Spoliation Motion Sept 22, 2009 Includes Response

[Manny]

I may not be recalling the situation correctly..it was a long time ago. Didn't the defense request the opportunity to "observe" the crime scene in the court room? Did the Judge deny it?
As I said it was a long time ago and I just have a faint memory of State fighting that request and winning.

 

[Snaz]

I may not be recalling the situation correctly..it was a long time ago. Didn't the defense request the opportunity to "observe" the crime scene in the court room? Did the Judge deny it?
As I said it was a long time ago and I just have a faint memory of State fighting that request and winning.

Yes, JS has already previously shut down the defense on this topic during an emergency hearing back on December 16, 2008...... the judge's denial of the motion starts at about 22:25 into the video.

http://www.wftv.com/video/18292385/index.html

 

[faefrost]

LE was processing the crime scene in this case. I have never seen or heard of a defense attorney being allowed on a crime scene while LE is still processing it as part of their investigation. Many times the defense is allowed back into the scene once it has been processed in order to take their own photos and such but the defense is never allowed to process a fresh crime scene before or during the LE investigation. To me this motion is a clear act of desperation on the defenses part. Yes it's common to make a motion to dismiss and I'm actually surprised that the motion hasn't come before now.

To me though what they are asking a dismissal for shows the defense has nothing and is grasping at straws. This coming from a defense that is so adament the their client is innocent. Where was that evidence of innocence again? Oh yeah you don't have any.

As far as the Aisenburg case I just don't see the parallels here. In this case you have a SOP processing of a crime scene. The Aisenburg case had malicious fabrication of evidence if I'm not mistaken. At no point do I think the investigators in this case fabricated evidence or maliciously destroyed evidence in order to convict Casey. If anything the defense and the A's have shown questionable methods in regards to evidence in this case imho.

The judge denied their motion then for one very basic and irrefutable reason. Until the remains were positively identified that crime scene was not in any way shape or form connected to their client in the eyes of the law, and in LE's responsibilities to KC's defense team. At the time that scene was being processed the only legal way that the defense team could have positively known that that scene was evidence concerning their client was if their client had revealed to them that it was. Yes reasonable guesses and assumptions could have been made. But LE will not permit third parties into an active crime scene on the basis of an assumption. Until a name was put on those remains by the county coroner the defense had no right and no expectation to have anything to do with that scene. And the judge legitimately ruled against them on it once already.

 

[lin]

I truly did LOL when I read the part I bolded above. I can't wait either to read Ashton's whole 5-page response. Just from the few sentences in the article I think it's brilliant. How would those experts know evidence was ruined if they haven't even examined it yet?

They're between a rock and a hard place and the state just called them on it. IF the experts file reports supporting the motion to dismiss and it's not granted, then their opinions are worthless at trial. "Um, didn't you previously file a report that in your expert opinion it was impossible for you to dispute the state's case based on the evidence available due to the processing of the crime scene?" On the other hand, if they do not file such statements, then there is no basis whatsoever for that motion to be filed, much less granted. What a pickle JB is in, huh?

 

[Balthazar]

...and you think there's malicious persecution going on here?

No, I don't think so. What I do think is that the defense is trying to make the general public think that there is malicious persecution going on in the Casey Anthony case. The defense is doing this in order to create reasonable doubt about the case in the minds of potential jurors. I think the defense has been working on this angle at least since last December begining with this news article:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,469545,00.html

 

[doogiesgirl]

I truly did LOL when I read the part I bolded above. I can't wait either to read Ashton's whole 5-page response. Just from the few sentences in the article I think it's brilliant. How would those experts know evidence was ruined if they haven't even examined it yet?

