Spoliation Motion Sept 22, 2009 Includes Response

[faefrost]

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 think that challenging LE's refusal to allow the defense onto the unprocessed crime scene is a gift from god for the prosecution. Does anyone else remember who the defense agent sitting outside the crime scene wanting to come in was? Dr. Henry Lee. Challenging LE's decision to not allow the good doctor near the scene means that the SA can call Lee and bring up the Lana Clarkson Murder and the Phil Specter case in front of the judge or jury. Let them know what the Specter judge formally admonished Dr. Lee about, and force sworn testimony from him about the missing evidence. And also call those who witnessed him tampering with a crime scene as rebuttal witnesses. All of this with AL trying this case too. As I said, it would be a gift from god to the SA.

 

[Jolynna]

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'??

BBM

The Supreme Court ruling in the Motion to Dismiss, Arizona vs Youngblood, pretty much is that "s*** happens" to evidence. As long as the state doesn't destroy evidence in "bad faith", the state doesn't have to be responsible for preserving it. Prosecutors across the country took Arizona vs Youngblood as free license to destroy evidence, as needed to win cases, according to a 1-year investigation by the Denver Post.

That is why I think using this case in this motion is creative. Why would KC's defense cite a Supreme Court ruling that gives the state free reign with evidence, as long as the state "means well", in a motion claiming "mishandling of evidence"?

jmo

 

[Dear Prudence]

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.

I don't think JB tried all these motions on his last case defending a client against murder but I am not sure. The trial transcripts were made available but I don't remember looking at the pre-trial motions. From all that I read about that case he was somewhat bumbling and lackadaisical though. The convicted defendent has filed an appeal. There is some really interesting reading on this old thread about this case:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=81831&highlight=Nilton+Diaz

I do think Judge Strickland is doing all he can to keep Baez and team in line by protecting KC's rights as a defendent. For instance his requiring KC to attend all hearings even though JB said she waived that right was a great move.

 

[cecybeans]

Everything that you say I have witnessed as well and it causes me to feel angry that other peeps and establishments are allowing typical "A-type behavior" to go beyond the A's own boundries. The A's appear as if they think/feel that one of theirs should be allowed to get away with murder - of their grandchild for cry'n out loud. I don't get it at all and it causes me to want to see them get the book thrown at them.

Somebody break this spell please in the name of justice!

By the way, do we know the exact reason why the death penalty was authorized again? Or is that held back until the trial? It was before the body was even found iirc, right?

IIRC, the DP was taken off the table some time in November, after Lenamon put together his little packet to the judge about "if Caylee died, it was likely an accidental overdose" and some very unscientific stuff about possible PPD and comparing KC to other young mommy killers, and including cutesy childhood photos of KC to prove she had actually been a child herself at one point. The body was found Dec 11, and I believe the DP was put back on the table in mid-April of this year, though the SA did not say exactly why, which has, of course, been fodder for much speculation here and other forums.

 

[HRCODEPINK]

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

BBM

I was wondering the same thing. And yes, in my years of volunteering on IP cases it was a big thorn in our side. I am utterly confused as to why they even bothered, but would be lying if I didn't say that I was a tiny bit impressed that JB decided to cite anything at all for a change. Poor guy. Maybe it's just that he is still learning. Not that we have him citing cases, we just have to get him citing the right ones. :banghead:

 

[doogiesgirl]

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

Very interesting.

I sometimes wish I was smart enough to get a law degree as I imagine I would want to work for an innocence project. So many innocent people in prison due to "lost" evidence or corrupt officials.

No chance of that for KC. I will not lose one wink of sleep when she is convicted as we all know she is guilty and it will be proven in a court of law. MOO

 

[sleutherontheside]

I wonder what thoughts would race through JB's mind if one of his ridiculous motions was actually granted. Would he prepare for that "when pigs fly" moment by writing a "soundbite" in advance to give to the press after the hearing? Would it be safely tucked away in a coat pocket nestled next to a special reserve piece of red licorice?? Actors nominated for an academy award often prepare a speech "just in case". Is JB secretly prepared as well? For his soundbite, NOT his case. We all know the answer to that question.
Just a thought and all sarcasm is intended.

