Andrea Lyon New DP Atty

[LambChop]

Aside from the fact that AL wants a date of June, 2010 for start of trial because she is very busy, but does anyone think that AL is hoping, hoping that the reek from the trunk of the car will be gone by then????

 

[Brini]

rofl -- Folks, she's right! We even have bumper stickers around here warning 'em "We Don't CARE How You Do It Up North!" among many others. Such a much more concise way of describing how/why she doesn't fit in here, other than on a tourist beach.

BTW-- Re, your WONDERFUL dispenser..

I read that some folks on another forum DID send JB some boxes of straws.

 

[Brini]

Given the fact that everything that has been released so far is met with, "Junk Science", no decomp in car, no anything in that trunk, zero, nada, clean as a whisle from the defense, if I were in the SA's office now I would be putting some of that evidence through more tests with other facilities that are known for their integrity and I would think that is what the defense is waiting on. Maybe defense thinks they can push the issue and mistakes would be made by rushing through some of these tests. EX: the reproduction of growth with the plant life found in Caylee's remains was not available overnight. So we just do not know what else the state is still waiting on to come back. JMO

IIRC some of the evidence went through three different labs.

I can't quite remember WHICH evidence.

 

[LambChop]

Lin, I believe what PR was thinking of was a 1/8/09 hearing in which about a dozen discovery motions were considered. One point of contention was a blotter-sized timeline calendar used by the investigating officers during witness interviews. JB had demanded production; the State said, it's too big to copy, but feel free to come on down and look at it and take pictures; JB demanded a copy and filed his motion. I can't remember if the judge decided the State had to figure out a way to copy it, or if he decided that JB had to go take pictures. Either way, the judge did not "slam" either side for this one, IIRC. Neither side's position was patently unreasonable.

With the price tag of this trial estimated at $4m I would think that what the State offered was not unreasonable. It was offered to him, JB just had to do the work. He could have folded the chart in four's and printed each section. They were not telling him he could not have it just that he needed to find a way himself to get the info off the chart, camera, fold it up and try to copy each section, etc. He was permitted to look at the car and take pictures but not take it....can't see much difference. As long as they don't deny him completely, he has no beef.

 

[Balthazar]

Just so I'm understanding this: You reference something that was discussed at some hearing either before or after AL joined the team to illustrate a point that you are making but if I want to see the context of the remarks, I should go back through all of those hearings because there aren't that many. Is that right? rofl

S'ok. I think I'll just wing this one, and assume it happened just as you describe and you didn't misunderstand a thing. Going on your memory, Um, what sanctions did the court level on the prosecution? What did the court order the state to do that they didn't volunteer to do, suggest or otherwise agree to do? What I mean is, if the state stands up and says, Your Honor abcdefg about hijklmnop and then the court turns around and orders abcdefg about hijklmnop then I don't see it as a victory for the defense. Nor do I see gfedcba a victory.

I do see the defense trying to make much hay out of complaints regarding the discovery process in a likely effort to taint the jury pool and it appears to be working because there are a few here that share your concerns.

Contrary to your blanket assertions, the thing is, the defense is NOT entitled to ALL discovery to be provided by the prosecution. There are rules and procedures and has already been ruled repeatedly, not ALL defense requests are REASONABLE. There is NO evidence the state has failed to turn over anything to the defense or they'd be again pleading for every available sanction. Check out the new graphic in my sig line. This is one of the straws they're trying to grasp.

Can you show anything, anything at all, other than the defense whining about it to indicate the prosecution has been lax in any way? Can you show anything other than defense whining to indicate there may be some issue on appeal due to the prosecution following the rules, laws, procedures and in this case, the court's orders regarding discovery?

Can you cite any case that was successfully appealed due to a discovery issue other than the prosecution withholding exonerating info? Are you alleging the prosecution in this case is doing so?

My advice to you and others who share your concern would be to not worry about it unless it comes to something other than a defense whine for the media. Otherwise, their (lack of) strategy is working. And if that's all it takes to poison a jury pool allowing violent offenders to be released to our streets, then God help us all.

During the hearing, the judge ordered the prosecution to get the large format printout to the defense immediately and verbally admonished them that their excuse of not being able to print it out was not acceptable.

