Another Sawgrass

[lin]

The answer to that is it depends on why he is not reporting it. There could be a very valid reason that can only be heard in a courtroom.

Any evidence potentially used at trial would have to be turned over to the prosecution in discovery first. If there is a 'surprise' witness JB would at the very least have to inform the prosecution and allow them to depose that witness. If there are documents or physical evidence they would have to be turned over to the prosecution first.

Do the attorneys in your family practice criminal law and are DP qualified? Doesn't sound like it.

I don't get how it doesn't sound like her source does not practice criminal law?

From my reading, the same question/opinion has been posted by numerous members here, including lawyers. You've repeatedly posted there may be/are valid reasons for holding exonerating info until trial or shortly prior. Every attorney that has weighed in on the subject, including those who weighed in through Brini, have disagreed. So do I.

Perhaps rather than questioning the qualifications of others, it would be more helpful to the discussion to simply answer the question: What are valid reasons for withholding evidence that would exonerate a client?

If one's client is innocent, what is the valid reason for not proving it and saving the client and taxpayers the cost of a trial?

Repeatedly posting there are valid reasons does kind of beg the question and it seems there are a lot of posters asking it. Is there an answer?

 

[MissJames]

Yep! KC said at least six or seven guys, including three dead ones, were the bio father. ALL of those claims might be false. It may even be someone whom she has NOT mentioned.

The Ortiz family says their son did not have a relationship with KC. I believe they said he didn't even KNOW KC, IIRC.

So, why would KC's claim of JO be believable, out of a claimed field of at least six guys?

Any family who had a son die suddenly would most likely WANT a relationship with HIS child,not deny the child,if they believed she was his, IMO.

 

[Muzikman]

I believe that's an unreasonable assumption. The State put the DP back on the table, they knew that Casey did NOT have a DP qualified attorney and they also know that some searching would have to take place to get one. So, it's actually, the prosecutions fault that there has been a delay. If the prosecution wanted to move to trial quickly, they would have skipped the DP altogether and just gone for Murder 2 or lower. Taking the DP on and off the table - prosecutorial indecision - caused the delay. Prosecutions's bad - no fault of the defense whatsoever.

Princess - the topic of the thread is another Sawgrass. Mods would like us to stay on topic. You seemed initially to be supporting Holly G-moms contention that there is another Sawgrass involved, but the discussion has now evolved into a topic for a different thread. Partly my fault maybe, my apologies. :waitasec:

I do not believe that ANY Sawgrass is involved, let alone one other than the named one on Conway Rd. It was but a ruse by Casey to try and get her butt out of the sling she put it in.

That said, it IS the defense dragging this thing out, because it is in their best interests to do so. Baez dragged his feet trying to find a DP attorney that would actually work with him, to the point that the Prosecution had to file a motion in order to get him off the pot, so to speak.

And it is not the Prosecutions fault that the only DP lawyer he finally found that would work with him has "other obligations" that prevent her from jumping into the case full bore. Nor is it the Prosecutions fault that the Judge has allowed the Defense to put their "other obligations" first, instead of insisting they get to work immediately and get on with it.

The prosecution put the DP back on the table, I believe, because after finding the body, they discovered aggravating circumstances in the murder of a 3-year-old child by her own mother, who then tried to cover it up.

If you want to discuss that subject further, it would be better done in another thread.

 

[lin]

I NEVER said there was another Sawgrass - why divert off my discussion with Brini to try to prove your point?

The thread is entitled "Another Sawgrass." I'm not finished catching up with the thread so if you're discussing something else, maybe it would fit better on another thread.

[ame=http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=84147] Casey Anthony Legal Defense Strategies is here.[/ame]

And it may be helpful in formulating theories to read [ame=http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=75997] the Evidence thread which is here.[/ame]

 

[lin]

May I approach?

No attorney allows his/her client to sit in jail when that attorney has indisputable proof that his client is innocent. The indisputable proof would be plopped on the desk to show the Sheriff and the District Attorney. One doesn't let one's client sit in jail so that there can be a "gotcha" moment at trial. "Gotcha" would be the desk plop, getting the charges dismissed and walking the client out of jail.