They're between a rock and a hard place and the state just called them on it. IF the experts file reports supporting the motion to dismiss and it's not granted, then their opinions are worthless at trial. "Um, didn't you previously file a report that in your expert opinion it was impossible for you to dispute the state's case based on the evidence available due to the processing of the crime scene?" On the other hand, if they do not file such statements, then there is no basis whatsoever for that motion to be filed, much less granted. What a pickle JB is in, huh?

lin---you're a lawyer right? Please tell me that this isn't some awful ploy that will enable KC to come back later and claim "ineffective counsel" or whatever it's called legally (I call it "I was defended by an idiot" appeal). She can't right? moo

What a nightmare this case is, poor Judge S. moo

 

[marspiter]

lin---you're a lawyer right? Please tell me that this isn't some awful ploy that will enable KC to come back later and claim "ineffective counsel" or whatever it's called legally (I call it "I was defended by an idiot" appeal). She can't right? moo

What a nightmare this case is, poor Judge S. moo

Casey could try to appeal for that but it would get shot down pretty quickly. She has LKB, AL, celebrity experts. She has a better defense then 99.99..repeating% of all other people in this country accused of committing a crime. Not only that but the judge has ordered her to be in court for motions hearings so she can judge her defense for herself.

Given who her defense lawyers are, and her unwillingness to dismiss JB after watching him in court that kind of an appeal stands no chance at all imho.

 

[lin]

lin---you're a lawyer right? Please tell me that this isn't some awful ploy that will enable KC to come back later and claim "ineffective counsel" or whatever it's called legally (I call it "I was defended by an idiot" appeal). She can't right? moo

What a nightmare this case is, poor Judge S. moo

If you check the legal procedures thread, I think you'll find that all who weighed in on this agreed: A Dream Team does not equate ineffective assistance of counsel. No way, no how. I don't think the appellate panel would even laugh at that claim; I think they'd slap whomever dared to file it. Consider the woman has some of the biggest names not only as lawyers but as expert witnesses. She has the best of the best. That she as the client has put them in an impossible position strategy-wise does not make them ineffective; it makes her a loser. The state demanding KC be present at hearings is a failsafe so that she is aware of what fools these people make of themselves at the hearings. She chooses to continue with their representation.

Again, I don't think everyone on her team is a fool. She has some really good talent but she has an impossible case. She painted herself into this corner and I don't see how anyone could possibly get her out of it. JB tried to get a plea for her early on which would have been her best option.* Either KC refused it, which is what I believe, or the state didn't make an offer that JB could recommend. Think about it: Way back when, she likely would have gotten maybe 10 years; now she's looking at the DP. Of course, that pesky duct tape maybe have totally blown any deal; depending on how it was worded.

An ineffective assistance of counsel claim has no chance of succeeding here, PERIOD. imo, of course. If I had to guess why this was filed, I'd guess it's part standard operating procedure, a motion to dismiss and part soothing the client who has been locked up for nearly a year now. It's got to be getting to her, kwim? And she never was one that was easy to deal with, imo, based on her previous interactions with authority figures, such as her parents. They may "love her" at the jail and sneak her extra food, etc. but jail is not a night out at Fusian. KC's (imo) narcissism is not getting what she feels is necessary food for her ego.

*
PDF email files.

 

[SoCalSleuth]

The motion is bogus. 99.9% of crime scenes are processed before the perp is even identified. The defense has absolutely no right to be present when LE is processing a crime scene, in any event. I guess we are no longer going to hear at trial that "kc is mother of the year", but rather, are going to hear how someone else placed the body there but if you don't believe us then it wasn't murder, it was an accident. No surprise there.

 

[TotallyObsessed]

The motion is bogus. 99.9% of crime scenes are processed before the perp is even identified. The defense has absolutely no right to be present when LE is processing a crime scene, in any event. I guess we are no longer going to hear at trial that "kc is mother of the year", but rather, are going to hear how someone else placed the body there but if you don't believe us then it wasn't murder, it was an accident. No surprise there.

EXACTLY. Just think of the Yale student murder Annie Le....should the lab technician's attorney been able to access that lab while they were processing the crime scene? NOPE - never gonna happen

 

[Woe.be.gone]

Woe.be.Gone: You and I are recognizing the same tone in the defenses statements and motions.

In this particular area of Florida, this case and the way the defense is handling it, is, IMO, harkening to the Sabrina Aisenberg case which happened in Tampa. Tampa is so close to Orlando that the two cities are nearly joined by urban sprawl. This link from the St. Pete Times will tell you a great deal about the Aisenberg case which did include police corruption, manufactured evidence and prosecutorial misconduct. That case, in particular, has made people who live in the area very sensitized about these issues.

http://www.sptimes.com/News2/Sabrina/default.shtml


The suggestion of corruption will, IMO, play well to those in the potential jury pool in the area who are already mistrustful of LE after the Aisenberg case.

