types who post and then have to leave the forum for awhile to put out other fires. I am certainly one very guilty of that. I am always popping in and out - not only due to my WS-ADD, but to the darned outside world! I apologize if I have left anyone hanging, forgotten to retrieve information or left a question anyone asked unanswered, and have appreciated the patience I've seen here for that.
I think the cases cited as the basis for the Motion to Dismiss are interesting.
In Arizona vs Youngblood, a 1988 case, the U.S. Supreme court reversed the Arizona court and sent Youngblood back to jail because Arizona officials hadn't purposefully (in bad faith) not refrigerated biological evidence. In Giglio vs U.S., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1972 that all potentially impeaching evidence about prosecution witnesses must be turned over to defense lawyers before a trial.
Youngblood: http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/303.php; http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:VU9nggZ7PdcJ:www.denverpost.com/evidence/ci_6429277+%22Arizona+vs+Youngblood%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Giglio vs U.S.: http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache...rug+"giglio+vs+U.S."&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
My understanding from reading about Youngblood is that Arizona vs Youngblood was a landmark case that took away a defendant's constitutional rights by opening doors for prosecutors to deliberately destroy biological evidence because "bad faith" is next to impossible to prove. The Denver Post did a year long investigation about prosecutors across the U.S. getting rid of exculpatory DNA, post-Youngblood. http://www.jjay.cuny.edu/cmcj/pdfs/denverpost.pdf
AL & Baez are using an antiquated pre-DNA ruling based upon the definition of "bad faith" as the foundation of their argument. The premise is that the prosecutors have breeched any definition of "bad faith" and committed misconduct on the level of the huge level of bribing etc. that went on in Giglio.
It's creative.
IMO
Thanks for taking the time to look this up Jolynna. BBM - I wonder if this is the work of Andrea's students? Taking the time to look up any remote possibility....
I think AL's students worked on it. But, I think AL is very familiar with Arizona vs Youngblood. According to the Denver Post articles and some articles from the LA Times I didn't link, Arizona vs Youngblood is a thorn in the Innocence Project's side.
I think it is interesting that a ruling which gives a great deal of power to the government is being cited by a defendant. The U.S. Supreme Court sided with the state and sent Youngblood back to jail. That DNA later showed Youngblood was innocent and that he was wrongfully locked up for more years because of the ruling is beside the point. The ruling was that Youngblood couldn't prove Arizona failed to refrigerate biological evidence for malicious (or in "bad faith") reasons.
I'm trying to twist my brain around to how it could be interpreted favorably for KC. It seems like Arizona vs Youngblood gives prosecutors free rein.
What am I not getting?????
jmo
I think the cases cited as the basis for the Motion to Dismiss are interesting.
In Arizona vs Youngblood, a 1988 case, the U.S. Supreme court reversed the Arizona court and sent Youngblood back to jail because Arizona officials hadn't purposefully (in bad faith) not refrigerated biological evidence. In Giglio vs U.S., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1972 that all potentially impeaching evidence about prosecution witnesses must be turned over to defense lawyers before a trial.
Youngblood: http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/303.php; http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:VU9nggZ7PdcJ:www.denverpost.com/evidence/ci_6429277+%22Arizona+vs+Youngblood%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Giglio vs U.S.: http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache...rug+"giglio+vs+U.S."&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
My understanding from reading about Youngblood is that Arizona vs Youngblood was a landmark case that took away a defendant's constitutional rights by opening doors for prosecutors to deliberately destroy biological evidence because "bad faith" is next to impossible to prove. The Denver Post did a year long investigation about prosecutors across the U.S. getting rid of exculpatory DNA, post-Youngblood. http://www.jjay.cuny.edu/cmcj/pdfs/denverpost.pdf
AL & Baez are using an antiquated pre-DNA ruling based upon the definition of "bad faith" as the foundation of their argument. The premise is that the prosecutors have breeched any definition of "bad faith" and committed misconduct on the level of the huge level of bribing etc. that went on in Giglio.
It's creative.
IMO
I don't see how it's creative though because they're not basing it on anything. They're claiming that because they didn't get some unheard of privilege of investigating the active crime scene that there was wrongdoing. Also they don't offer anything to point to what the crime scene people/ law enforcement did wrong. It was just a by the book investigation as far as anyone can tell...they took pictures, thoroughly combed the area to find her remains...what is their problem with that? Do you really just get to file motions for the sake of filing them? If so, what needs to happen to change this?
Another point... just thinking out loud here - not directed toward anyone...but why is this case so rife with the expectation of special privileges? I seriously do not understand it. Defense wants to investigate (active) crime scene, Anthony family wants special privileges at the jail (no taping, no chain around stomach, etc), Anthonys want to decide what is and is not relevant at the ZFG deposition and want sunshine laws to be ignored and restrict autopsy information, trying to control/threaten media and law enforcement, Baez at the jail with letters, laptop, the wristband contraband, etc etc etc.
This is a tragic case, and an unusual one, but the rules have to be the same for everyone - where are they getting the presence of mind to think they should be so 'special'??
I don't see how it's creative though because they're not basing it on anything. They're claiming that because they didn't get some unheard of privilege of investigating the active crime scene that there was wrongdoing. Also they don't offer anything to point to what the crime scene people/ law enforcement did wrong. It was just a by the book investigation as far as anyone can tell...they took pictures, thoroughly combed the area to find her remains...what is their problem with that? Do you really just get to file motions for the sake of filing them? If so, what needs to happen to change this?
Another point... just thinking out loud here - not directed toward anyone...but why is this case so rife with the expectation of special privileges? I seriously do not understand it. Defense wants to investigate (active) crime scene, Anthony family wants special privileges at the jail (no taping, no chain around stomach, etc), Anthonys want to decide what is and is not relevant at the ZFG deposition and want sunshine laws to be ignored and restrict autopsy information, trying to control/threaten media and law enforcement, Baez at the jail with letters, laptop, the wristband contraband, etc etc etc.
This is a tragic case, and an unusual one, but the rules have to be the same for everyone - where are they getting the presence of mind to think they should be so 'special'??
Another point... just thinking out loud here - not directed toward anyone...but why is this case so rife with the expectation of special privileges? I seriously do not understand it. Defense wants to investigate (active) crime scene, Anthony family wants special privileges at the jail (no taping, no chain around stomach, etc), Anthonys want to decide what is and is not relevant at the ZFG deposition and want sunshine laws to be ignored and restrict autopsy information, trying to control/threaten media and law enforcement, Baez at the jail with letters, laptop, the wristband contraband, etc etc etc.
This is a tragic case, and an unusual one, but the rules have to be the same for everyone - where are they getting the presence of mind to think they should be so 'special'??
You bring up an excellent question and perhaps it needs a thread all by itself! I agree with you that the A's and the defense team are of the opinion that they are special, maybe even 'above the law'. Does anyone know if JB tried all these same moves at his last murder trial? I think we all agree that KC feels she is above the law, and rule don't apply to her at all. It seems that this is a 'family trait'!
What really makes me scratch my head is the defense trying to get the charges dismissed because they were not allowed to 'inspect the scene' prior to LE finishing their investigation. Wasn't this shot down at an emergency hearing? Did they not pay attention that day?
Their sheer audacity just takes my breath away. I can only hope that Judge Strickland will 'hand them their heads' at the motions hearing and that at some point, down the road, the State will take Anthonys to task over their behavior. the longer they get away with it, the worse they will get.