Below, is but one of many cases that have been successfully appealed due to the prosecution withholding important discovery from the defense. This one is especially pertinent since it involves someone who was originally given the death penalty for murder, but his conviction was overturned on appeal and on second trial, he was acquitted:

Alan Gell North Carolina Convicted: 1998, Acquitted: 2004
Alan Gell was arrested for a 1995 robbery and murder of a retired truck driver named Allen Ray Jenkins. The two key witnesses presented by prosecutors were Gell's ex-girlfriend and her best friend, who were both teenagers. Both girls, who were at Jenkins' house and pled guilty to involvement in the murder, testified that they saw Gell shoot Jenkins on April 3, 1995. However, prosecutors withheld valuable evidence that might have cleared Gell in the initial trial, including an audio tape of one of the girls saying she had to "make up a story" about the murder. (News and Observer, December 10, 2002) In 2002, a State Superior Court Judge found that the prosecutors withheld evidence "favorable" to Gell, and vacated Gell's conviction. (North Carolina v. Gell, No. 95 CRS 1884, Order (Superior Court of Bertie County, December 16, 2002) (Vacating conviction and granting new trial.) Gell was re-tried in February 2004. The defense team was able to present evidence that Gell was out of state or in jail at the time of Jenkins' murder, which was placed closer to April 14th. This refuted the April 3rd claim by the original prosecutors. Also challenging the state's timetable was a series of statements by as many as 17 witnesses who told investigators that they had seen Jenkins alive between April 7th and April 10th. The most important new evidence was the taped conversation mentioned above, in which the state's key witness referred to making up a story about the murder. Gell was originally convicted in 1998 and spent the next four years on death row until a new trial was ordered. On February 18, 2004, a jury found Gell not guilty on all counts, and he left the court with his family.(News and Observer, February 18, 2004)

 

[Brini]

Aside from the fact that AL wants a date of June, 2010 for start of trial because she is very busy, but does anyone think that AL is hoping, hoping that the reek from the trunk of the car will be gone by then????

.......and hoping that witnesses will move away of forget (which won't work-- the state still has all this circumstantial). And, hoping that public outrage will cool down.

All the defense has is hope!

 

[lin]

During the hearing, the judge ordered the prosecution to get the large format printout to the defense immediately and verbally admonished them that their excuse of not being able to print it out was not acceptable.

Below, is but one of many cases that have been successfully appealed due to the prosecution withholding important discovery from the defense. This one is especially pertinent since it involves someone who was originally given the death penalty for murder, but his conviction was overturned on appeal and on second trial, he was acquitted:

Alan Gell North Carolina Convicted: 1998, Acquitted: 2004
Alan Gell was arrested for a 1995 robbery and murder of a retired truck driver named Allen Ray Jenkins. The two key witnesses presented by prosecutors were Gell's ex-girlfriend and her best friend, who were both teenagers. Both girls, who were at Jenkins' house and pled guilty to involvement in the murder, testified that they saw Gell shoot Jenkins on April 3, 1995. However, prosecutors withheld valuable evidence that might have cleared Gell in the initial trial, including an audio tape of one of the girls saying she had to "make up a story" about the murder. (News and Observer, December 10, 2002) In 2002, a State Superior Court Judge found that the prosecutors withheld evidence "favorable" to Gell, and vacated Gell's conviction. (North Carolina v. Gell, No. 95 CRS 1884, Order (Superior Court of Bertie County, December 16, 2002) (Vacating conviction and granting new trial.) Gell was re-tried in February 2004. The defense team was able to present evidence that Gell was out of state or in jail at the time of Jenkins' murder, which was placed closer to April 14th. This refuted the April 3rd claim by the original prosecutors. Also challenging the state's timetable was a series of statements by as many as 17 witnesses who told investigators that they had seen Jenkins alive between April 7th and April 10th. The most important new evidence was the taped conversation mentioned above, in which the state's key witness referred to making up a story about the murder. Gell was originally convicted in 1998 and spent the next four years on death row until a new trial was ordered. On February 18, 2004, a jury found Gell not guilty on all counts, and he left the court with his family.(News and Observer, February 18, 2004)

I asked for any case where a discovery violation other than withholding exonerating evidence was successful on appeal. The implication is that I already agreed such cases exist, where "favorable" evidence being withheld could be successful grounds for appeal. "Favorable" evidence is that evidence which would tend to "exonerate" the defendant.

