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

[cmsg2002]

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

NTS, thank you for providing a link to the motion your referenced...but this is just a Motion with a Memorandum of Law in support of said motion. The two exhibits, the JJ and LB statements are provided as part of the memorandum. This is not discovery and would not and is not recognized by the Court as such. I understand you may believe this to be sufficient, but from legal and procedural standpoint, it is not. The defense would not even be able to use these statements at trial unless they provided it within their formal discovery responses. It is not enough that it was provided in support of a motion.

And from the subsequent interviews with JJ, he has recanted this statement, saying that at the time he made this, he was mistaken as to the location where Caylee's remains were found. He has now stated that he and the searchers he worked with and/or was in charge of....did not search the exact area where she was found. Because of his recanting, he did not appear as a defense witness at one of the more recent court appearances, and the defense is no longer pressing this issue, because JJ's testimony is no longer going to support their theory that Caylee's body was placed there after ICA was incarcerated.

 

[marspiter]

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

These names are listed as part of the defenses motion for TES records, but they where not part of the discovery handed over to the SA. The full interview/deposition was not presented as evidence in a motion of disclosure as describe in FCRP 3.220 and does not constitute a discovery evidence item.
I also believe JJ and LB are not part of the defense witness list so once again their testimony is not part of discovery as their testimony is not admissible as evidence until they are placed on the defenses witness list.

Further as can bee seen in the States second motion to compel that state clearly outlines that these witness statements were not presented in the correct manner as pursuant to FRCP 3.220. Also if you notice item 3 in the states motion they outline exactly what the defense has turned in (the witness list). It should also be noted that your linked motion was denied in court as well.

http://www.wftv.com/pdf/21913703/detail.html (states motion to compel)

Also Todd M. stated clearly in open court that they had evidence that proved Casey is innocent. The fact that LB and JJ didn't find a body is not proof of anything. What would be proof is the botanical evidence that shows Caylee's body was in that location for X amount of time.

Even CM stated in open court that even if the body wasn't placed by Casey it doesn't mean she didn't kill Caylee (paraphrased). So basically the defense just shot that one in the foot themselves.

So as it stands there is no proof that the defense has submitted any evidence as part of discovery pursuant to FRCP 3.220.

additionally: These statements by LB and JJ were not submitted as proof of Todd M's statements. They were presented in a motion for a records request from TES. The defense never did submit "evidence" to back Todd M's claim. I believe this is also the time that the defense and SA agreed to hash out what the discovery deadlines would be and the Todd M comments just kinda disappeared with out the defense providing anything.

 

[marspiter]

For further reference here is the defenses witness list. It is the second document in the link after you scroll past the SA's motion.
http://www.cfnews13.com/uploadedFil...a's Motion to Strike Defense Witness List.pdf

Here is the SA's witness list that is referenced in the defenses list.
http://www.wftv.com/news/18008819/detail.html

JJ and LB are not part of this list. Also the only "experts" on the list are also the only ones actually named on the list. Which are Kobi, Dr. Lee, and Larry Daniel

It should be noted that Kobi was not named in the JAC hearing when JB was listing his experts. Unless of course I missed it.

 

[notthatsmart]

NTS, thank you for providing a link to the motion your referenced...but this is just a Motion with a Memorandum of Law in support of said motion. The two exhibits, the JJ and LB statements are provided as part of the memorandum. This is not discovery and would not and is not recognized by the Court as such. I understand you may believe this to be sufficient, but from legal and procedural standpoint, it is not. The defense would not even be able to use these statements at trial unless they provided it within their formal discovery responses. It is not enough that it was provided in support of a motion.

And from the subsequent interviews with JJ, he has recanted this statement, saying that at the time he made this, he was mistaken as to the location where Caylee's remains were found. He has now stated that he and the searchers he worked with and/or was in charge of....did not search the exact area where she was found. Because of his recanting, he did not appear as a defense witness at one of the more recent court appearances, and the defense is no longer pressing this issue, because JJ's testimony is no longer going to support their theory that Caylee's body was placed there after ICA was incarcerated.

