Motion to Compel Reciprocal Discovery - What is the Defense Trying to Hide??

[RR0004]

That searcher was JJ and he was a part of Tes. He didn't change his mind about anything. He was totally confused about where Caylee was actually found. He was asking Le in the interview if Caylee was 40 to 50 feet in. He is way off on where they found her. She was only 19 feet in from the road. He talks about the blue cooler. I was studying his interview, and I believe that he was within a few feet of where Caylee was found. Certainly within eye shot. He is their proof that Caylee was put in those woods later. I call it substantial. Under cross, there are several of them that are going to have to admit under oath that they looked at that spot. IMO

How can one use the word "confused" and "proof" in the same sentence?

PS- and not-for-nothing NTS, tell me why Casey would hand over a dead body to someone to keep and place at a later date in a garbage-riddled cesspool (my own interpretation)?

 

[cyberborg]

I think they probably did turn over discovery and the state is afraid to release it. IMO

Keep the faith. We can all dream eh? :dance:

IMO. I personally feel the Defense has 'nothing' else they would be on media tour touting it. Lets face it, they cannot even backup the original assertions made by TM in court never mind anything else.

 

[cyberborg]

That searcher was JJ and he was a part of Tes. He didn't change his mind about anything. He was totally confused about where Caylee was actually found. He was asking Le in the interview if Caylee was 40 to 50 feet in. He is way off on where they found her. She was only 19 feet in from the road. He talks about the blue cooler. I was studying his interview, and I believe that he was within a few feet of where Caylee was found. Certainly within eye shot. He is their proof that Caylee was put in those woods later. I call it substantial. Under cross, there are several of them that are going to have to admit under oath that they looked at that spot. IMO

To put it into perspective, the picture is of a TES search around the area of Suburban.

"DL and JH bushwack in today's search for Caylee Anthony conducted by EquuSearch covering an area near the Anthony home off Suburban Way."

To me, unless you were on your hands and knees looking under every bush at the base and lifting large leaves you can walk right past what was left of Caylee and never know.

Caylee's remains were found under a palmetto leaf in a bag that no longer looked like a 'child' body. You could have been right there with Caylee at your feet and never known, swear she was not there. IMHO.

 

[marspiter]

Bumping for NTS's discussion on defense releasing discovery.

Here's a good starting point.
http://www.wftv.com/pdf/21913703/detail.html

 

[marspiter]

Since the second motion to compel which was in Dec 09.

The defense has missed a deadline (02/02/2010) to produce evidence to back up Todd M's statements in open court.

The defense and SA have agreed to new deadlines for discovery.

In a hearing with HHJP the defense was mentioning what experts it would need the JAC to pay for, but has of yet to submit a new witness list to reflect the addition of those experts.

The defense in the hearing with HHJP admitted that many of it's depo's are still needing to be completed.

The defense has not yet spent a reasonable amount of time researching the records held at MN office. They did go by after a prolonged period of time and left soon after arrival.

No media reports have shown discovery that has been submitted by the defense. The interviews with RK's ex's were not under oath or submitted as evidence yet did make it to the media.

No document dumps from the clerks office have shown any discovery submitted by the defense.

Musikman has not provided the forum with a discovery request made by him that shows discovery submitted by the defense.

The Clerk of Courts docket does not show a motion of discovery made by the defense.
As AZlawyer has pointed out a motion of discovery would need to be filed in Florida for the defense to submit it's evidence.

The defense has not made any comments to the news media about any evidence it has submitted. One would think if major exculpatory evidence was submitted the defense would be the first to shout it from the roof tops.

 

[I Din Doot]

Bumping for NTS's discussion on defense releasing discovery.