So instead of what I requested, what you present is a case of "favorable" evidence withheld; are you alleging that is the going on in the instant case? Do you really believe there is evidence favorable to KC being withheld by the prosecution? Otherwise, the case cited fails to support the point you're trying to make.

Anything else to support your concerns? Other than the defense whining that has so far been roundly discounted by the rulings of the court? Cos if there is anything, I've certainly missed it.

ETA: Since you're now claiming the court ordered the state to produce this document, surely you can link to that order? That may put me on the correct trail of the hearing. I've done my due diligence in trying to understand your point. It would be helpful to the discussion if you try to show where you get your information so that we can all follow your reasoning.

 

[lin]

Lin, I believe what PR was thinking of was a 1/8/09 hearing in which about a dozen discovery motions were considered. One point of contention was a blotter-sized timeline calendar used by the investigating officers during witness interviews. JB had demanded production; the State said, it's too big to copy, but feel free to come on down and look at it and take pictures; JB demanded a copy and filed his motion. I can't remember if the judge decided the State had to figure out a way to copy it, or if he decided that JB had to go take pictures. Either way, the judge did not "slam" either side for this one, IIRC. Neither side's position was patently unreasonable.

I answered this but appears it didn't go through. Thanks, AZlawyer, I tried to use that info to find it. So far, just found a hearing on Jan. 30. Do you recall the issues heard at that hearing? Were there multiple motions?

Either way from your description, I'd bet that the state offered access to the blotter prior to the hearing. Sounds reasonable to me. Also sounds like the defense seems to be suffering from an overlarge sense of entitlement. I guess there is a chicken/egg question here: Did the defense contract it from the A's or vice versa?

 

[lin]

I asked for any case where a discovery violation other than withholding exonerating evidence was successful on appeal. The implication is that I already agreed such cases exist, where "favorable" evidence being withheld could be successful grounds for appeal. "Favorable" evidence is that evidence which would tend to "exonerate" the defendant.

So instead of what I requested, what you present is a case of "favorable" evidence withheld; are you alleging that is the going on in the instant case? Do you really believe there is evidence favorable to KC being withheld by the prosecution? Otherwise, the case cited fails to support the point you're trying to make.

Anything else to support your concerns? Other than the defense whining that has so far been roundly discounted by the rulings of the court? Cos if there is anything, I've certainly missed it.

ETA: Since you're now claiming the court ordered the state to produce this document, surely you can link to that order? That may put me on the correct trail of the hearing. I've done my due diligence in trying to understand your point. It would be helpful to the discussion if you try to show where you get your information so that we can all follow your reasoning.

I'll go even further: Are you alleging the state is trying to prevent access to any evidence rather than not turning it over in the time frame desired by the defense?

 

[marspiter]

Lin, I believe what PR was thinking of was a 1/8/09 hearing in which about a dozen discovery motions were considered. One point of contention was a blotter-sized timeline calendar used by the investigating officers during witness interviews. JB had demanded production; the State said, it's too big to copy, but feel free to come on down and look at it and take pictures; JB demanded a copy and filed his motion. I can't remember if the judge decided the State had to figure out a way to copy it, or if he decided that JB had to go take pictures. Either way, the judge did not "slam" either side for this one, IIRC. Neither side's position was patently unreasonable.

Also wasn't it around this time that JB had an outstanding balance with the Clerks office for not paying for copies of the information he requested? Just thinking that might be why the state said he could come have a look and take pictures but they weren't making him copies because of the size (ie cost).

 

[Balthazar]

I asked for any case where a discovery violation other than withholding exonerating evidence was successful on appeal. The implication is that I already agreed such cases exist, where "favorable" evidence being withheld could be successful grounds for appeal. "Favorable" evidence is that evidence which would tend to "exonerate" the defendant.

So instead of what I requested, what you present is a case of "favorable" evidence withheld; are you alleging that is the going on in the instant case? Do you really believe there is evidence favorable to KC being withheld by the prosecution? Otherwise, the case cited fails to support the point you're trying to make.

Anything else to support your concerns? Other than the defense whining that has so far been roundly discounted by the rulings of the court? Cos if there is anything, I've certainly missed it.