 

[Spangle]

Very interesting.

I sometimes wish I was smart enough to get a law degree as I imagine I would want to work for an innocence project. So many innocent people in prison due to "lost" evidence or corrupt officials.

No chance of that for KC. I will not lose one wink of sleep when she is convicted as we all know she is guilty and it will be proven in a court of law. MOO

That is why the OJ really is important. It was a national, televised event, to were we can now ALL talk about, and relate to.

The SA lost that case, because of how the crime scene was handled, the evidence was handled, etc.

I'm sure there was some that felt he was guilty, but using the evidence presented, could not convict him. It was a real shake up in the CSI, Labs, and even finally got the local LE's attention.

I hate to sound rude, but in order for the LE to deal with the public, they develop a cocky, persona. In some places, they 'ruled.' No amount of telling them to stay out of the crime scene, that they are contaimating iet, etc.. by 'geek' teckies was going to stop them from doing what they have always done. They had no reason to listen to them.

The labs are just like any other work places. Nothing is going to change, unless forced to do so.

The OJ trial did that. Labs had to lots of chagnes. And even tiny, backwater towns started to realize that you don't just go marching through a crime scene.

The Junk science whine, I don't think will work. Now days folks expect the CSI to have super powers. 20 years ago, the detectives on tv solved the case without a drop of science. The detectives on tv solve it with tons of science.

They also know what quality of improvement is. That a lab will make mistakes, but learn from said mistakes and try to come up with ways not to make mistakes. A permanent, on going process that happens now days, in most workplaces.

The same 'junk science' that is releasing innocent persons from jail, is also sending guilty to jail. Jurys are more sure today, that the perp IS the guilty person.

 

[nyvictoria]

That is why the OJ really is important. It was a national, televised event, to were we can now ALL talk about, and relate to.

The SA lost that case, because of how the crime scene was handled, the evidence was handled, etc.

I'm sure there was some that felt he was guilty, but using the evidence presented, could not convict him. It was a real shake up in the CSI, Labs, and even finally got the local LE's attention.

I hate to sound rude, but in order for the LE to deal with the public, they develop a cocky, persona. In some places, they 'ruled.' No amount of telling them to stay out of the crime scene, that they are contaimating iet, etc.. by 'geek' teckies was going to stop them from doing what they have always done. They had no reason to listen to them.

The labs are just like any other work places. Nothing is going to change, unless forced to do so.

The OJ trial did that. Labs had to lots of chagnes. And even tiny, backwater towns started to realize that you don't just go marching through a crime scene.

The Junk science whine, I don't think will work. Now days folks expect the CSI to have super powers. 20 years ago, the detectives on tv solved the case without a drop of science. The detectives on tv solve it with tons of science.

They also know what quality of improvement is. That a lab will make mistakes, but learn from said mistakes and try to come up with ways not to make mistakes. A permanent, on going process that happens now days, in most workplaces.

The same 'junk science' that is releasing innocent persons from jail, is also sending guilty to jail. Jurys are more sure today, that the perp IS the guilty person.

my bold

I believe this is called the "CSI effect" (affect? never know which is correct ) With CSI and similar shows becoming more and more popular, the public is led to believe there is always some evidence left by the perp linking him or her directly to the crime scene...dna, fingerprints, hair, fibers, etc.

I agree the jury won't buy the "junk science" theory but I hope they can come to a guilty verdict without fingerprints, dna, etc.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

What concerns me is that the Defense's tone is one of wanting to try the Police/Authoriative system before they can trust the police work prior to bringing the perp to trial. The Defense and the A's allude to a frame up or a let's just charge her for the sake of it (so that LE would not loose face - etc.). Am I interpreting the Defense actions correctly?

Is corruption rampant? I sure hope not. Am I naive?

We all know by now (I never doubted) that OJ is guilty of murdering two people in cold blood. How can anyone consider the fact that he got off a good thing? It is hurtful in every way to the people involved and society as a whole. I can't understand it and the defense lawyers knew he was guilty. That's just wrong.