Thank you for the reply.

To make myself clear I'm adding that I don't sense that Yuri and his people are involved in wrong doing. They must have evidence that remains under lock and key for now. Or, the tour KC gave LE the day she was questioned was so unusual and damning that it convinced them she was guilty. Afterall, the Judge told her she did not recognize the truth or something of that nature. It is an insult the way she acted when in reality LE treated her with kindness imo.

I can't cite cases, etc. - just a regular person here - but I can learn and often pick up a sense for where things are headed. I don't believe criminals should get off because of human error or for reaching reasons. I do believe, when the death penalty is in play, there cannot be reasonable doubt - but that's mo. How would I feel, as a juror, if I had said "yes" to death and then something happened later that told the whole truth. As a Juror I would have to be certain of the circumstances of the crime committed to allow the Death Penalty to stand.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

Nice slap.

But I stand by my observations. It has been very helpful in cleaning up a very corrupt system. Plenty have people have been sent up, that the LE and or the SA knew was innocent. Some situations was racially motivated. Some where just to put a notch on a DA's belt. Personal motivations, political motivations, etc. It was there.

I was not slapping - sorry if my post read like that. I was sort of stating/asking a facetious question. Please see my more recent post above. I'm not a Lawyer and I ask questions that a person might ask who is not affiliated closely with our legal system.

Mind you, people are people and I know corruption exists in every corner of our world - I DON'T think in Caylee's case there is any kind of intentional corruption going on. I'm very sorry if my original post alluded that there is.

I think it is worth considering that many people feel the way I do about the DP though. That is why I believe the Prosecution must be holding back some very important evidence. Is it okay for me to say that?

P.S. Does sound like a slap now that you mention it - Oh well, the truth hurts!

 

[Spangle]

The judge denied their motion then for one very basic and irrefutable reason. Until the remains were positively identified that crime scene was not in any way shape or form connected to their client in the eyes of the law, and in LE's responsibilities to KC's defense team. At the time that scene was being processed the only legal way that the defense team could have positively known that that scene was evidence concerning their client was if their client had revealed to them that it was. Yes reasonable guesses and assumptions could have been made. But LE will not permit third parties into an active crime scene on the basis of an assumption. Until a name was put on those remains by the county coroner the defense had no right and no expectation to have anything to do with that scene. And the judge legitimately ruled against them on it once already.

He talked about several reasons. But that one reason right there, I think he was floored by.

Enough so that he wanted it on record, that the defense was requesting without knowing for fact who the remains belonged to. Has that ever been done before?

The standard reason is because it was a crime scene and he wasn't going to allow the defense to tamper with the CSI teams investigation. The Judge did point this out. JB had no right to be there, even if it was factually known to be Caylee.

Now the defense claims they were being kept from the area, by delaying the id'ing of the remains. As IF that was all that was keeping them from the crime scene. Totally ignoring everything the judge said, and just focusing on 1 thing. T

hat tells me they don't expect the motion to fly anyway. I wonder if they expected a full hearing on the motions, with them being required to prove their statements.. or the motion just tossed out.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

I don't think the state has ever given specific reasons other than "new evidence" which many of us, myself included, believe came from the remains/remains site, especially the duct tape placement over mouth and nasal cavities. That screams "murder" to me and may very well have to the state.

Yes, that's why LE must have KC's prints on the tape or something concrete like that. IMO with the DP as punishment the evidence would have to DIRECTLY link the perp to the crime.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

ITA although I don't live in the "sprawl" I do shop in Tampa and Orlando fairly regularly or go to the convention center in Orlando or the Tampa Zoo and often listen to local news for those areas. My mom is in a suburb and I just called and asked her if she'd ever heard of the case. Nope.

O/T You're making me jealous - this sounds so good to me right now. :dance:

 

[Spangle]

I was not slapping - sorry if my post read like that. I was sort of stating/asking a facetious question. Please see my more recent post above. I'm not a Lawyer and I ask questions that a person might ask who is not affiliated closely with our legal system.

Mind you, people are people and I know corruption exists in every corner of our world - I DON'T think in Caylee's case there is any kind of intentional corruption going on. I'm very sorry if my original post alluded that there is.