ETA: Since you're now claiming the court ordered the state to produce this document, surely you can link to that order? That may put me on the correct trail of the hearing. I've done my due diligence in trying to understand your point. It would be helpful to the discussion if you try to show where you get your information so that we can all follow your reasoning.

In what way does proof of the girls' lies exonerate the defendant? I don't see any way this proof could exonerate the defendant nor is it necessarily favorable to the defendant - it only puts the girls behavior into question. The only thing this evidence does is indicate is that the girl lied and since her lies were a part of the original court testimony that the jury heard and likely believed, it puts the verdict into question. The additional evidence that exonerated the defendant was found prior to his second trial when it was discovered that his location and timeline could not fit with that of the victim to establish an opportunity to commmit this crime.

As to the large format document, the judge verbally admonished the prosecution to make a copy of it and give it to the defense. He did not issue a court order, nor did I say he did. However, this would be a part of the courtroom transcript.

 

[LambChop]

I answered this but appears it didn't go through. Thanks, AZlawyer, I tried to use that info to find it. So far, just found a hearing on Jan. 30. Do you recall the issues heard at that hearing? Were there multiple motions?

Either way from your description, I'd bet that the state offered access to the blotter prior to the hearing. Sounds reasonable to me. Also sounds like the defense seems to be suffering from an overlarge sense of entitlement. I guess there is a chicken/egg question here: Did the defense contract it from the A's or vice versa?

It's a classic case of the "Squirrel Flu". You can guess what the symptoms are.

 

[LambChop]

Lin, do you think that maybe some of our sleuthers are thinking about the statements that were taken in CA from Tracy and the soldier who is stationed out there and who talked with KC while Caylee was missing? SA may be holding up those statements to protect them from being ripped apart by speculation. Hey, it happens. But JB has access to KC so anything she may have said to them she should have been able to share with JB when they were identified as being witnesses. Their statements are important but holding up on releasing them may not be in their best interest at this time and they obviously had nothing to do with the crime. Not sure how that would work. And can't JB specifically ask for those statements.....unless he already has them?

 

[whiteangora]

As to the large format document, the judge verbally admonished the prosecution to make a copy of it and give it to the defense. He did not issue a court order, nor did I say he did. However, this would be a part of the courtroom transcript.

snipped & bbm

Please, please provide a link for this. I feel it is common courtesy and also very helpful to all when a poster quotes a judge, witness, lawyer, whomever, to back it up with links to the original document or video.
TIA

 

[lin]

Also wasn't it around this time that JB had an outstanding balance with the Clerks office for not paying for copies of the information he requested? Just thinking that might be why the state said he could come have a look and take pictures but they weren't making him copies because of the size (ie cost).

Do you remember anything else that may help me track the transcript or video of this hearing? TIA

 

[Brini]

Also wasn't it around this time that JB had an outstanding balance with the Clerks office for not paying for copies of the information he requested? Just thinking that might be why the state said he could come have a look and take pictures but they weren't making him copies because of the size (ie cost).

Yes, and I thought the state mentioned that, at one of the hearings.

 

[Brini]

snipped & bbm

Please, please provide a link for this. I feel it is common courtesy and also very helpful to all when a poster quotes a judge, witness, lawyer, whomever, to back it up with links to the original document or video.
TIA

I'd like to see it, too. I think I musta missed that. I don't remember it, at all.

 

[lin]

In what way does proof of the girls' lies exonerate the defendant? I don't see any way this proof could exonerate the defendant nor is it necessarily favorable to the defendant - it only puts the girls behavior into question. The only thing this evidence does is indicate is that the girl lied and since her lies were a part of the original court testimony that the jury heard and likely believed, it puts the verdict into question. The additional evidence that exonerated the defendant was found prior to his second trial when it was discovered that his location and timeline could not fit with that of the victim to establish an opportunity to commmit this crime.

As to the large format document, the judge verbally admonished the prosecution to make a copy of it and give it to the defense. He did not issue a court order, nor did I say he did. However, this would be a part of the courtroom transcript.

While I agree that KC is a liar, you totally lost me with this post; I don't understand your meaning at all. I asked if you could cite a case wherein discovery violations other than withholding exonerating info was successful grounds for appeal. The case you presented indicated "favorable" evidence was withheld rather than what I requested, "other than" exonerating evidence being withheld.

