Prosecutors New Motion for Private Meeting w/Judge but w/out Defense #2

New Posts

JSR said:
Yes, a hearing or rather in camera (in chambers) review will take place. But denied a request for an ex parte hearing. Meaning a hearing with only one litigant present.

JS also ruled the State "CAN" submit papers to further elaborate their good cause.
Click to expand...

You are very helpful so let me ask this. Didn't the granting say yes to the in-camera meeting for the SA and as soon as the judge has seen the material, the SA can file a motion - like right then - for him to grant or deny?
In other words the judge isn't prepared to grant the second part of the motion without knowing what the evidence is?
 
logicalgirl said:
You are very helpful so let me ask this. Didn't the granting say yes to the in-camera meeting for the SA and as soon as the judge has seen the material, the SA can file a motion - like right then - for him to grant or deny?
In other words the judge isn't prepared to grant the second part of the motion without knowing what the evidence is?
Click to expand...

Correct, the Judge has the option of deciding the motion on the papers alone. The State can file (under seal) papers supporting their motion before the in camera. And in turn if JS so chooses can elect to decide on the papers alone.

But for clarification purposes the State wasn't asking a FOR a request to delay the release of this "information" to the defense/and the public. The only thing the State requested was an in camera ex parte hearing to explain the good cause for the delay. So the Judge was never going to issue an order to delay the disclosure, the only matter before him was if he would opt to hear the evidence to support the delay and if it would be ex parte or not.

Hope that makes sense.
 
JSR said:
Yes, a hearing or rather in camera (in chambers) review will take place. But denied a request for an ex parte hearing. Meaning a hearing with only one litigant present.

JS also ruled the State "CAN" submit papers to further elaborate their good cause.
Click to expand...

I noticed that it said the information in the papers was to be submitted "under seal".

So, could it be that the judge wants the details under seal because he doesn't feel he needs to meet with the State's attorneys for an ex-parte hearing because he can do it on his own time from the documents presented?

I would assume that the permission he gave the State to file under seal is the key here. They couldn't have done that in the original motion...
 
JSR said:
Yes, a hearing or rather in camera (in chambers) review will take place. But denied a request for an ex parte hearing. Meaning a hearing with only one litigant present.

JS also ruled the State "CAN" submit papers to further elaborate their good cause.
Click to expand...
...and then perhaps he may reconsider the ex parte? (Just read an article where they alluded to that.)

PS- I know "ex parte", unfortunately, all too well...but really appreciate your explanation. Thanks for always being here for us.
 
CarolinaMoon said:
I noticed that it said the information in the papers was to be submitted "under seal".

So, could it be that the judge wants the details under seal because he doesn't feel he needs to meet with the State's attorneys for an ex-parte hearing because he can do it on his own time from the documents presented?
Click to expand...

No I believe he gave the option to file under seal to keep the information from the public.
 
JSR said:
No I believe he gave the option to file under seal to keep the information from the public.
Click to expand...
So...will the defense know this "evidence" with the way the motion went?
Just wondering 'cause ya know how they start to misbehave before the release of anything unfavorable. If it will be a while before this info is released to the public that'll allow time for a lot of misbehaving (IOW...nonsense).
 
RR0004 said:
...and then perhaps he may reconsider the ex parte? (Just read an article where they alluded to that.)

PS- I know "ex parte", unfortunately, all too well...but really appreciate your explanation. Thanks for always being here for us.
Click to expand...

No I don't think he's going to reconsider the ex parte. In any event after the papers have been submitted (even if under seal) the ex parte part would be moot. The Defense would have to be served with said submitted papers so they in turn would get the gist of what information the state wants to withhold, temporarily anyway.
 
JSR said:
No I don't think he's going to reconsider the ex parte. In any event after the papers have been submitted (even if under seal) the ex parte part would be moot. The Defense would have to be served with said submitted papers so they in turn would get the gist of what information the state wants to withhold, temporarily anyway.
Click to expand...
BBM

JSR, am I understanding from your post that the prosecutors won't be able to make their motion vague enough to keep the defense in the dark (as we discussed above)? Thanks for all your your insight and knowledge!
 
knt said:
BBM

JSR, am I understanding from your post that the prosecutors won't be able to make their motion vague enough to keep the defense in the dark (as we discussed above)? Thanks for all your your insight and knowledge!
Click to expand...

It's possible. But it would be very difficult. I'm of the opinion that JS won't appreciate a motion that's too vague. JS will need good enough cause to grant the delay and he'll need substance to grant such a request.

But it is possible to craft a response that's vague enough without letting the defense in on the key points.
 
