Caylee Marie Anthony # 145 8/24/09 - 9/4/09

[no rose colored glasses]

Thanks for all that, that is what I thought about the defense and discovery, but reading all that in simple language really helped. And to add too that, the defense is under no obligation to put on a defense. I have watched one trial where the defense didn't put on their defense, I'm assuming they felt confident by cross examining the prosecution witnesses that was enough. Also have seen where the defense has put on a very limited defense time wise compared to the prosecution. And then some where you never thought the defense was ever going to stop 

[tupelohoney]

CBB thank you for the proper information. You ROCK!   

[Fanny Mae]

Thanks to all who answered my questions about defense discovery.   

[Gizzie]

Thanks to all who answered my questions about defense discovery.   

I'd like to thank you all as well! Have wondered about this for some time, just too embarrassed to ask!

 

[tupelohoney]

Thanks to all who answered my questions about defense discovery.   

I'd like to thank you all as well! Have wondered about this for some time, just too embarrassed to ask!

 

Aww, Gizzie, don't be embarrassed to ask any questions, ever. This is how we learn and a good way to refresh our memories. This is my first case that I have ever followed in depth, and as we all know it's a doozie!! I'm learning about court procedures and how the laws come into place, as I have no first hand experience of my own, thank goodness!  So please ask all of your questions and by doing so we will all become more educated.

[Gizzie]

Aww, Gizzie, don't be embarrassed to ask any questions, ever. This is how we learn and a good way to refresh our memories. This is my first case that I have ever followed in depth, and as we all know it's a doozie!! I'm learning about court procedures and how the laws come into place, as I have no first hand experience of my own, thank goodness!  So please ask all of your questions and by doing so we will all become more educated.

Thanks Tupelo! You're not kidding it's a doozie! I have followed some other cases, but only on tv, and none like this!

Usually my questions are answered by the time I catch up reading, but I don't remember seeing an exact answer to the one Fanny had asked. Thanks Fanny! 

[Fanny Mae]

Thanks to all who answered my questions about defense discovery.   

I'd like to thank you all as well! Have wondered about this for some time, just too embarrassed to ask!

 

Aww, Gizzie, don't be embarrassed to ask any questions, ever. This is how we learn and a good way to refresh our memories. This is my first case that I have ever followed in depth, and as we all know it's a doozie!! I'm learning about court procedures and how the laws come into place, as I have no first hand experience of my own, thank goodness!  So please ask all of your questions and by doing so we will all become more educated.

The problem is, most states have their own laws and proceedures, and what is right in state, may not be right in the other state. And instead of it all being written in plain language, it is easy to forget what you read in the very begining of a paragraph or even a sentence.  The when you read to next paragraph it seems to say something opposite that the paragraph you just got through reading. 

So then you wonder if what you understood before is overriden by the party of the first part, or under a), b), c),.......and pretty soon 

[Fanny Mae]

Aww, Gizzie, don't be embarrassed to ask any questions, ever. This is how we learn and a good way to refresh our memories. This is my first case that I have ever followed in depth, and as we all know it's a doozie!! I'm learning about court procedures and how the laws come into place, as I have no first hand experience of my own, thank goodness!  So please ask all of your questions and by doing so we will all become more educated.

Thanks Tupelo! You're not kidding it's a doozie! I have followed some other cases, but only on tv, and none like this!

Usually my questions are answered by the time I catch up reading, but I don't remember seeing an exact answer to the one Fanny had asked. Thanks Fanny! 

You are welcome GIZZIE. I guess I am just too stoopid not to ask. 

[crazybabyborg]

Hi Monkeys! Maybe this will help:

V. PURPOSE OF DISCOVERY


A. The purpose of discovery in criminal cases is "to avail the defense of evidence known to the state so that convictions [will] not be obtained by the suppression of evidence favorable to a defendant, or by surprise tactics in the courtroom." Cooper v. State, 336 So.2d 1133, 1138 (Fla. 1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 925 (1977).