The way I understood it was that the Judge denied their request for Jj's tape, however when the conflicts happen in court, the tape can be brought up. IE When Mort testifies that Jj told him the area was dry, and JJ denies that, then the court could release the tape to see if JJ actually said that. Am I right? Its not over yet. I also feel that JJ was very confused about where the body was located. He said on more than one occasion that he thought the body was located 40 to 50 feet in. The Le did not correct him on this. I hope there will be a deposition..

As far as the technicalities of discovery, I accept that what you said in legal technicality is correct, however in reality, they have provided information exculpatory in nature . IMO

I also noted item number 4 in which was provided that the defense only has 5 days to input the disclosure, so I am not sure how they are going to get by that item number 4. Seems the defense is doing everything the wrong way according to many posters, but they are still getting the facts out. IMO I wonder if they will suffer sanctions.

 

[beach]

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

For some reason the docstoc links are not working for me, but that is okay. I don't even have to open those links to tell who filed the last 4 you provided links for because it tells me in the link itself.

1. 05/14/2010 State of FL Response to Order Regarding Depo Schedule and Motion for Extension of Time To File Schedule

2. 05/07/2010 Notice of Conclusion - Diana Tennis (former atty for Dominic Casey)

3. 05/11/2010 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR STATEMENT OF PARTICULARS PROVIDING NOTICE OF AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES (an ORDER is a ruling issued by the Judge and filed with the clerk)

4. 05/07/2010 Correspondence to Court (this would be filed into the official record by the clerk)


In re. the first 3 you cited:

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)


You didn't provide a link, but I can tell that those are CV's of LE personnel and the last is a letter from Maya Derkovic. That tells me the Notice was therefore filed by the SA in re. discovery turned over by SA to the Defense.

 

[marspiter]

The way I understood it was that the Judge denied their request for Jj's tape, however when the conflicts happen in court, the tape can be brought up. IE When Mort testifies that Jj told him the area was dry, and JJ denies that, then the court could release the tape to see if JJ actually said that. Am I right? Its not over yet. I also feel that JJ was very confused about where the body was located. He said on more than one occasion that he thought the body was located 40 to 50 feet in. The Le did not correct him on this. I hope there will be a deposition..

As far as the technicalities of discovery, I accept that what you said in legal technicality is correct, however in reality, they have provided information exculpatory in nature . IMO

I also noted item number 4 in which was provided that the defense only has 5 days to input the disclosure, so I am not sure how they are going to get by that item number 4. Seems the defense is doing everything the wrong way according to many posters, but they are still getting the facts out. IMO I wonder if they will suffer sanctions.

As of right now Mort can't testify so it's a moot point. He is not listed as a witness and neither is JJ. I'll have to check the latest SA witness list, but they are not currently witnesses for the defense.

As to exculpatory in nature. Sorry I don't see it. One of the witnesses has already given statements that said they were wrong about the location (JJ). CM in open court said just because Casey didn't place the body there doesn't mean she didn't kill Caylee (paraphrased) opps. Then you have the botanical evidence. However this is all discussion for a different thread.

This is about the defense submitting discovery to the SA. Which I think we both now agree has not been done.

 

[notthatsmart]

These names are listed as part of the defenses motion for TES records, but they where not part of the discovery handed over to the SA. The full interview/deposition was not presented as evidence in a motion of disclosure as describe in FCRP 3.220 and does not constitute a discovery evidence item.
I also believe JJ and LB are not part of the defense witness list so once again their testimony is not part of discovery as their testimony is not admissible as evidence until they are placed on the defenses witness list.