Attorneys are obligated to vigorously defend and to act in the best interest of the client, not themselves. It can not be argued that jail is in the best interest of an innocent client, under any circumstances. Please take this part of any theory out of the equation.

:clap::clap::clap:

 

[MissJames]

It's been said before,but to get back On topic, Sawgrass is not just a common name in FL,there's at least one Sawgrass Apts 15 minutes from me here,in SC.
I think KC took LE to a particular Sawgrass because of the ZG connection.She was proven to be lying and that ends it IMO.KC was not giving partial clues.She was making her story up as she went along.The only clues she left behind were the ones that will lead to her conviction.

 

[lin]

I believe that's an unreasonable assumption. The State put the DP back on the table, they knew that Casey did NOT have a DP qualified attorney and they also know that some searching would have to take place to get one. So, it's actually, the prosecutions fault that there has been a delay. If the prosecution wanted to move to trial quickly, they would have skipped the DP altogether and just gone for Murder 2 or lower. Taking the DP on and off the table - prosecutorial indecision - caused the delay. Prosecutions's bad - no fault of the defense whatsoever.

I disagree. She had a DP qualified attorney that argued against the dp, TL. Do you have some reason to believe the state was notified that he would no longer be associated with the case if the dp was put back on the table? If not then the fact that she had a dp qualified attorney almost from the get-go kind of negates the rest of the remarks on this topic.

I also don't think the state is in the business of reducing charges to get things moving quickly, other than offering plea deals, which if offered were refused in this case. "Gee, if I just stonewall and delay trial, the state will likely drop the charges down to less than they offered in the plea deal to get this case off their desk." Nah, I don't think it works that way.

As for "prosecutorial indecision" I must again strongly disagree. At the time the decision was made to not seek the dp, the state didn't feel it had the evidence to support it. Then Caylee's remains were found and it was a whole new ballgame. ALL delays have been caused by the defense, even this one. Had they not been playing the "a bad case smells better with age" game, it's likely this would have been disposed before Caylee was found. Once again, the defense shot its own foot by trying to play the system.

 

[lin]

The title of the thread is, "Another Sawgrass."


Some people, on this thread are arguing two things:

1) That there is a conspiracy to get KC convicted for someone else's crime, and

2) That KC has been involved with another place called "Sawgrass."

Several of us have tried to get answered the question of what there being another place called "Sawgrass" has anything to do wit the crime.

There has been no answer.

Thanks! That explains a lot. I'm thinking category #1 should go here: [ame=http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=84147] Casey Anthony Legal Defense Strategies[/ame]

As for #2, I don't see the relevance since that's NOT where she led LE and she hasn't given out any info on any other sawgrass to my knowledge. And who else would know to whom she entrusted the care of her child?

 

[JBean]

Thanks to everyone for trying to get this thread back on topic.

 

[lin]

The state has the impetus to pursue the propper avenues in reaching the punishment befitting of the crime, not to unnecessarily expedite the process.

 

[lin]

Nope. But, they know that one doesn't let the client sit in jail, if one has exonerating evidence.

That's Law 101.

Kinda can't skip those classes in law school. (Well, not all of them.)

 

[Themis]

Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure on Discovery:

RULE 3.220. DISCOVERY​

(a) Notice of Discovery.

​

​

After the filing of the charging document, a defendant may elect to participate in the​

discovery process provided by these rules, including the taking of discovery depositions, by filing with the court and​

​

​

serving on the prosecuting attorney a “Notice of Discovery” which shall bind both the prosecution and defendant to


all discovery procedures contained in these rules. Participation by a defendant in the discovery process, including the


taking of any deposition by a defendant or the filing of a public records request under chapter 119, Florida Statutes,


for law enforcement records relating to the defendant’s pending prosecution, which are nonexempt as a result of a


codefendant’s participation in discovery, shall be an election to participate in discovery and triggers a reciprocal


discovery obligation for the defendant. If any defendant knowingly or purposely shares in discovery obtained by a


codefendant, the defendant shall be deemed to have elected to participate in discovery.​

(b) Prosecutor’s Discovery Obligation.