It is my position that there is nothing credible to support the defense's complaints that the state has withheld evidence and there is so far no ruling by the court to indicate same, despite repeated (trumped up, whiny) complaints filed by the defense.

It is also my position that the state has so far failed to be less than forthright or dishonest in any way of which I am aware.

It is further my position that the exact opposite applies to the defense and I have referred to them as "credibility challenged."

Therefore, it is my position that the state has not played "hide the ball with the defense" until I see some evidence of same. A pleading filed by someone who is very credibility challenged and who has made repeated accusations that were found to be without basis in fact is not evidence of any wrong doing by the state, imo.

Finally, it is my position that folks really don't need to worry about an appealable issue regarding any discovery issues thusfar presented in the instant case. I have seen nothing untoward; all rulings have favored the state; but instead this seems to be a defense ploy to elicit sympathy from the public. It appears to be working because some here, such as I understand your posts to represent, have expressed concern that there may be an appealable issue regarding discovery violations.

1. If there have been any discovery violations, please list them or please concede that your concern is merely "prospective" and explain why you have this "prospective" concern.

2. If there have been any rulings adverse to the state, please show them or give enough of a description so that others may find them. Otherwise, see #1 about conceding prospective concern.

3. Finally, while I appreciate that you are giving a fair and accurate representation of your memory of events, that doesn't mean it will accurately track the actual events of the hearing or the interpretations others may draw from the same information. If you insist on referencing this hearing as some sort of support for what appears to be your position, please explain how it supports your position and if you can't link to it, please at least give a better description of the motion(s) heard so that others may reference the transcript/video to determine for themselves the accuracy of your representation(s).

PS to #3 - if you can't accurately describe the hearing, please explain how you are so certain about the portion you seem to remember so vividly. TIA

 

[AZlawyer]

While I agree that KC is a liar, you totally lost me with this post; I don't understand your meaning at all. I asked if you could cite a case other than wherein discovery violations other than withholding exonerating info was successful grounds for appeal. The case you presented indicated "favorable" evidence was withheld rather than what I requested, "other than" exonerating evidence being withheld.

It is my position that there is nothing credible to support the defense's complaints that the state has withheld evidence and there is so far no ruling by the court to indicate same, despite repeated (trumped up, whiny) complaints filed by the defense.

It is also my position that the state has so far failed to be less than forthright or dishonest in any way of which I am aware.

It is further my position that the exact opposite applies to the defense and I have referred to them as "credibility challenged."

Therefore, it is my position that the state has not played "hide the ball with the defense" until I see some evidence of same. A pleading filed by someone who is very credibility challenged and who has made a repeated accusations that were found to be without basis in fact is not evidence of any wrong doing by the state, imo.

Finally, it is my position that folks really don't need to worry about an appealable issue regarding any discovery issues thusfar presented in the instant case. I have seen nothing untoward; all rulings have favored the state; but instead this seems to be a defense ploy to elicit sympathy from the public. It appears to be working because some here, such as I understand your posts to represent, have expressed concern that there may be an appealable issue regarding discovery violations.

1. If there have been any discovery violations, please list them or please concede that your concern is merely "prospective" and explain why you have this "prospective" concern.

2. If there have been any rulings adverse to the state, please show them or give enough of a description so that others may find them. Otherwise, see #1 about conceding prospective concern.

3. Finally, while I appreciate that you are giving a fair and accurate representation of your memory of events, that doesn't mean it will accurately track the actual events of the hearing or the interpretations others may draw from the same information. If you insist on referencing this hearing as some sort of support for what appears to be your position, please explain how it supports your position and if you can't link to it, please at least give a better description of the motion(s) heard so that others may reference the transcript/video to determine for themselves the accuracy of your representation(s).

Lin, the video for the hearing PR was referencing is at post #84 in the Official Documents thread. But it's loooooong.....

 

[lin]

snipped & bbm

Please, please provide a link for this. I feel it is common courtesy and also very helpful to all when a poster quotes a judge, witness, lawyer, whomever, to back it up with links to the original document or video.
TIA

Thank you. I'd appreciate at least a better description to allow me to find which one. I agree with your point -- most give links automatically when referencing things other than their opinions and often when giving their opinion of something. Seems like the least we should all be expected to do; if we remember something well enough to state it as fact, seems we should be able to describe it well enough to allow others to find the referenced object be it video, transcript, pleading, whatever.