I wonder if this "information" is a crime discovered not related to Casey A. but some other crime that LE is investigating currently? If the result of some evidence recovered at the site where Caylee was found led the to another separate crime they would not want any information released to tip off the suspect of that crime. The information may be bundled with other results and in order to extract it they would have to black out or change the response from the FBI or some other agency. I sure they would have to get court approval in that case.
 
kaRN said:
This is copied from Hal B's latest blog. How much do you want to bet this new obsession will replace RK here at WS, at least while we absorb the new doc's tomorrow.


http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/en...k-the-stand.html/comment-page-2#comment-66553

Posted by: Juror 13 Too | Monday, February 15, 2010 at 4:54 PM
As I am going through the “Grand Canyon” can someone answer a question before going on to ask Casey more: Why isn’t the trash lady being held responsible for tampering with evidence? And why hasn’t the law officials/investigators taking the trash from her to investigate more? Seems like valuable evidence in that bag. Your take? Or am I behind on times with this?
Click to expand...


I don't believe Garbage picking is illegal in Florida and IIRC many years ago the US Supreme Court ruled that trash-picking is legal.

In many jurisdictions, when you put your trash/garbage out for pick up, it is considered abandoned property and anyone can take it.
Think Paparazzi going thru celebrities garbage or that chair, desk or shelf you threw out.

For many years now I have shredded papers and documents before putting them in the garbage, that's what we did at work and I adopted the same practice at home.
 
Intermezzo said:
I don't believe Garbage picking is illegal in Florida and IIRC many years ago the US Supreme Court ruled that trash-picking is legal.

In many jurisdictions, when you put your trash/garbage out for pick up, it is considered abandoned property and anyone can take it.
Think Paparazzi going thru celebrities garbage or that chair, desk or shelf you threw out.

For many years now I have shredded papers and documents before putting them in the garbage, that's what we did at work and I adopted the same practice at home.
Click to expand...

Yes, we do "trash pulls" and love 'em! Not always fun to inventory the "garbage" and put into evidence, however.

And like you, because of work...I shred/destroy my mail before putting in the garbage...and I've tried to teach my kids the same, but alas...I'm still trying, LOL
 
I am hoping the latest motion has to do with cindy and george destroying evidence linking casey to caylees murder. Could they be charged with "accessories to murder after the fact?"
 
JSR said:
It's possible. But it would be very difficult. I'm of the opinion that JS won't appreciate a motion that's too vague. JS will need good enough cause to grant the delay and he'll need substance to grant such a request.

But it is possible to craft a response that's vague enough without letting the defense in on the key points.
Click to expand...

Thanks for clearing this up. Wftv has presented this topic three different ways in the last 24 hours and I was starting to bang my head on my desk trying to understand what the judge was saying.
 
It is with great hope that in the time that has transpired from their knowledge of this material, to the writing & filing of their motion, to the time in which Judge JS has responded, that they have had the time they needed to investigate. To me, although probably normal, this has been a long period of time since we first heard of the matter. I'm sure it's normal and I do sit here on pins and needles for developments, but just hoping the time they needed has maybe already been given during "the process". I'm sure they continued to investigate the matter/materials while waiting for a response to their motion.
 
FWIW, the latest National Enquirer says that this motion is related to a tip
that RK received from a jail house friend who says that someone in the jail overheard CA saying (article does not say to whom) that she pulled her car
in, tripped over some bricks, and buried little Caylee about 80 ft from the road. I wish I could find some other verification of this story, but have not, despite some sleuthing.
 
mistermissy said:
FWIW, the latest National Enquirer says that this motion is related to a tip
that RK received from a jail house friend who says that someone in the jail overheard CA saying (article does not say to whom) that she pulled her car
in, tripped over some bricks, and buried little Caylee about 80 ft from the road. I wish I could find some other verification of this story, but have not, despite some sleuthing.
Click to expand...

She wasn't buried and she wasn't 80 feet from the road. Gotta watch those NE guys. ;)
 
Tulessa said:
She wasn't buried and she wasn't 80 feet from the road. Gotta watch those NE guys. ;)
Click to expand...

Plus this rumor has been around for a long time. Maybe started by defense??? But LE would have known a long time ago who RK's girlfriend is, if she works at the jail and if she actually told him anything. It would not have taken this long. LP was talking about this a year ago. JMO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 145 more.
Total: 2,218 (members: 146, guests: 2,072)

Online statistics

Members online
146
Guests online
2,072
Total visitors
2,218
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
595,312
Messages
18,022,320
Members
229,620
Latest member
parzval
Back
Top