(1) Within 15 days after service of the Notice of Discovery, the prosecutor shall serve a written Discovery​

Exhibit which shall disclose to the defendant and permit the defendant to inspect, copy, test, and photograph the


following information and material within the state’s possession or control:


(A) a list of the names and addresses of all persons known to the prosecutor to have information that may be


relevant to any offense charged or any defense thereto, or to any similar fact evidence to be presented at trial under


section 90.404(2), Florida Statutes. The names and addresses of persons listed shall be clearly designated in the


following categories:


(i) Category A. These witnesses shall include (1) eye witnesses, (2) alibi witnesses and rebuttal to alibi


witnesses, (3) witnesses who were present when a recorded or unrecorded statement was taken from or made by a


defendant or codefendant, which shall be separately identified within this category, (4) investigating officers, (5)


witnesses known by the prosecutor to have any material information that tends to negate the guilt of the defendant as


to any offense charged, (6) child hearsay witnesses, and (7) expert witnesses who have not provided a written report


and a curriculum vitae or who are going to testify to test results or give opinions that will have to meet the test set


forth in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).


(ii) Category B. All witnesses not listed in either Category A or Category C.


(iii) Category C. All witnesses who performed only ministerial functions or whom the prosecutor does not


intend to call at trial and whose involvement with and knowledge of the case is fully set out in a police report or


other statement furnished to the defense;


(B) the statement of any person whose name is furnished in compliance with the preceding subdivision. The


term “statement” as used herein includes a written statement made by the person and signed or otherwise adopted or


approved by the person and also includes any statement of any kind or manner made by the person and written or recorded


or summarized in any writing or recording. The term “statement” is specifically intended to include all police


and investigative reports of any kind prepared for or in connection with the case, but shall not include the notes from


which those reports are compiled;


(C) any written or recorded statements and the substance of any oral statements made by the defendant,


including a copy of any statements contained in police reports or report summaries, together with the name and


address of each witness to the statements;


(D) any written or recorded statements and the substance of any oral statements made by a codefendant if


the trial is to be a joint one;


(E) those portions of recorded grand jury minutes that contain testimony of the defendant;


(F) any tangible papers or objects that were obtained from or belonged to the defendant;


(G) whether the state has any material or information that has been provided by a confidential informant;


(H) whether there has been any electronic surveillance, including wiretapping, of the premises of the


defendant or of conversations to which the defendant was a party and any documents relating thereto;


(I) whether there has been any search or seizure and any documents relating thereto;


(J) reports or statements of experts made in connection with the particular case, including results of


physical or mental examinations and of scientific tests, experiments, or comparisons; and


(K) any tangible papers or objects that the prosecuting attorney intends to use in the hearing or trial and that


were not obtained from or that did not belong to the defendant.


(2) If the court determines, in camera, that any police or investigative report contains irrelevant, sensitive


information or information interrelated with other crimes or criminal activities and the disclosure of the contents of


the police report may seriously impair law enforcement or jeopardize the investigation of those other crimes or


activities, the court may prohibit or partially restrict the disclosure.


(3) The court may prohibit the state from introducing into evidence any of the foregoing material not disclosed,


so as to secure and maintain fairness in the just determination of the cause.


(4) As soon as practicable after the filing of the charging document the prosecutor shall disclose to the defendant


any material information within the state’s possession or control that tends to negate the guilt of the defendant as to any


offense charged, regardless of whether the defendant has incurred reciprocal discovery obligations.​

(c) Disclosure to Prosecution.


(1) After the filing of the charging document and subject to constitutional limitations, the court may require a​

defendant to:


(A) appear in a lineup;


(B) speak for identification by witnesses to an offense;


(C) be fingerprinted;


(D) pose for photographs not involving re-enactment of a scene;


(E) try on articles of clothing;


(F) permit the taking of specimens of material under the defendant’s fingernails;


(G) permit the taking of samples of the defendant’s blood, hair, and other materials of the defendant’s body


that involves no unreasonable intrusion thereof;


(H) provide specimens of the defendant’s handwriting; and


(I) submit to a reasonable physical or medical inspection of the defendant’s body.