Further as can bee seen in the States second motion to compel that state clearly outlines that these witness statements were not presented in the correct manner as pursuant to FRCP 3.220. Also if you notice item 3 in the states motion they outline exactly what the defense has turned in (the witness list). It should also be noted that your linked motion was denied in court as well.

http://www.wftv.com/pdf/21913703/detail.html (states motion to compel)

Also Todd M. stated clearly in open court that they had evidence that proved Casey is innocent. The fact that LB and JJ didn't find a body is not proof of anything. What would be proof is the botanical evidence that shows Caylee's body was in that location for X amount of time.

Even CM stated in open court that even if the body wasn't placed by Casey it doesn't mean she didn't kill Caylee (paraphrased). So basically the defense just shot that one in the foot themselves.

So as it stands there is no proof that the defense has submitted any evidence as part of discovery pursuant to FRCP 3.220.

additionally: These statements by LB and JJ were not submitted as proof of Todd M's statements. They were presented in a motion for a records request from TES. The defense never did submit "evidence" to back Todd M's claim. I believe this is also the time that the defense and SA agreed to hash out what the discovery deadlines would be and the Todd M comments just kinda disappeared with out the defense providing anything.

What kind of sanctions do you think the defense will suffer if they now put these people on their witness list?. I am talking about that item number 4 in which you provided where it says they only have 5 days to make notice that they are going to use them.

Also, do you think Lb and JJ will never be brought up in trial? thanks

 

[notthatsmart]

For some reason the docstoc links are working for me, but that is okay. I don't even have to open those links to tell who filed the last 4 you provided links for because it tells me in the link itself.

1. 05/14/2010 State of FL Response to Order Regarding Depo Schedule and Motion for Extension of Time To File Schedule

2. 05/07/2010 Notice of Conclusion - Diana Tennis (former atty for Dominic Casey)

3. 05/11/2010 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR STATEMENT OF PARTICULARS PROVIDING NOTICE OF AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES (an ORDER is a ruling issued by the Judge and filed with the clerk)

4. 05/07/2010 Correspondence to Court (this would be filed into the official record by the clerk)


In re. the first 3 you cited:

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)


You didn't provide a link, but I can tell that those are CV's of LE personnel and the last is a letter from Maya Derkovic. That tells me the Notice was therefore filed by the SA in re. discovery turned over by SA to the Defense.

Yes I can see that is obvious, but there are many many lines in the docket that I read on the Notice of provision of Discovery that had no reference to whom submitted it.. I will have to check doc stock when I get home. thanks

 

[beach]

Yes I can see that is obvious, but there are many many lines in the docket that I read on the Notice of provision of Discovery that had no reference to whom submitted it.. I will have to check doc stock when I get home. thanks

If you just look at the entries in to the record, you may not be able to tell. The only reason I was able to tell those w/o a link is because they were pretty obvious. If you open the doc (e.g., Notice) it should be signed at the bottom by either JA or LDB for the State or by JB, CM or AL for the defense.

HTH

 

[notthatsmart]

As of right now Mort can't testify so it's a moot point. He is not listed as a witness and neither is JJ. I'll have to check the latest SA witness list, but they are not currently witnesses for the defense.

As to exculpatory in nature. Sorry I don't see it. One of the witnesses has already given statements that said they were wrong about the location (JJ). CM in open court said just because Casey didn't place the body there doesn't mean she didn't kill Caylee (paraphrased) opps. Then you have the botanical evidence. However this is all discussion for a different thread.

This is about the defense submitting discovery to the SA. Which I think we both now agree has not been done.

Yes I think I agree with you technically. I would imagine that eventually the defense will produce a substantial witness list. I do not understand exactly why they haven't so far, but I am sure it has to do with strategy. Is this normal? Defense stalls until very late in the game? Do you think Mort will never end up on that list? thanks

As far as JJ, he is still mistaken about the location. That is why they need to depose him. His recanting doesn't count to me if he has no idea where the remains were found. Need to establish one thing before the other. I understand in a police interview, they are going to ask questions and not give or correct information. They want to know what the witness knows or thinks, however in a deposition with both sides present, it can be hammered out. IMO

 

[notthatsmart]

If you just look at the entries in to the record, you may not be able to tell. The only reason I was able to tell those w/o a link is because they were pretty obvious. If you open the doc (e.g., Notice) it should be signed at the bottom by either JA or LDB for the State or by JB, CM or AL for the defense.

