Procedure and legal questions

[JWG]

when will we see the new stuff that was just turned over? maybe tomorrow? or could we still see something tonight?
thanks

I am hearing from a reliable source it will be next week, possibly as early as Monday.

 

[ClockWatcher]

JB et al filed a new Motion to set trial date for the check fraud - how beneficial that Defense filed this? SA at Motion Hearing kept stating that they were not requesting a speedy trial....so for Defense to come out and request a trial date, is this good, strategically for Defense?

Hi Okiedokietoo,

It was the State that filed the motion for speedy trial. What we heard at the motion's hearing was Mr. Frank (or Mr. George, the dude has two first names, sorry) explaining that the fraud case had "fallen off the docket." He was using a newer state statute to reintroduce the case, is how I interpreted his meaning, by claiming that the state was wasn't requesting a speedy trial. I was confused as well when I heard him state that, but I think the goal was to keep the fraud case from languishing??

Here is a link to the thread that discusses the motion:

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85588"]State files motion to proceed with check fraud charge - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

Hope that helps!

 

[lin]

JB et al filed a new Motion to set trial date for the check fraud - how beneficial that Defense filed this? SA at Motion Hearing kept stating that they were not requesting a speedy trial....so for Defense to come out and request a trial date, is this good, strategically for Defense?

They asked for a trial date over a year from now; prospectively after the murder trial. If the murder trial isn't completed by then, at that time they can burn their 3rd continuance triggering the state's right to a speedy trial. At least that's what they're thinking.

The state asked the court to set the trial within the next 90 days.

 

[spiderlady]

I am still a newby and this may be inappropriate at this time or may merit a new thread. MODS....please correct or move if needed.

My question is....How many think that this case will play out with many money hungry rats climbing on board this sinking ship only to make scums of money and costing the state of Florida tons of money in taxes only for KC to end up taking the Alford plea?

 

[lin]

In the recent 91 page motion filed by Jose, there is supporting documentation that includes letters from LKB to the FBI and Oak Ridge. In the letter to Oak Ridge, LKB asks about accreditation by the American Society of Crime Lab Directors (ASCLAD), to which Oak Ridge responds "Oak Ridge National Laboratory is not a crime lab, but is the largest multi-purpose research and development science laboratory owned by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science."

For our lawyer friends out there, how much mileage will LKB get out of the fact that Oak Ridge does not refer to themselves as a Crime Lab? :waitasec:

For my money, they're better. If they weren't so well known it may make some difference but I highly doubt it will in this case.

 

[lin]

I am still a newby and this may be inappropriate at this time or may merit a new thread. MODS....please correct or move if needed.

My question is....How many think that this case will play out with many money hungry rats climbing on board this sinking ship only to make scums of money and costing the state of Florida tons of money in taxes only for KC to end up taking the Alford plea?

I'm with you as far as the rats climbing on to make money... I'm not psychic, but I do read the news and at WS...

PS:

 

[okiedokietoo]

Hi Okiedokietoo,

It was the State that filed the motion for speedy trial. What we heard at the motion's hearing was Mr. Frank (or Mr. George, the dude has two first names, sorry) explaining that the fraud case had "fallen off the docket." He was using a newer state statute to reintroduce the case, is how I interpreted his meaning, by claiming that the state was wasn't requesting a speedy trial. I was confused as well when I heard him state that, but I think the goal was to keep the fraud case from languishing??

Here is a link to the thread that discusses the motion:

State files motion to proceed with check fraud charge - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

Hope that helps!

(above bolded by me)
Great Point!

Thanks.....I read the date on the Motion wrong and thought it was filed after Motion Hearing...............:doh:

 

[Baxter]

For my money, they're better. If they weren't so well known it may make some difference but I highly doubt it will in this case.

I love this dispenser!

 

[lin]

(above bolded by me)
Great Point!

Thanks.....I read the date on the Motion wrong and thought it was filed after Motion Hearing...............:doh:

I think you're both right; 2 motions were filed. A motion to set trial date (within 90 days) was filed by the state prior to the hearing; the defense objected; it was a subject of the hearing.