(2) If the personal appearance of a defendant is required for the foregoing purposes, reasonable notice of the


time and location of the appearance shall be given by the prosecuting attorney to the defendant and his or her


counsel. Provisions may be made for appearances for such purposes in an order admitting a defendant to bail or


providing for pretrial release.​

(d) Defendant’s Obligation.


(1) If a defendant elects to participate in discovery, either through filing the appropriate notice or by​

participating in any discovery process, including the taking of a discovery deposition, the following disclosures shall


be made:


(A) Within 15 days after receipt by the defendant of the Discovery Exhibit furnished by the prosecutor


pursuant to subdivision (b)(1)(A) of this rule, the defendant shall furnish to the prosecutor a written list of the names


and addresses of all witnesses whom the defendant expects to call as witnesses at the trial or hearing. When the


prosecutor subpoenas a witness whose name has been furnished by the defendant, except for trial subpoenas, the


rules applicable to the taking of depositions shall apply.


(B) Within 15 days after receipt of the prosecutor’s Discovery Exhibit the defendant shall serve a written


Discovery Exhibit which shall disclose to and permit the prosecutor to inspect, copy, test, and photograph the


following information and material that is in the defendant’s possession or control:


(i) the statement of any person listed in subdivision (d)(1)(A), other than that of the defendant;


(ii) reports or statements of experts made in connection with the particular case, including results of


physical or mental examinations and of scientific tests, experiments, or comparisons; and


(iii) any tangible papers or objects that the defendant intends to use in the hearing or trial.


(2) The prosecutor and the defendant shall perform their obligations under this rule in a manner mutually


agreeable or as ordered by the court.


(3) The filing of a motion for protective order by the prosecutor will automatically stay the times provided for in


this subdivision. If a protective order is granted, the defendant may, within 2 days thereafter, or at any time before


the prosecutor furnishes the information or material that is the subject of the motion for protective order, withdraw


the defendant’s notice of discovery and not be required to furnish reciprocal discovery.​

(e) Restricting Disclosure. ​

​

​

The court on its own initiative or on motion of counsel shall deny or partially restrict​

disclosures authorized by this rule if it finds there is a substantial risk to any person of physical harm, intimidation,​

​

​

bribery, economic reprisals, or unnecessary annoyance or embarrassment resulting from the disclosure, that


outweighs any usefulness of the disclosure to either party.​

(f) Additional Discovery. ​

​

​

On a showing of materiality, the court may require such other discovery to the parties​

as justice may require.​

​

​

​

​

​

 

[Themis]

(g) Matters Not Subject to Disclosure.​

(1) Work Product. ​

​

​

​

​

Disclosure shall not be required of legal research or of records, correspondence, reports, or​

memoranda to the extent that they contain the opinions, theories, or conclusions of the prosecuting or defense​

​

​

attorney or members of their legal staffs.​

(2) Informants. ​

​

​

Disclosure of a confidential informant shall not be required unless the confidential informant is to​

be produced at a hearing or trial or a failure to disclose the informant’s identity will infringe the constitutional rights of​

​

​

the defendant.​

(h) Discovery Depositions.​

(1) Generally. ​

​

​

​

​

At any time after the filing of the charging document any party may take the deposition upon​

oral examination of any person authorized by this rule. A party taking a deposition shall give reasonable written​

​

​

notice to each other party and shall make a good faith effort to coordinate the date, time, and location of the


deposition to accommodate the schedules of other parties and the witness to be deposed. The notice shall state the


time and the location where the deposition is to be taken, the name of each person to be examined, and a certificate


of counsel that a good faith effort was made to coordinate the deposition schedule. After notice to the parties the


court may, for good cause shown, extend or shorten the time and may change the location of the deposition. Except


as provided herein, the procedure for taking the deposition, including the scope of the examination, and the issuance


of a subpoena (except a subpoena duces tecum) for deposition by an attorney of record in the action, shall be the


same as that provided in the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Any deposition taken pursuant to this rule may be


used by any party for the purpose of contradicting or impeaching the testimony of the deponent as a witness. The


trial court or the clerk of the court may, upon application, issue subpoenas for the persons whose depositions are to


be taken. In any case, including multiple defendants or consolidated cases, no person shall be deposed more than


once except by consent of the parties or by order of the court issued on good cause shown. A witness who refuses to


obey a duly served subpoena may be adjudged in contempt of the court from which the subpoena issued.