HTH

Can you just provide a link so I can have some idea what doc you are looking at. I went onto the clerk site and did not find anything but the text with no links to whom signed it. thanks

 

[beach]

Can you just provide a link so I can have some idea what doc you are looking at. I went onto the clerk site and did not find anything but the text with no links to whom signed it. thanks

Here you go. Grabbed this from marspiter's post on the previous page.


http://www.wftv.com/pdf/21913703/detail.html


And here is another, just for good measure. Grabbed it off the Ninth Judicial website under 'Notices'

http://www.ninthcircuit.org/news/High-Profile-Cases/Anthony/Downloads/State's%20Notice%20of%20Filing%20Proposed%20Order%20Re%20Discovery%20Motion%20and%20Hearing%20Deadlines%20and%20Trial%20Date.pdf

 

[faefrost]

The way I understood it was that the Judge denied their request for Jj's tape, however when the conflicts happen in court, the tape can be brought up. IE When Mort testifies that Jj told him the area was dry, and JJ denies that, then the court could release the tape to see if JJ actually said that. Am I right? Its not over yet. I also feel that JJ was very confused about where the body was located. He said on more than one occasion that he thought the body was located 40 to 50 feet in. The Le did not correct him on this. I hope there will be a deposition..

As far as the technicalities of discovery, I accept that what you said in legal technicality is correct, however in reality, they have provided information exculpatory in nature . IMO

I also noted item number 4 in which was provided that the defense only has 5 days to input the disclosure, so I am not sure how they are going to get by that item number 4. Seems the defense is doing everything the wrong way according to many posters, but they are still getting the facts out. IMO I wonder if they will suffer sanctions.

No! Not in this case. It's not like some of the other sealed testimony such as the GJ transcripts. The tape is sealed, done with and its contents cannot be used or referenced, even to impeach a witness. It was illegally obtained. It's existence is in and of itself a crime in Florida. The SA has not listened to it. No transcripts of it exist. The best either side can do is ask the witness what they will under oath. They can ask about the conversations involved in the tape, but they will not be able to call up or play the tape to compare what the witnesses say on the stand.

They may be able to ask about the physical act of the tapping as a way to impeach a witnesses credibility... but that would really only be done to the person who made the recording, not the person recorded/victim of the illegal recording. And it would seem rather pointless and counterproductive to the defense. I can't see the SA putting that person on the stand, and why would the defense seek to discredit a witness they call?

 

[marspiter]

Yes I think I agree with you technically. I would imagine that eventually the defense will produce a substantial witness list. I do not understand exactly why they haven't so far, but I am sure it has to do with strategy. Is this normal? Defense stalls until very late in the game? Do you think Mort will never end up on that list? thanks

As far as JJ, he is still mistaken about the location. That is why they need to depose him. His recanting doesn't count to me if he has no idea where the remains were found. Need to establish one thing before the other. I understand in a police interview, they are going to ask questions and not give or correct information. They want to know what the witness knows or thinks, however in a deposition with both sides present, it can be hammered out. IMO

The reason the defense hasn't done anything is because they are stalling for time. Its the standard operating procedure for most defense attorneys. Well unless they feel very strongly about a case.

For example we had a case here in my area for indecent liberties with a minor. The excused was actually a sheriff's deputy and the defense was itching to go to trial. The SA had nothing other then a polygraph which was deemed inconclusive. The poly was also given to him at 12am after he had consumed alcohol. The only other evidence was a statement from the victim (his daughter) who was very young and said "Daddy made my butt hurt". Both parents gave statements that the daughter was spanked for throwing a tantrum because she did not want to go to bed. She (the victim) did describe a "Dr. Jim" that touched her. This description did not match the accused in any way. The case was dropped for lack of evidence by the SA.