I think it is worth considering that many people feel the way I do about the DP though. That is why I believe the Prosecution must be holding back some very important evidence. Is it okay for me to say that?

I'm not a lawyer either. And I realize folks might not realize how what their saying sounds on the other end. I wasn't upset with your opinion then or now on case issues. It was your option of folks who think XXXXX that was the slap. Like I was some sort of bad person for seeing some good in the OJ trial that helps us today. That is why I said my opinion didn't change in my reply.

All JB has it an attempt to find some sort of mistake on the part of the LE/CSI/SA. And hope he can make a case out "it" enough to get it tossed out.

I think they have all ready shown enough to prove this is a DP case in Florida. If the child died while in the act of child abuse, then it's automatically considered a DP case. The placement of the tape before the child died, shows some form of child abuse was going on at that time she died. That in it's self makes it a DP case. The tape doesn't have to be the cause of death. But it does show some sort of child abuse going on.

When they got the report (oral or written) from Dr. G, that the tape was on Caylee before she died, isabout the time this changed to a DP case. That doesn't mean they will give her the DP. Just that if found guily, she could get the DP. The Jury still decides in the end.

Like you, I hope they got more, to ensure she gets a harsh sentence. ( for the jury)

 

[Spangle]

O/T You're making me jealous - this sounds so good to me right now. :dance:

OH man are you screwed up! This is the hot part of the year, that you would not be able to stand.

Give it 3-4 months, when you got snow outside, and we are talking about fishing,swimming, camping.. THAT is when you turn a little green. :dance:

 

[Spangle]

Thank you for the reply.

To make myself clear I'm adding that I don't sense that Yuri and his people are involved in wrong doing. They must have evidence that remains under lock and key for now. Or, the tour KC gave LE the day she was questioned was so unusual and damning that it convinced them she was guilty. Afterall, the Judge told her she did not recognize the truth or something of that nature. It is an insult the way she acted when in reality LE treated her with kindness imo.

I can't cite cases, etc. - just a regular person here - but I can learn and often pick up a sense for where things are headed. I don't believe criminals should get off because of human error or for reaching reasons. I do believe, when the death penalty is in play, there cannot be reasonable doubt - but that's mo. How would I feel, as a juror, if I had said "yes" to death and then something happened later that told the whole truth. As a Juror I would have to be certain of the circumstances of the crime committed to allow the Death Penalty to stand.

I totally agree. I have issues of sending innocent folks to DP. Which is why I think everyone should have a REAL lawyer from the get go.

About the DP. How do you feel about a death that happens during child abuse, does it make it DP eligible? Even if the law says it is?

 

[Muzikman]

Couldn't wait for media to put this up, went and got it myself (along with a couple other things, heh). Thought it was worthy of a thread of it's own for discussion.

I'm pasting the pages here to make it easier for WS'rs; you cannot see them unless you are logged in (and have at least 50 posts, for you newbies)

I will also post the PDF for download shortly, for those that want a better copy.

Page 1:

Page 2:

Page 3:

Page 4:

Page 5:

Enjoy!

 

[Woe.be.gone]

I'm not a lawyer either. And I realize folks might not realize how what their saying sounds on the other end. I wasn't upset with your opinion then or now on case issues. It was your option of folks who think XXXXX that was the slap. Like I was some sort of bad person for seeing some good in the OJ trial that helps us today. That is why I said my opinion didn't change in my reply.

All JB has it an attempt to find some sort of mistake on the part of the LE/CSI/SA. And hope he can make a case out "it" enough to get it tossed out.

I think they have all ready shown enough to prove this is a DP case in Florida. If the child died while in the act of child abuse, then it's automatically considered a DP case. The placement of the tape before the child died, shows some form of child abuse was going on at that time she died. That in it's self makes it a DP case. The tape doesn't have to be the cause of death. But it does show some sort of child abuse going on.

When they got the report (oral or written) from Dr. G, that the tape was on Caylee before she died, isabout the time this changed to a DP case. That doesn't mean they will give her the DP. Just that if found guilty, she could get the DP. The Jury still decides in the end.

Like you, I hope they got more, to ensure she gets a harsh sentence. ( for the jury)

BBM
Thank you for reminding me of this - I was thinking that the DP was automatic if found guilty. Reinforcement is good - I can no longer remember what I have already learned - there's too much!