(A) The defendant may, without leave of court, take the deposition of any witness listed by the prosecutor as a


Category A witness or listed by a co-defendant as a witness to be called at a joint trial or hearing. After receipt by


the defendant of the Discovery Exhibit, the defendant may, without leave of court, take the deposition of any


unlisted witness who may have information relevant to the offense charged. The prosecutor may, without leave of


court, take the deposition of any witness listed by the defendant to be called at a trial or hearing.


(B) No party may take the deposition of a witness listed by the prosecutor as a Category B witness except upon


leave of court with good cause shown. In determining whether to allow a deposition, the court should consider the


consequences to the defendant, the complexities of the issues involved, the complexity of the testimony of the witness


(e.g., experts), and the other opportunities available to the defendant to discover the information sought by deposition.


(C) A witness listed by the prosecutor as a Category C witness shall not be subject to deposition unless the


court determines that the witness should be listed in another category.


(D) No deposition shall be taken in a case in which the defendant is charged only with a misdemeanor or a


criminal traffic offense when all other discovery provided by this rule has been complied with unless good cause can


be shown to the trial court. In determining whether to allow a deposition, the court should consider the consequences


to the defendant, the complexity of the issues involved, the complexity of the witness’ testimony (e.g., experts), and


the other opportunities available to the defendant to discover the information sought by deposition. However, this


prohibition against the taking of depositions shall not be applicable if following the furnishing of discovery by the


defendant the state then takes the statement of a listed defense witness pursuant to section 27.04, Florida Statutes.​

(2) Transcripts. ​

​

​

No transcript of a deposition for which a county may be obligated to expend funds shall be​

ordered by a party unless it is:​

​

​

(A) agreed between the state and any defendant that the deposition should be transcribed and a written


agreement certifying that the deposed witness is material or specifying other good cause is filed with the court or


(B) ordered by the court on a showing that the deposed witness is material or on showing of good cause.


This rule shall not apply to applications for reimbursement of costs pursuant to section 939.06, Florida Statutes, and


article I, section 9, of the Florida Constitution.​

(3) Location of Deposition. ​

​

​

Depositions of witnesses residing in the county in which the trial is to take place shall​

be taken in the building in which the trial shall be held, such other location as is agreed on by the parties, or a location​

​

​

designated by the court. Depositions of witnesses residing outside the county in which the trial is to take place shall be


taken in a court reporter’s office in the county or state in which the witness resides, such other location as is agreed on


by the parties, or a location designated by the court.​

(4) Depositions of Sensitive Witnesses. ​

​

​

Depositions of children under the age of 16 shall be videotaped unless​

otherwise ordered by the court. The court may order the videotaping of a deposition or the taking of a deposition of a​

​

​

witness with fragile emotional strength to be in the presence of the trial judge or a special magistrate.​

(5) Depositions of Law Enforcement Officers. ​

​

​

Subject to the general provisions of subdivision (h)(1), law​

enforcement officers shall appear for deposition, without subpoena, upon written notice of taking deposition​

​

​

delivered at the address of the law enforcement agency or department, or an address designated by the law enforcement


agency or department, five days prior to the date of the deposition. Law enforcement officers who fail to


appear for deposition after being served notice are subject to contempt proceedings.​

(6) Witness Coordinating Office/Notice of Taking Deposition. ​

​

​

If a witness coordinating office has been​

established in the jurisdiction pursuant to applicable Florida Statutes, the deposition of any witness should be​

​

​

coordinated through that office. The witness coordinating office should attempt to schedule the depositions of a


witness at a time and location convenient for the witness and acceptable to the parties.​

(7) Defendant’s Physical Presence. ​

​

​

A defendant shall not be physically present at a deposition except on​

stipulation of the parties or as provided by this rule. The court may order the physical presence of the defendant on a​

