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

[Kat]

I asked AZLawyer this question on our Lawyers thread and her answer was to the best of her knowledge re the laws for this state, she is not required to do that but may if she wants to. Other than that her lawyer can read her statement and she only needs to say "guilty".

That answer surprised me regarding a plea agreement, but who says I know anything at all about the law?:waitasec:

Thank you logicalgirl. We are both disappointed then <sigh>. Wouldn't it be nice if she had to....

 

[logicalgirl]

It just makes sense Casey would have to outline it to SA, but then again maybe she just has to admit it to Baez, have him do the paperwork, have it read out in court and swear to it.

Pretty darn disappointing, because I really want to her to have to admit it in front of the whole world. But then again, she is dumb enough to not plea and go the distance with her statement "I didn't do it", believing all the while that it's going to be enough to get her declared innocent.

 

[LambChop]

Remember KC stating to LE "That's my story and I'm sticking to it." And she was quite arrogant about it. So is she stuck with it and if not won't the jury, along with all the other damning evidence, think you just can't believe anything she would have to say? How do you defend someone like that?????

 

[logicalgirl]

Remember KC stating to LE "That's my story and I'm sticking to it." And she was quite arrogant about it. So is she stuck with it and if not won't the jury, along with all the other damning evidence, think you just can't believe anything she would have to say? How do you defend someone like that?????

LambChop, I remember that statement also - so you know if she had been mirandized (or whatever) at that time? Because I'm thinking of RH's comment that you can say what you want but unless it's under oath or during a deposition, it can't come back to bite you.

Would that apply to all of Casey's earlier statements of "this happened" oh no, it was "this actually happened" and now the defense saying -"well actually this person did it"?

 

[mysticrose]

Casey Anthony: No Feb. 1 deadline on defense witness list
Caylee and Casey Anthony &#8212; posted by halboedeker on February, 1 2010 3:24 PM

Readers have been asking about a Feb. 1 deadline &#8212; that would be today &#8212; in the Casey Anthony case. She is charged with the first-degree murder of her daughter, Caylee.

In October, the Sentinel wrote that Judge Stan Strickland &#8220;ordered the defense team to turn over its witness list to prosecutors by Feb. 1. Prosecutors want to question the witnesses who support the defense&#8217;s claim that Anthony is innocent.&#8221;

But this deadline was rendered moot on the day Anthony pled guilty in her check-fraud case. The prosecution and the defense agreed to work out a new schedule of deadlines for the case, including a potential trial date. That schedule has not yet been made public

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/en...thony-there-is-no-feb-1-deadline-in-case.html

 

[cyberborg]

What is the defense trying to hide??

Nothing.

Seriously, they have nothing yet just bluster together with questioning investigation and, methods and procedures.

 

[Soju]

What is the defense trying to hide??

Nothing.

Seriously, they have nothing yet just bluster together with questioning investigation and, methods and procedures.

I think they're trying to hide the fact that they have nothing. If that makes sense.

 

[logicalgirl]

You could almost say they have so much Nothing, there is really nothing they can do to hide the fact that there is nothing in that nothing bag of evidence. Which leads me to the question - why aren't they saying nothing?

Hand up - oh I know! Who says when you have nothing to talk about you can't say something about nothing!:innocent:

 

[Amil]

LambChop, I remember that statement also - so you know if she had been mirandized (or whatever) at that time? Because I'm thinking of RH's comment that you can say what you want but unless it's under oath or during a deposition, it can't come back to bite you.

Would that apply to all of Casey's earlier statements of "this happened" oh no, it was "this actually happened" and now the defense saying -"well actually this person did it"?

She was not read Miranda because she was not a suspect at that point in time. She was a witness supplying information about a crime. She was making false statements to a Law Enforcement Officer. This is a crime for which she has been accused. It can come back and bite her!!

 

[lauriej]

I know two people they will not be putting on the witness list: Grandma and Uncle Rick http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_icWos23wM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Cs-2B4KcUA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NqbDRfu80w

.....the State has both of them on their witness list.

http://www.wesh.com/news/18565575/detail.html

 

[Intermezzo]

I think they're trying to hide the fact that they have nothing. If that makes sense.

Yes it does Soju..in a backwards sort of way

 

[hroark2112]

Have we seen the defense team's discovery released yet??

What are they waiting for? (Aside from the obvious...there may be nothing to discover on their end)

 

[legalmania]

Have we seen the defense team's discovery released yet??

What are they waiting for? (Aside from the obvious...there may be nothing to discover on their end)

They have been in the discovery stage for quite a while. If they don't release discovery, sanctions could be handed out.

 

[logicalgirl]

They have been in the discovery stage for quite a while. If they don't release discovery, sanctions could be handed out.

Wasn't that TES searcher who turned out to be searching on his own and not with TES who taped his interview with AL's investigator, then turned it over to the LE and recanted - wasn't he their proof of Casey's innocence? That is that Caylee was not in the woods, blah blah blah - oops, darn he changed his mind, now what?

 

[notthatsmart]

Wasn't that TES searcher who turned out to be searching on his own and not with TES who taped his interview with AL's investigator, then turned it over to the LE and recanted - wasn't he their proof of Casey's innocence? That is that Caylee was not in the woods, blah blah blah - oops, darn he changed his mind, now what?

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

 

[notthatsmart]

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

 

[lauriej]

..i personally don't think so. and legally, "afraid to release it" is not the way it works.

..at any rate, we'll be seeing new discovery sooner the court clerk:

04/12/2010 Notice of Provision of Supplemental Discovery04/14/2010 Notice of Provision of Supplemental Discovery

 

[logicalgirl]

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

You're pulling our legs now aren't you? LOL

 

[okiedokietoo]

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

I think I had an epiphany because last week I would have gone WHAT! but now you tickle me. And I am not being sarcastic.
In another state with no Sunshine Laws, you are right we wouldn't know, we wouldn't have a clue as to what was going on but, I think, in Florida it applies to the prosecutor and defense, so we would have known about it if it had been turned over to the State imo

 

[LinasK]

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

Umm, not when they have experts to testify about how long it took plant roots to grow through Caylee's remains, the previous water levels, and the neighbor girl who spotted Casey's car on Suburban drive backed up.