I personally think the defense will add everyone at a later date. Like 5pm the day it's due. What evidence are they going to enter? I don't think they even know that yet.

 

[cmsg2002]

NTS...time will tell whether or not the defense believes if JJ can still provide beneficial assistance to them. If they choose to depose him, then yes, that would infer they are still pursuing that angle/theory. But if they don't choose to depose and he's not listed on their witness list, IMO, that's even more telling, and that they are moving on to something or someone else.

In any cases that progress to trial, both sides are very selective in who they are going to put forward as witness, and/or expend $$ on deposing. Each side only wants those who give them the most bang for their buck so to speak. They are not going to waste time, energy, effort and $$ on someone who is not going to be helpful in supporting their case/argument.

 

[Intermezzo]

Yes I think I agree with you technically. I would imagine that eventually the defense will produce a substantial witness list. I do not understand exactly why they haven't so far, but I am sure it has to do with strategy. Is this normal? Defense stalls until very late in the game? Do you think Mort will never end up on that list? thanks

As far as JJ, he is still mistaken about the location. That is why they need to depose him. His recanting doesn't count to me if he has no idea where the remains were found. Need to establish one thing before the other. I understand in a police interview, they are going to ask questions and not give or correct information. They want to know what the witness knows or thinks, however in a deposition with both sides present, it can be hammered out. IMO

NTS,
Curious about your comments that JJ is very confused (previous post of yours) and he is still mistaken about the location?( BBM above post)
Why do you believe, with what comes across to me, with certainty that JJ is confused and mistaken about the location?
I am curious.

 

[Marina2]

I see no good reason whatsoever for the defense to call JJ to the stand or even waste time and state's money deposing him. He has recanted. I wouldn't be surprised to see him appear on the state's witness list if Mort appears on the defense's. Ultimately, the jury will believe the story JJ gave to LE and the testimony he gives under oath. To the defense, JJ is a waste... a huge waste.

As far as impeaching JJ with the tape, it won't come to that. He hasn't and won't deny saying it, only that he was mistaken about the location Caylee was found in and based his original statement on that.

 

[notthatsmart]

I see no good reason whatsoever for the defense to call JJ to the stand or even waste time and state's money deposing him. He has recanted. I wouldn't be surprised to see him appear on the state's witness list if Mort appears on the defense's. Ultimately, the jury will believe the story JJ gave to LE and the testimony he gives under oath. To the defense, JJ is a waste... a huge waste.

As far as impeaching JJ with the tape, it won't come to that. He hasn't and won't deny saying it, only that he was mistaken about the location Caylee was found in and based his original statement on that.

I respectfully disagree. The defense said in an motion that the police used his tape against him to get him to recant. So, that could easily be cleared up with deposition. I think it needs to be done to clear it up. IMO

 

[RR0004]

If you just look at the entries in to the record, you may not be able to tell. The only reason I was able to tell those w/o a link is because they were pretty obvious. If you open the doc (e.g., Notice) it should be signed at the bottom by either JA or LDB for the State or by JB, CM or AL for the defense.

HTH

...and that they correspond with hearings...and what the media has reported on...if anyone's following what's going on.

 

[RR0004]

I respectfully disagree. The defense said in an motion that the police used his tape against him to get him to recant. So, that could easily be cleared up with deposition. I think it needs to be done to clear it up. IMO

The defense can say whatever they want. Show me the proof. IMO the State wouldn't use it to threaten ANYONE...this really isn't a big woop (the State,though, handled this exactly the right way-following the letter of the law)...you'd be surprised at how many people don't know they can't do it (record surreptitiously). JJ was bringing it to the State's attention (IIRC) because he felt it was inappropriate.