​

​

showing of good cause. The court may consider (A) the need for the physical presence of the defendant to obtain


effective discovery, (B) the intimidating effect of the defendant’s presence on the witness, if any, (C) any cost or


inconvenience which may result, and (D) any alternative electronic or audio/visual means available.​

(8) Telephonic Statements. ​

​

​

On stipulation of the parties and the consent of the witness, the statement of a law​

enforcement officer may be taken by telephone in lieu of the deposition of the officer. In such case, the officer need​

​

​

not be under oath. The statement, however, shall be recorded and may be used for impeachment at trial as a prior


inconsistent statement pursuant to the Florida Evidence Code.​

(i) Investigations Not to Be Impeded. ​

​

​

Except as is otherwise provided as to matters not subject to disclosure or​

restricted by protective orders, neither the counsel for the parties nor other prosecution or defense personnel shall​

​

​

advise persons having relevant material or information (except the defendant) to refrain from discussing the case


with opposing counsel or showing opposing counsel any relevant material, nor shall they otherwise impede opposing


counsel’s investigation of the case.​

(j) Continuing Duty to Disclose. ​

​

​

If, subsequent to compliance with the rules, a party discovers additional​

witnesses or material that the party would have been under a duty to disclose or produce at the time of the previous​

​

​

compliance, the party shall promptly disclose or produce the witnesses or material in the same manner as required


under these rules for initial discovery.​

(k) Court May Alter Times. ​

​

​

The court may alter the times for compliance with any discovery under these rules​

on good cause shown.​

​

​

(​

 

[Themis]

l) Protective Orders.​

(1) Motion to Restrict Disclosure of Matters. ​

​

​

​

​

On a showing of good cause, the court shall at any time​

order that specified disclosures be restricted, deferred, or exempted from discovery, that certain matters not be​

​

​

inquired into, that the scope of the deposition be limited to certain matters, that a deposition be sealed and after


being sealed be opened only by order of the court, or make such other order as is appropriate to protect a witness


from harassment, unnecessary inconvenience, or invasion of privacy, including prohibiting the taking of a


deposition. All material and information to which a party is entitled, however, must be disclosed in time to permit


the party to make beneficial use of it.​

(2) Motion to Terminate or Limit Examination. ​

​

​

At any time during the taking of a deposition, on motion of​

a party or of the deponent, and upon a showing that the examination is being conducted in bad faith or in such​

​

​

manner as to unreasonably annoy, embarrass, or oppress the deponent or party, the court in which the action is


pending or the circuit court where the deposition is being taken may (1) terminate the deposition, (2) limit the scope


and manner of the taking of the deposition, (3) limit the time of the deposition, (4) continue the deposition to a later


time, (5) order the deposition to be taken in open court, and, in addition, may (6) impose any sanction authorized by


this rule. If the order terminates the deposition, it shall be resumed thereafter only upon the order of the court in


which the action is pending. Upon demand of any party or deponent, the taking of the deposition shall be suspended


for the time necessary to make a motion for an order.​

(m) In Camera and Ex Parte Proceedings.


(1) Any person may move for an order denying or regulating disclosure of sensitive matters. The court may​

consider the matters contained in the motion in camera.


(2) Upon request, the court shall allow the defendant to make an ex parte showing of good cause for taking the


deposition of a Category B witness.


(3) A record shall be made of proceedings authorized under this subdivision. If the court enters an order granting


relief after an in camera inspection or ex parte showing, the entire record of the proceeding shall be sealed and preserved


and be made available to the appellate court in the event of an appeal.​

(n) Sanctions.


(1) If, at any time during the course of the proceedings, it is brought to the attention of the court that a party has​

failed to comply with an applicable discovery rule or with an order issued pursuant to an applicable discovery rule,


the court may order the party to comply with the discovery or inspection of materials not previously disclosed or


produced, grant a continuance, grant a mistrial, prohibit the party from calling a witness not disclosed or introducing


in evidence the material not disclosed, or enter such other order as it deems just under the circumstances.


(2) Willful violation by counsel or a party not represented by counsel of an applicable discovery rule, or an


order issued pursuant thereto, shall subject counsel or the unrepresented party to appropriate sanctions by the court.