To me, KC's circumstances are vague, in that, it's possible someone else is involved too. If OJ got off, then why not her? How much more brutal can a crime get than what OJ did? We don't really know yet what KC purportedly did exactly. We think we know but we don't know for sure the circumstances surrounding Caylee's death. The death penalty seems harsh without having all the factual information available to us imo. I'm not comfortable with the disparity that exists across the country.

 

[Balthazar]

What concerns me is that the Defense's tone is one of wanting to try the Police/Authoriative system before they can trust the police work prior to bringing the perp to trial. The Defense and the A's allude to a frame up or a let's just charge her for the sake of it (so that LE would not loose face - etc.). Am I interpreting the Defense actions correctly?

Is corruption rampant? I sure hope not. Am I naive?

We all know by now (I never doubted) that OJ is guilty of murdering two people in cold blood. How can anyone consider the fact that he got off a good thing? It is hurtful in every way to the people involved and society as a whole. I can't understand it and the defense lawyers knew he was guilty. That's just wrong.

To me, KC's circumstances are vague, in that, it's possible someone else is involved too. If OJ got off, then why not her? How much more brutal can a crime get than what OJ did? We don't really know yet what KC purportedly did exactly. We think we know but we don't know for sure the circumstances surrounding Caylee's death. The death penalty seems harsh without having all the factual information available to us imo. I'm not comfortable with the disparity that exists across the country.

Woe.be.Gone: You and I are recognizing the same tone in the defenses statements and motions.

In this particular area of Florida, this case and the way the defense is handling it, is, IMO, harkening to the Sabrina Aisenberg case which happened in Tampa. Tampa is so close to Orlando that the two cities are nearly joined by urban sprawl. This link from the St. Pete Times will tell you a great deal about the Aisenberg case which did include police corruption, manufactured evidence and prosecutorial misconduct. That case, in particular, has made people who live in the area very sensitized about these issues.

http://www.sptimes.com/News2/Sabrina/default.shtml


The suggestion of corruption will, IMO, play well to those in the potential jury pool in the area who are already mistrustful of LE after the Aisenberg case.

 

[TotallyObsessed]

my bold

I believe this is called the "CSI effect" (affect? never know which is correct ) With CSI and similar shows becoming more and more popular, the public is led to believe there is always some evidence left by the perp linking him or her directly to the crime scene...dna, fingerprints, hair, fibers, etc.

I agree the jury won't buy the "junk science" theory but I hope they can come to a guilty verdict without fingerprints, dna, etc.

The prosecution really needs to spend some money on making one heck of a "CSI" type graphic to explain most of the "junk science" stuff - something that the jurors can relate to via CSI TV Land. Heck, they could even plan some funky music and the jurors would eat it up! I'm being halfway serious - that is what jurors have come to expect thanks to television.

 

[TotallyObsessed]

Woe.be.Gone: You and I are recognizing the same tone in the defenses statements and motions.

In this particular area of Florida, this case and the way the defense is handling it, is, IMO, harkening to the Sabrina Aisenberg case which happened in Tampa. Tampa is so close to Orlando that the two cities are nearly joined by urban sprawl. This link from the St. Pete Times will tell you a great deal about the Aisenberg case which did include police corruption, manufactured evidence and prosecutorial misconduct. That case, in particular, has made people who live in the area very sensitized about these issues.

http://www.sptimes.com/News2/Sabrina/default.shtml


The suggestion of corruption will, IMO, play well to those in the potential jury pool in the area who are already mistrustful of LE after the Aisenberg case.

I apologize for being OT here - bur re the Aisenberg case (which was way before my obsession with crime cases and before WS!!)...were the secret recordings of the conversations between the husband and wife wherein he supposedly confessed, ever brought into evidence? I mean...if you have a confession....come on

 

[Spangle]

orlando sentinel

Prosecutors want Casey Anthony's defense team to prove how the state prevented them and their experts from properly inspecting the scene where her daughter's remains were found, according to records filed in court today.

Assistant state attorney Jeff Ashton wrote a five-page response to the defense's request last week to dismiss the case because of issues with access to the crime scene. The defense claims its experts couldn't examine the area and the evidence and wouldn't be able to challenge the state's findings.