B. Another purpose for pre-trial discovery is to assure a fair trial to a defendant charged with a crime. Discovery is not employed to require the state attorney to investigate or prepare the defendant's case, or to disclose to the defendant information or documents which, by the exercise of due diligence, are readily available by subpoena or deposition. State v. Coney, 272 So.2d 550, 553 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973).


C. Florida's Rules of Criminal Procedure are designed to prevent trial by ambush. Barrett v. State, 649 So.2d 219, 221 (Fla. 1994).


D. The basic philosophy underlying discovery is the prevention of surprise and the implementation of an improved fact finding process. Barrett v. State, 649 So.2d 219, 221 (Fla. 1994), citing, Kilpatrick v. State, 376 So.2d 386, 388 (Fla. 1979)


[b]Criminal discovery is not intended to provide defendants with an opportunity to build their cases during the discovery process by "creating" evidence,[/b] i.e. misidentifications. State v. Kuntsman, 643 So.2d 1172 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994).




VI. DEFENDANT'S MANDATORY PARTICIPATION IN DISCOVERY


There is no requirement that a defendant participate in discovery. Landry v. State, 666 So.2d 121 (Fla. 1995); See, Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.220(a) (defendant may elect to participate in discovery).

http://www.countyjudges.com/articles/96discov.htm#II.%20NEW%20RULES%20ON%20DEPOSING%20LAW%20ENFORCEMENT%20OFFICERS

Hi Monkeys! Glad this helped out. I do believe, with all my heart that Casey's defense team is guilty of the red part. I think they'll use the discovery to try to come up with a defense, as in Tim's searchers information. JMO.

[crazybabyborg]

Browsing at the above link, I found this. I thought it was interesting:

XVI. CRIMINAL RECORDS OF WITNESSES


A defendant is properly allowed discovery as to the criminal records of the state's witnesses to the extent that the information is within the constructive or actual possession of the state. This ruling is not limited to those records in the physical possession of the State Attorney. It also includes data obtainable from the FBI. Yanetta v. State, 320 So.2d 23, 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). See also, State v. Coney, 272 So.2d 550. 553-554 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973) (The state is required to disclose to the defendant the criminal records of all state witnesses which are in the possession of the State, its agents, or the FBI, when the records are wholly unavailable to the defendant by the exercise of due diligence through deposition, subpoena, or other means, but are readily available to the State and are within the actual or constructive possession of the state attorney. It seems that the court will look to see whether there is a working relationship between the state attorney and the other state governmental agency as to whether an obligation exists to provide the information requested by the defendant, when the material sought is not otherwise available to the defendant by the exercise of due diligence.).

http://www.countyjudges.com/articles/96discov.htm#X.%20RESTRICTING%20OR%20LIMITING%20DISCOVERY

I really don't think these searchers know what kind of scrutiny they're in for.   

[Fanny Mae]

Browsing at the above link, I found this. I thought it was interesting:

XVI. CRIMINAL RECORDS OF WITNESSES


A defendant is properly allowed discovery as to the criminal records of the state's witnesses to the extent that the information is within the constructive or actual possession of the state. This ruling is not limited to those records in the physical possession of the State Attorney. It also includes data obtainable from the FBI. Yanetta v. State, 320 So.2d 23, 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). See also, State v. Coney, 272 So.2d 550. 553-554 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973) (The state is required to disclose to the defendant the criminal records of all state witnesses which are in the possession of the State, its agents, or the FBI, when the records are wholly unavailable to the defendant by the exercise of due diligence through deposition, subpoena, or other means, but are readily available to the State and are within the actual or constructive possession of the state attorney. It seems that the court will look to see whether there is a working relationship between the state attorney and the other state governmental agency as to whether an obligation exists to provide the information requested by the defendant, when the material sought is not otherwise available to the defendant by the exercise of due diligence.).

http://www.countyjudges.com/articles/96discov.htm#X.%20RESTRICTING%20OR%20LIMITING%20DISCOVERY

I really don't think these searchers know what kind of scrutiny they're in for.   