Here's a good starting point.
http://www.wftv.com/pdf/21913703/detail.html

Spot on !! 9 DECEMBER 2009

 

[notthatsmart]

In the motion, they are argueing over addresses of the the people in the discovery that was turned over in the motion. Hence, discovery was turned over by the defense even though it was through a motion. I don't think there is an argument among sides of whether there was discovery turned over, but about its lack of detail. The defense has turned over discovery of the claim made by Todd M, the statements by Lb and JJ that the body was not there when they searched. Kc was in custody at that time. I can understand why some would say thats not good enough, but it is good enough for me. These claims that the defense has not turned over any discovery appear to be just wishful thinking. They have indeed turned over very important discovery. IMO

I will look for the motion today where the defense attached the statements by JJ and Lb, I will also look for the motion where the interview of Jk was attached.

Finally, I am not willing to get in a circular discussion over a difference of opinion. It is my opinion after reading the docs in this case, that the defense has indeed turned over discovery.

 

[tlcya]

MOO - by this time, in a capital murder case, there should have been THOUSANDS of pages of discovery made available, by both sides.

A few names and addresses of witnesses released by defense does NOT disclosure make. Not even close. Unless you are appearing in Kangaroo court and that is not where ICA is being tried.

 

[marspiter]

Some other items of note on this issue are:

Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 2010: Specifically Florida rule 3.220
http://www.floridabar.org/TFB/TFBResources.nsf/Attachments/BDFE1551AD291A3F85256B29004BF892/$FILE/Criminal.pdf?OpenElement

As well as HHJP's order: Specifically item #4 of the order
http://www.cfnews13.com/uploadedFil... Motions & Hearing Deadlines & Trial Date.pdf

After reading the rules set forth in Florida rule 3.220 and after reading the order by HHJP specifically order #4. It should be noted that the defense has not up dated it's witness list since 1/23/09. The SA has updated their witness list as recently as 5/24/10
http://myclerk.myorangeclerk.com/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=6236234

 

[marspiter]

In the motion, they are argueing over addresses of the the people in the discovery that was turned over in the motion. Hence, discovery was turned over by the defense even though it was through a motion. I don't think there is an argument among sides of whether there was discovery turned over, but about its lack of detail. The defense has turned over discovery of the claim made by Todd M, the statements by Lb and JJ that the body was not there when they searched. Kc was in custody at that time. I can understand why some would say thats not good enough, but it is good enough for me. These claims that the defense has not turned over any discovery appear to be just wishful thinking. They have indeed turned over very important discovery. IMO

I will look for the motion today where the defense attached the statements by JJ and Lb, I will also look for the motion where the interview of Jk was attached.

Finally, I am not willing to get in a circular discussion over a difference of opinion. It is my opinion after reading the docs in this case, that the defense has indeed turned over discovery.

Bolded area: Do you have a link for the information backing up Todd M's claims? That would be pretty significant and rather news worthy.

I understand your opinion and we are each entitled to our opinions. What I am asking for is facts to back up that opinion.

Can you provide any links to information that proves the defense has indeed submitted discovery items to the prosecution in accordance with the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure?

As an example releasing items to the media such as RK's ex's statements is not discovery evidence. It was not submitted to the courts in accordance with the FRCP.

 

[marspiter]

To add further to this discussion:
It should be noted that in FRCP 3.220 (d)(1)(B)(i) and (ii)

So in order for a witness to give testimony they must be listed on the defense's witness list. That and in order for the defendant to submit physical evidence from an expert that expert must be listed on the defendants witness list.

So the defense wouldn't be able to submit any evidence from anyone not on their witness list.

I am going right now to look for the defenses witness list. I don't believe they have any of their experts on the list as wasn't it (the defenses list) a copy of the prosecutions list back in Nov 17 of 2008?

 

[notthatsmart]

Bolded area: Do you have a link for the information backing up Todd M's claims? That would be pretty significant and rather news worthy.

I understand your opinion and we are each entitled to our opinions. What I am asking for is facts to back up that opinion.

Can you provide any links to information that proves the defense has indeed submitted discovery items to the prosecution in accordance with the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure?

As an example releasing items to the media such as RK's ex's statements is not discovery evidence. It was not submitted to the courts in accordance with the FRCP.