The sanctions may include, but are not limited to, contempt proceedings against the attorney or unrepresented party,


as well as the assessment of costs incurred by the opposing party, when appropriate.


(3) Every request for discovery or response or objection, including a notice of deposition made by a party


represented by an attorney, shall be signed by at least 1 attorney of record in the attorney’s individual name, whose


address shall be stated. A party who is not represented by an attorney shall sign the request, response, or objection


and list his or her address. The signature of the attorney or party constitutes a certification that the signer has read


the request, response, or objection and that to the best of the signer’s knowledge, information, or belief formed after


a reasonable inquiry it is:


(A) consistent with these rules and warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension,


modification, or reversal of existing law;


(B) not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless


increase in the cost of litigation; and


(C) not unreasonable or unduly burdensome or expensive, given the needs of the case and the importance of


the issues at stake in the litigation.


If a request, response, or objection is not signed, it shall be stricken unless it is signed promptly after the omission


is called to the attention of the party making the request, response, or objection, and a party shall not be obligated to


take any action with respect to it until it is signed.


If a certification is made in violation of this rule, the court, on motion or on its own initiative, shall impose on


the person who made the certification, the firm or agency with which the person is affiliated, the party on whose


behalf the request, response, or objection is made, or any or all of the above an appropriate sanction, which may


include an order to pay the amount of the reasonable expenses incurred because of the violation, including a


reasonable attorney’s fee.​

(o) Costs of Indigents. ​

​

​

After a defendant is adjudged insolvent, the reasonable costs incurred in the operation of​

these rules shall be taxed as costs against the state.​

​

​

(p) Pretrial Conference.


(1) The trial court may hold 1 or more pretrial conferences, with trial counsel present, to consider such​

matters as will promote a fair and expeditious trial. The defendant shall be present unless the defendant waives this


in writing.


(2) The court may set, and upon the request of any party shall set, a discovery schedule, including a discovery


cut-off date, at the pretrial conference.​

 

[Themis]

How far in advance of the trial must the evidence be turned over to prosecution? Anyone know about the law in Florida?

The above is the Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure on Discovery. As you can see, the discovery is due 15 days after the notice requesting discovery but it is a continuing obligation.

 

[Muzikman]

Like they couldn't have met somewhere along the way...

Actually, I think that some of the impetus for Casey using the Sawgrass name came from her documented visit to the Bank of America just before she was busted.

That BOA is next door to Sawgrass on Conway Rd. She thought of it because she had visited Annie and Dante there a few times, had recently driven by, and worked a somewhat familiar place into her lie.

 

[lin]

The defense HAD a DP qualified attorney,remember him? Lemar,I think? He wrote the reasons why the state should not seek the death penalty. The shock waves here because one reason listed "if it was an accident" [totally paraphrasing]. So to go with an attorney from another state who has another job that interferes with her ability to prepare in a timely manner ,has nothing to do with the prosecution IMO.
And we are way OT from Another Sawgrass! I'm done.

This article shows when he joined and indicates he's "highly rated."

According to this article he is considered one of the best death penalty qualified in Florida.

 

[lin]

Any family who had a son die suddenly would most likely WANT a relationship with HIS child,not deny the child,if they believed she was his, IMO.

More likely would want to believe it very badly, even with the slightest of evidence to support it.

 

[lin]

It's been said before,but to get back On topic, Sawgrass is not just a common name in FL,there's at least one Sawgrass Apts 15 minutes from me here,in SC.
I think KC took LE to a particular Sawgrass because of the ZG connection.She was proven to be lying and that ends it IMO.KC was not giving partial clues.She was making her story up as she went along.The only clues she left behind were the ones that will lead to her conviction.

Maybe there's another Sawgrass in Puerto Rico where that other ZFG lives...

(Just trying to lighten the mood.)

 

[lin]

The above is the Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure on Discovery. As you can see, the discovery is due 15 days after the notice requesting discovery but it is a continuing obligation.

Thank you for digging up the statute and summarizing it so succinctly. Supports your earlier post in this thread regarding the defense "strategy" imo.