Me either, CBB. Me either. 

[crazybabyborg]

I do understand why Stan allowed the defense to have the records. It's sort of basic to allow them to try to make an argument that searchers were near where Caylee was found and didn't see anything. I guess they wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't attempt to make that point, regardless of Tim's word that it was under water. They'll do whatever they can to discredit that information (the water). I'm hoping that others can see from the photos that it was. To be honest, I can't determine that from looking at the pics, at least on my computer screen.

Because Tim has done this for so long, I would think he'll have a lot of credibility with a jury and judge.

[Western Observr]

Thanks to all who answered my questions about defense discovery.   

I'd like to thank you all as well! Have wondered about this for some time, just too embarrassed to ask!

 

Me too... I guess I thought wrongly that under Fla's sunshine law, all evidence, all theories had to be disclosed- I was forgetting that one important principle, that the defense is not required to prove anything..

[Western Observr]

I do understand why Stan allowed the defense to have the records. It's sort of basic to allow them to try to make an argument that searchers were near where Caylee was found and didn't see anything. I guess they wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't attempt to make that point, regardless of Tim's word that it was under water. They'll do whatever they can to discredit that information (the water). I'm hoping that others can see from the photos that it was. To be honest, I can't determine that from looking at the pics, at least on my computer screen.

Because Tim has done this for so long, I would think he'll have a lot of credibility with a jury and judge.

Not just Tim's word on it either, they lost an ATV back there when they first started to search, so you know the water had to be deep...    that was fate actually, as if they had decided to try again and go forward no matter what, they probably would have plowed up all the remains or stomped them into the mud and destroyed them...   

[Fanny Mae]

I do understand why Stan allowed the defense to have the records. It's sort of basic to allow them to try to make an argument that searchers were near where Caylee was found and didn't see anything. I guess they wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't attempt to make that point, regardless of Tim's word that it was under water. They'll do whatever they can to discredit that information (the water). I'm hoping that others can see from the photos that it was. To be honest, I can't determine that from looking at the pics, at least on my computer screen.

Because Tim has done this for so long, I would think he'll have a lot of credibility with a jury and judge.

Not just Tim's word on it either, they lost an ATV back there when they first started to search, so you know the water had to be deep...    that was fate actually, as if they had decided to try again and go forward no matter what, they probably would have plowed up all the remains or stomped them into the mud and destroyed them...   

Bozo know all that already, and has no sympathy of the hardships and metal stress everyone was under during those times. He just wants to find on little flaw somewhere to poke a big thumb through to make it a huge thing, and he will.

[no rose colored glasses]

I do understand why Stan allowed the defense to have the records. It's sort of basic to allow them to try to make an argument that searchers were near where Caylee was found and didn't see anything. I guess they wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't attempt to make that point, regardless of Tim's word that it was under water. They'll do whatever they can to discredit that information (the water). I'm hoping that others can see from the photos that it was. To be honest, I can't determine that from looking at the pics, at least on my computer screen.

Because Tim has done this for so long, I would think he'll have a lot of credibility with a jury and judge.

I agree, I think it would have been a mistake not to allow the defense these records. I can't either, it doesn't look underwater to me. I'm sure they have a lot of photos though that will show the water better. I didn't know if it was my eyes or computer, I was afraid to say I didn't see the water.

[crazybabyborg]

I do understand why Stan allowed the defense to have the records. It's sort of basic to allow them to try to make an argument that searchers were near where Caylee was found and didn't see anything. I guess they wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't attempt to make that point, regardless of Tim's word that it was under water. They'll do whatever they can to discredit that information (the water). I'm hoping that others can see from the photos that it was. To be honest, I can't determine that from looking at the pics, at least on my computer screen.

Because Tim has done this for so long, I would think he'll have a lot of credibility with a jury and judge.