Well like I said, I will look for those links that the defense provided in a motion of JJ and Lb statements. I agree that it may have not been done in the manner that everyone wishes, but it was in a motion and I believe it is the tes motion. So technically, I am not sure it was done right, but really we do have the info and we have it through the courts and not through the press. IMO So, technically it may have been done wrong, but technically the docket does not say who turned over the discovery. IMO

 

[goldleaf]

As a 3rd generation Floridian, I can tell you that since we don't have a "winter" and most foliage stays green year round, coupled with heavy rainfall during the hurricane season, etc, the underbrush can get very dense/heavy and it is difficult to look in areas that have not been cleared for development. Even the topography of an area where kids meet will change after a tropical storm or big rains. Looking at an aerial map you can see how dense the woods are near the Anthony home.

I spent almost every Sunday at my uncle's farm as a child, along with many cousins. We once got lost while playing in an orchard surrounded by undeveloped land on 3 sides. Until you have been "in the woods" in Florida, you have no idea how difficult it can be to find your way around.

I do think they may have searched that area, but until I hear there was a concentrated search done with people side by side moving a few inches at a time, I don't think they can be safely say they searched the entire area and saw nothing. It's possible to be within feet of an object and NEVER see it.

I also agree that most people who live here will know that, as well.

 

[notthatsmart]

Okay here is the link where Lb and Jj's statements were provided by the defense. These statements are proof in my opinion that Caylee was placed there later as Todd M said. This is not the correct way to hand over discovery I suppose, but it works for me and I am satisfied with their proof provided by Feb 1st. Thats my opinion

And yes it was a significant newsworthy story. This link was actually provided by the press.

Okay, what was the other link I was looking for.......

http://www.wftv.com/pdf/21703813/detail.html

Exibit A and Exibit B

 

[faefrost]

In the motion, they are argueing over addresses of the the people in the discovery that was turned over in the motion. Hence, discovery was turned over by the defense even though it was through a motion. I don't think there is an argument among sides of whether there was discovery turned over, but about its lack of detail. The defense has turned over discovery of the claim made by Todd M, the statements by Lb and JJ that the body was not there when they searched. Kc was in custody at that time. I can understand why some would say thats not good enough, but it is good enough for me. These claims that the defense has not turned over any discovery appear to be just wishful thinking. They have indeed turned over very important discovery. IMO

I will look for the motion today where the defense attached the statements by JJ and Lb, I will also look for the motion where the interview of Jk was attached.

Finally, I am not willing to get in a circular discussion over a difference of opinion. It is my opinion after reading the docs in this case, that the defense has indeed turned over discovery.

For the record, here is what the reciprocal discovery looks like in the court filings "05/12/2010 Notice of Provision of Supplemental Discovery" You can tell which way the discovery is going by who filed it. And roughly 10 days after filing the documents are released to the public and media under the sunshine laws. This isn't rocket science. This isn't a case of "Well we can't prove that the defense hasn't given them anything". Yes we can. This is a matter involving the courts and the law. If the filings did not occur, the discovery did not occur. Period! non negotiable. Opinion doesn't count.

The defense has the obligation to provide the required documentation in the proper format. As an example the law says that the names and addresses and full contact information must be provided in the witness list. They can't just e-mail the witnesses lawyers phone number over to the prosecution. They can't make a reference in a filing or e-mail that the information should be obvious. It must be on the appropriate paperwork filed with the court. I know this seems like a picky point, but it is how the legal system works. It is why we have professional lawyers tested and certified by the states and bar.

And lets not forget that the defense has already popped a surprise witness before the court without providing any information or the required reciprocal discovery to the prosecutors. AL did it with her "woman suffer more under the DP" expert. The defense had the obligation to at a minimum provide her name, contact info, what she was there for if an expert witness (or what makes her and expert witness) and any materials she would be referencing. They did not do that.

(on a side note does anyone else see the irony of AL telling the prosecution "the potential witnesses should be obvious from the filing" back in Nov, 2009? Brings a whole new meaning to JA's responses regarding the Aggravating Factors" for the DP.)