AFTER the hearing when the defense realized they had prepared a totally wrong argument, the state did not file for a speedy trial but just as a regular course of business docket sounding thing, the defense thought they'd be clever and jump on one sentence of the state's argument -- they want the case set for trial. So the defense, in its ultimate sense of entitlement, (imo), decided to try to twist or obfuscate the state's request by suggesting they want a trial date set too -- but not until November 2010, over a year away. Far outside the 90 days the state requested.

 

[faefrost]

In the recent 91 page motion filed by Jose, there is supporting documentation that includes letters from LKB to the FBI and Oak Ridge. In the letter to Oak Ridge, LKB asks about accreditation by the American Society of Crime Lab Directors (ASCLAD), to which Oak Ridge responds "Oak Ridge National Laboratory is not a crime lab, but is the largest multi-purpose research and development science laboratory owned by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science."

For our lawyer friends out there, how much mileage will LKB get out of the fact that Oak Ridge does not refer to themselves as a Crime Lab? :waitasec:

JB would be eating this up.

I honestly think LKB is the better and smarter lawyer. While she may offer some strong challenges on alot of the scientific evidence. To openly challenge this finding in court has ALOT of risks. While the tech involves is new, unproven and probably the strongest single challenge she has on any of the science, it comes with a huge problem. It is backed up by skilled knowlegeable witnesses reporting the odor. And one of those witnesses is the defendents mother, a trained licensed and working geriatric nurse. Who issued not just a statement, but an excited uterance on a 911 tape. Unlike police saements which the trial will never hear or read unless the witness is unable to offer actual tesimony, the 911 tapes are by their nature a sworn public record and evidence, and may be presented to teh jury as such. Bringing up challenges to the Body Farms tests means that they jury will hear CA declarring "It SMELLS LIKE A DEAD BODY HAS BEEN IN THE CAR!!!" over and over and over again. One would think that a skilled attorney like LKB would find his counterproductive.

While the individual test may be fairly easy for a skilled lawyer to cast doubt on. The agregate path of evidence is such that it may not make it a good strategy. It would have been a good strategy before the remains were found. But now that there is definitive proof that a member of that family was dead at that time, and physical evidence links the house and the remains site, arguing the science used on the car trunk, while the detective, 2 cadaver dogs and the defendents mother and father all score seperate unrelated hits ot statements about there being a smell of human decomposittion, is really pushing the boundries of what the jury will tolerate.

his is similar to the current apparent strategy of the defense that KC mist be innocent someone moved the body there afer she was in jail. Well folks this might be interesting, if there was not clear evidence that there was someone on that site looking to do just that, and he was operating in the interests and employ of the defendent, her lawyer and her parents. Once again an arguable point of law, but one that may be counterproductive before the jury.

 

[AZlawyer]

In the recent 91 page motion filed by Jose, there is supporting documentation that includes letters from LKB to the FBI and Oak Ridge. In the letter to Oak Ridge, LKB asks about accreditation by the American Society of Crime Lab Directors (ASCLAD), to which Oak Ridge responds "Oak Ridge National Laboratory is not a crime lab, but is the largest multi-purpose research and development science laboratory owned by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science."

For our lawyer friends out there, how much mileage will LKB get out of the fact that Oak Ridge does not refer to themselves as a Crime Lab? :waitasec:

She just pulled out her form "crime lab" request, and didn't bother editing it. I don't think it matters a bit whether they are a "crime lab" per se.

Now it's possible that they could get the "air sniffing" tests thrown out on the ground that the science is too new/untested. Not sure what the standards are in FLA state court. But IMO there will be a lot of other physical evidence, and this won't matter much.

 

[MADJGNLAW]

Can Morgan/ZFG file perjury charges against DC?

Anthonys' P.I. Accused Of Lying On Stand

"Snip"wftv September 14, 2009
ORANGE COUNTY, Fla. -- Lawyers for Zenaida Gonzalez, in the civil lawsuit against Casey Anthony say her family's private investigator, Dominic Casey, lied on the witness stand last week during a hearing.http://www.wftv.com/news/20907568/detail.html

 

[tasylshari]

Can Morgan/ZFG file perjury charges against DC?

Madj: I asked myself the same question. Is a P.I. (unlicensed, IIRC??) lawfully OBLIGATED :doh:to "testify" to LE, or did DC voluntarily :bang:spew his info? ie: PI client priviledge not priveledged :snooty:when LE gets involved??? If not, and he shoulda/woulda/coulda kept his trap shut then I hope that Morgan/ZFG is all over this. It'd be about time that someone got their fingers slapped for all of this lyin'!! :liar:Sheesh!!