 

[whiteangora]

Woe.be.Gone: You and I are recognizing the same tone in the defenses statements and motions.

In this particular area of Florida, this case and the way the defense is handling it, is, IMO, harkening to the Sabrina Aisenberg case which happened in Tampa. Tampa is so close to Orlando that the two cities are nearly joined by urban sprawl. This link from the St. Pete Times will tell you a great deal about the Aisenberg case which did include police corruption, manufactured evidence and prosecutorial misconduct. That case, in particular, has made people who live in the area very sensitized about these issues.

http://www.sptimes.com/News2/Sabrina/default.shtml


The suggestion of corruption will, IMO, play well to those in the potential jury pool in the area who are already mistrustful of LE after the Aisenberg case.

bbm

Oh Please! If the potential jury pool is mistrustful of LE, how do you think they feel about Casey Anthony? A woman who has not given one shred of information to anyone that was factual.

 

[Spangle]

my bold

I believe this is called the "CSI effect" (affect? never know which is correct ) With CSI and similar shows becoming more and more popular, the public is led to believe there is always some evidence left by the perp linking him or her directly to the crime scene...dna, fingerprints, hair, fibers, etc.

I agree the jury won't buy the "junk science" theory but I hope they can come to a guilty verdict without fingerprints, dna, etc.

I think they will realize that the 31 day wait period played a big factor in the lack of much evidence.

 

[Spangle]

What concerns me is that the Defense's tone is one of wanting to try the Police/Authoriative system before they can trust the police work prior to bringing the perp to trial. The Defense and the A's allude to a frame up or a let's just charge her for the sake of it (so that LE would not loose face - etc.). Am I interpreting the Defense actions correctly?

Is corruption rampant? I sure hope not. Am I naive?

We all know by now (I never doubted) that OJ is guilty of murdering two people in cold blood. How can anyone consider the fact that he got off a good thing? It is hurtful in every way to the people involved and society as a whole. I can't understand it and the defense lawyers knew he was guilty. That's just wrong.

To me, KC's circumstances are vague, in that, it's possible someone else is involved too. If OJ got off, then why not her? How much more brutal can a crime get than what OJ did? We don't really know yet what KC purportedly did exactly. We think we know but we don't know for sure the circumstances surrounding Caylee's death. The death penalty seems harsh without having all the factual information available to us imo. I'm not comfortable with the disparity that exists across the country.

Nice slap.

But I stand by my observations. It has been very helpful in cleaning up a very corrupt system. Plenty have people have been sent up, that the LE and or the SA knew was innocent. Some situations was racially motivated. Some where just to put a notch on a DA's belt. Personal motivations, political motivations, etc. It was there.

 

[Spangle]

I apologize for being OT here - bur re the Aisenberg case (which was way before by obsession with crime cases and before WS!!)...were the secret recordings of the conversations between the husband and wife wherein he supposedly confessed, ever brought into evidence? I mean...if you have a confession....come on

I"ve lived in the so called 'spraw' area for well over a decade. I've not heard of the case. Nor does the case effect my thoughts on this case.

 

[lin]

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

Glad you came back to us! And thanks for looking up the case. That's something I've noticed with the defense all along; when they bother to cite a case, it generally doesn't stand for what they seem to think it does. That's been a regular feature of their pleadings along with supporting docs that don't support the allegations made in the pleadings, imo. For example, in one of the recent pleadings the defense alleged that the state tried to "trick" KC into having a private meeting with GA and the FBI. They attached a portion of a transcript that doesn't say anything like that to my reading. Remember that?

You say "creative" I say "sophomoric"

 

[lin]

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, 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 prosecutors 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 that Youngblood couldn't prove Arizona failed to refrigerate biological evidence for malicious (or in "bad faith") reasons still stands.

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

You would have read the entire case and at least some of the cases that followed that cited Youngblood to have a full understanding. They didn't. It's like them citing over and over again that "dp cases are different" as if anyone is disputing it. What you're "not getting" imo is the sloppy research habits of whomever drafted this mess because they're so unlike your own.