 

[notthatsmart]

For the record, here is what the reciprocal discovery looks like in the court filings "05/12/2010 Notice of Provision of Supplemental Discovery" You can tell which way the discovery is going by who filed it. And roughly 10 days after filing the documents are released to the public and media under the sunshine laws. This isn't rocket science. This isn't a case of "Well we can't prove that the defense hasn't given them anything". Yes we can. This is a matter involving the courts and the law. If the filings did not occur, the discovery did not occur. Period! non negotiable. Opinion doesn't count.

The defense has the obligation to provide the required documentation in the proper format. As an example the law says that the names and addresses and full contact information must be provided in the witness list. They can't just e-mail the witnesses lawyers phone number over to the prosecution. They can't make a reference in a filing or e-mail that the information should be obvious. It must be on the appropriate paperwork filed with the court. I know this seems like a picky point, but it is how the legal system works. It is why we have professional lawyers tested and certified by the states and bar.

And lets not forget that the defense has already popped a surprise witness before the court without providing any information or the required reciprocal discovery to the prosecutors. AL did it with her "woman suffer more under the DP" expert. The defense had the obligation to at a minimum provide her name, contact info, what she was there for if an expert witness (or what makes her and expert witness) and any materials she would be referencing. They did not do that.

(on a side note does anyone else see the irony of AL telling the prosecution "the potential witnesses should be obvious from the filing" back in Nov, 2009? Brings a whole new meaning to JA's responses regarding the Aggravating Factors" for the DP.)

Where does it say who filed it? I am trying to find that. thanks

 

[beach]

Where does it say who filed it? I am trying to find that. thanks

You can look at the bottom where the signature block is.

 

[notthatsmart]

Btw I am enjoying the discussion and appreciate the input. I see we are getting down to the "picky points" and I like that terminology. I think the thread is moving forward and we are getting down to the nitty gritty of the politics involved in the technicalities of the courts. I am just a lehman, but I can clearly see what is going on. Some call it tit for tat lol. I am hoping this judge puts and end to it. He is very respectful.

I wonder if the defense will suffer sanctions for not doiing it in the detailed manner that the state has laid out for them. Anyone know?

 

[beach]

You can look at the bottom where the signature block is.

sorry for the self-quote, but an even quicker way to tell is in the 'style' aka title at the very top of the motion or notice.

It will usually say either "Defendant's Notice....." or "Defendant's Motion" (for whatever). Or, State's Notice/Motion....

 

[notthatsmart]

sorry for the self-quote, but an even quicker way to tell is in the 'style' aka title at the very top of the motion or notice.

It will usually say either "Defendant's Notice....." or "Defendant's Motion" (for whatever). Or, State's Notice/Motion....

We must be looking at complete different documents. I am not seeing any of this. Here is what I am looking at and see the same thing on the links that have been provided today.

05/12/2010 Notice of Provision of Discovery
1. Curriculum Vitae of Sgt. Kevin Stenger (pages 14717-14719)
2. Curriculum Vitae ofDet. Sandra G. (Cawn) Osborne (pages 14720-14721)
3. Letter from Maya Derkovic (pages 14722-14723)

05/14/2010 Notice of Provision of Discovery
CD -Discovery Documents Pages 14717-14774
(Note: Pgs 14717-14723 was previously faxed to defense attorney on 5/12/10)

05/14/2010 State of FL Response to Order Regarding Depo Schedule and Motion for Extension of Time To File Schedule
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/38686486...-for-Extension

05/07/2010 Notice of Conclusion - Diana Tennis
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/38690284...--Diana-Tennis

05/11/2010 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR STATEMENT OF PARTICULARS PROVIDING NOTICE OF AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/38693448...-Circumstances

05/07/2010 Correspondence to Court
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/38159800...dence-to-Court
__________________
So I am not seeing it. Can you provide a link to what your looking at? thanks