 

[Amil]

According to this link here:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hED9R4znfezDpBuKVJccA5RCIlbAD9A828DG3
Casey has a chance, a fairly good one, at getting a change of venue.

I hope it doesn't happen but the odds are it will. This has been so extensively covered though, on the national level, that I would think they would have as difficult a time seating a jury in ANY county as they would in Orange county.

I live in Orange County and I have nobody to discuss this case with. I know lots of people and no one is keeping up with this in my circle. In addition, the hearings have no long lines waiting to get in. There are empty seats in the court house. I think seating a jury will not be difficult. I don't know a soul who watches N.G.

 

[faefrost]

Madj: I asked myself the same question. Is a P.I. (unlicensed, IIRC??) lawfully OBLIGATED :doh:to "testify" to LE, or did DC voluntarily :bang:spew his info? ie: PI client priviledge not priveledged :snooty:when LE gets involved??? If not, and he shoulda/woulda/coulda kept his trap shut then I hope that Morgan/ZFG is all over this. It'd be about time that someone got their fingers slapped for all of this lyin'!! :liar:Sheesh!!

There is no client/PI privilege recognized by the courts. The only time a PI would be a party to any sort of court recognized privilege is when they are an employee of an attorney as party to a defense team, and are generating work product for that attorney. So DC is as obligated to talk with LE and answer any questions posed as any other witness or member of the public. And giving a false statement to LE is a fairly serious issue in and of itself.

In the case of DC there is however a problem (at least to my eye). The privilege only exists when the PI is specifically an agent of the attorney and is acting as the attorneys eyes ears and hands. The privilege does not exist when the PI is a direct employee of the defendent. In the case of DC he had seperate individual employement contracts with the A's, JB and (the key one) KC herself. A reasonable argument can be made that he was fully a direct agent of KC, and not an extension of JB. And employees of the defendent (other than the lawyer) are NEVER protected by privilege (unless you are the President). So not only would he not be protected by privilege, but in the circumstances of any conversations between KC and JB with DC present may not be as well. In the case of attorney client privilege, the privilege is ultimately the clients to enact or waive. Just as the client is not supposed to be penalized by their lawyers screwups in breaking it, they also must bear the burden when they do so themselves. Signing an employment agreement with DC was a willfull waiver of her privilege (and JB should have warned her of such, if he knew).

 

[Bittiness39]

I don't mean to be a fly in the ointment of God or anything...but this is where I would absolutely think that the defense (given AL is a not SODDI type) begin to put out there that Caylee's death was an accident. Ugly coping and all. Not at all buying it but [Baez] has painted them into a corner and since we can't expect a plea...my next guess is that they are going to throw out there that it was oh dear an accident and the poor little girl drowned in the pool. Her parents want to BUY that along with some ocean front property in Arizona (love some George Strait) why would not some moron on a jury....?

 

[Mamabear1963]

Okay, with today's motion to get this case thrown out... I have a question:

IS THIS NORMAL? Or just a Baez kinda thing?:waitasec:

 

[lin]

Okay, with today's motion to get this case thrown out... I have a question:

IS THIS NORMAL? Or just a Baez kinda thing?:waitasec:

Sort of both. It's a normal motion done in an abnormal way. Usually the defense tries to make a credible case and I think the timing is a bit premature.

 

[HRCODEPINK]

Sort of both. It's a normal motion done in an abnormal way. Usually the defense tries to make a credible case and I think the timing is a bit premature.

Amen to that! I have worked A LOT of DP cases and I can't think of any of the ones that I worked where there wasn't a motion to dismiss, however most of them usually contain something of merit that follows with normal procedural rules.

 

[cecybeans]

Amen to that! I have worked A LOT of DP cases and I can't think of any of the ones that I worked where there wasn't a motion to dismiss, however most of them usually contain something of merit that follows with normal procedural rules.

Well, since NOTHING of merit has come out of the defense, I suppose it's not only an anomaly, but belongs in a record book as well...this one sets all kinds of benchmarks in sloppy unprofessional behavior and disrespect to the court.