Not just Tim's word on it either, they lost an ATV back there when they first started to search, so you know the water had to be deep...    that was fate actually, as if they had decided to try again and go forward no matter what, they probably would have plowed up all the remains or stomped them into the mud and destroyed them...   

  I'd forgotten that! Thanks for the reminder!!! That's a GOOD reminder! That, coupled with Tim's expert opinion from a lot of experience that any remains could have been comprimised should do it!   

[tupelohoney]

I do understand why Stan allowed the defense to have the records. It's sort of basic to allow them to try to make an argument that searchers were near where Caylee was found and didn't see anything. I guess they wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't attempt to make that point, regardless of Tim's word that it was under water. They'll do whatever they can to discredit that information (the water). I'm hoping that others can see from the photos that it was. To be honest, I can't determine that from looking at the pics, at least on my computer screen.

Because Tim has done this for so long, I would think he'll have a lot of credibility with a jury and judge.

Not just Tim's word on it either, they lost an ATV back there when they first started to search, so you know the water had to be deep...    that was fate actually, as if they had decided to try again and go forward no matter what, they probably would have plowed up all the remains or stomped them into the mud and destroyed them...   

Bozo know all that already, and has no sympathy of the hardships and metal stress everyone was under during those times. He just wants to find one little flaw somewhere to poke a big thumb through to make it a huge thing, and he will.

You are most likely correct Fanny, on that (bolded by me) statement. But, we have Kronk, who states that the reason he kept going back at later dates, was to check to see if the water had subsided yet, to get a better look at what he saw in August. And there will be many others to verify that Caylee's area was under water as well. Bozo may find one little flaw, but that will not out weigh the testimony of numerous others that will contradict that. JMO

[no rose colored glasses]

I do understand why Stan allowed the defense to have the records. It's sort of basic to allow them to try to make an argument that searchers were near where Caylee was found and didn't see anything. I guess they wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't attempt to make that point, regardless of Tim's word that it was under water. They'll do whatever they can to discredit that information (the water). I'm hoping that others can see from the photos that it was. To be honest, I can't determine that from looking at the pics, at least on my computer screen.

Because Tim has done this for so long, I would think he'll have a lot of credibility with a jury and judge.

Not just Tim's word on it either, they lost an ATV back there when they first started to search, so you know the water had to be deep...    that was fate actually, as if they had decided to try again and go forward no matter what, they probably would have plowed up all the remains or stomped them into the mud and destroyed them...   

Bozo know all that already, and has no sympathy of the hardships and metal stress everyone was under during those times. He just wants to find on little flaw somewhere to poke a big thumb through to make it a huge thing, and he will.

That's true about the ATV, and it was an excellent call not to search through there, might very well have destroyed the remains and other evidence. That is what the defense will do, but that is what any defense would do, they don't care who is hurt, they only want to get their client off. They are going to use this for reasonable doubt, I'm sure they probably figure that Casey will be found guilty, so there goal is a mistrial.

[crazybabyborg]

I do understand why Stan allowed the defense to have the records. It's sort of basic to allow them to try to make an argument that searchers were near where Caylee was found and didn't see anything. I guess they wouldn't be doing their job if they didn't attempt to make that point, regardless of Tim's word that it was under water. They'll do whatever they can to discredit that information (the water). I'm hoping that others can see from the photos that it was. To be honest, I can't determine that from looking at the pics, at least on my computer screen.

Because Tim has done this for so long, I would think he'll have a lot of credibility with a jury and judge.

I agree, I think it would have been a mistake not to allow the defense these records. I can't either, it doesn't look underwater to me. I'm sure they have a lot of photos though that will show the water better. I didn't know if it was my eyes or computer, I was afraid to say I didn't see the water.

  I know, NRCG! It's kind of like the King's Clothes, isn't it!? The presser that NeJames had where George came barging in supposedly was to reveal those pics, so I guess maybe it's visable when they're blown up?