825 users online (105 members and 720 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 5 of 18 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 15 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 264
  1. #61
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    965
    Quote Originally Posted by AZlawyer View Post
    1. The judge will have to be careful balancing LE's need for secrecy regarding the continuing investigation against the defendant's rights. Basically, the defendant's rights always prevail, because they're based on the Constitution. The most likely result, as you suggested, would be that the defense team would be allowed to see certain things but would not be permitted to reveal the information to the public.

    2. I believe defendants are generally allowed to keep legal papers in their cells.

    3. The fact that they are in Missouri won't prevent them from being compelled to testify. If the Florida court requests it, the Missouri court will order them to appear somewhere in Missouri to testify by phone/video. As to CWW's wife, though, there are 2 types of spousal privilege that probably exist in Florida (they do in most places): (1) a privilege as to communications between them that took place during the marriage, and (2) a privilege not to be compelled to testify against a spouse. Now, if CWW's defense includes something like, "I was with my wife the whole time," then he may be found to have waived privilege #2 and his wife could be made to testify.

    MinnesotaMary
    MinnesotaMary is offline Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    662

    1.) So CWW right now is charged with murder, and it is said that this Wed. CWW's defense attorney will receive all Discovery (to-date). The sheriff has told us the investigation is keenly active & now, tho', been told to Zip It. So long as CWW doesn't invoke his right to a speedy trial, can the judge permit some of the Discovery to be held back at this tim (eg, redacted docs' or docs'/video, etc., entirely withheld) from getting into the hands of CWW's defense attorney? If the defense must receive ALL Discovery NOW, can the judge order defense attorney & CWW not to speak out publicly about that evidence so 'they all know', but we the general public don't get to know now???

    2.) Is it correct to assume that CWW's attorney physically chats with CWW in the jail & brings in all the Discovery to go through it all with CWW, BUT she will NOT give CWW a copy of anything for CWW to keep in the jail, unless, like Jodi Arias, CWW is kept 100 percent away from all other inmates?

    3.) Does Florida have any way to compel CWW's new wife to testify AT ALL in the event she doesn't want to be involved? Isn't it true that so long as Wife3 stays in MO, FL has no authority physically to complet her or force her to do anything (no phone testimony, no video, no extradition...). Same as to JR's GF.

    tyia

    MinnesotaMary...Great questions!!
    AZLawyer....Great answers!
    Wow, constitutional rights prevail, prisoners can keep documents in their cells, and wife and/or gf can testify via phone/video! I get the "spousal priviledge etc" but, does that apply if the wife files for an annulment? Would that apply if the spouse had "lied to investigators" early in the investigation. (Hope I can phrase my scenario correctly, ok? You might have to fill in where I missed the details, here goes!!)
    Detective asks wife, "Where was your spouse from June 26th to June 28th."
    Wife replies, "Oh my wonderful hubby and I spent the entire weekend together, binge watching Law & Order SVU and BBQ'ing with our kids."
    Later the detectives find video evidence in a Walmart that proves she had lied. Even without asking her to testify against her husband, would the prosecutors be able to QUESTION HER ABOUT LYING TO THE INVESTIGATORS?? I am beginning to wonder if anybody gets prosecuted for lying to detectives, but instead only get prosecuted if they lie, under oath on a witness stand. (Oh Lord, it made me dizzy trying to put my thoughts into a sentence...sorry if hard to follow. IQ)

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    7,763
    Quote Originally Posted by IQuestion View Post
    MinnesotaMary
    MinnesotaMary is offline Registered User

    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    662

    1.) So CWW right now is charged with murder, and it is said that this Wed. CWW's defense attorney will receive all Discovery (to-date). The sheriff has told us the investigation is keenly active & now, tho', been told to Zip It. So long as CWW doesn't invoke his right to a speedy trial, can the judge permit some of the Discovery to be held back at this tim (eg, redacted docs' or docs'/video, etc., entirely withheld) from getting into the hands of CWW's defense attorney? If the defense must receive ALL Discovery NOW, can the judge order defense attorney & CWW not to speak out publicly about that evidence so 'they all know', but we the general public don't get to know now???

    2.) Is it correct to assume that CWW's attorney physically chats with CWW in the jail & brings in all the Discovery to go through it all with CWW, BUT she will NOT give CWW a copy of anything for CWW to keep in the jail, unless, like Jodi Arias, CWW is kept 100 percent away from all other inmates?

    3.) Does Florida have any way to compel CWW's new wife to testify AT ALL in the event she doesn't want to be involved? Isn't it true that so long as Wife3 stays in MO, FL has no authority physically to complet her or force her to do anything (no phone testimony, no video, no extradition...). Same as to JR's GF.

    tyia

    MinnesotaMary...Great questions!!
    AZLawyer....Great answers!
    Wow, constitutional rights prevail, prisoners can keep documents in their cells, and wife and/or gf can testify via phone/video! I get the "spousal priviledge etc" but, does that apply if the wife files for an annulment? Would that apply if the spouse had "lied to investigators" early in the investigation. (Hope I can phrase my scenario correctly, ok? You might have to fill in where I missed the details, here goes!!)
    Detective asks wife, "Where was your spouse from June 26th to June 28th."
    Wife replies, "Oh my wonderful hubby and I spent the entire weekend together, binge watching Law & Order SVU and BBQ'ing with our kids."
    Later the detectives find video evidence in a Walmart that proves she had lied. Even without asking her to testify against her husband, would the prosecutors be able to QUESTION HER ABOUT LYING TO THE INVESTIGATORS?? I am beginning to wonder if anybody gets prosecuted for lying to detectives, but instead only get prosecuted if they lie, under oath on a witness stand. (Oh Lord, it made me dizzy trying to put my thoughts into a sentence...sorry if hard to follow. IQ)
    Different states handle the spousal privileges differently. I just did a quick search and it actually appears that Florida has NO marital testimony privilege, meaning that the marital communications privilege is the only one that would apply. That one should apply to communications during the marriage regardless of whether the marriage later ends. But without a marital testimony privilege, the wife could be forced to testify about non-communications, e.g., was CWW with her or not on a certain date.

    (There's a potential twist in here if Missouri has the marital testimony privilege and considers it of sufficient public importance that Missouri would refuse to honor a subpoena for one of its citizens to testify in breach of the privilege for a case pending in a different state...but let's not get ahead of ourselves lol.)

    As to your specific scenario, there are no marital communications at issue, so the one type of spousal privilege available in Florida wouldn't apply.

    Also, hardly anyone is prosecuted for lying even under oath on the witness stand. No one has the time or resources to prosecute all the liars.

    "It would seem to me that June 16, 2008 was the last time that the victim was viewed by her grandparents. It became quite evident that from the OS of the Defense that the 16th was a date of great importance and that a so called time line of activities dealing with CA, LA, GA and ICA on the 16th and what, if any, activities took place on the 15th, 16th and 17th of June on 24 hour cycles would have been, at least, of a minimal requirement of review. I take it at some point you had a computer expert look at that data?" HHJP, 6/21/11
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...139910&page=94

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    830
    So now that the discovery phase is starting in Florida and the defense attorneys are requesting documents from the state, how would that effect the courts request to seal the documents? I understand the defense team will get some if not all. BUT, do the discovery documents remain sealed to the public and the media? Thanks in advance.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    7,763
    Quote Originally Posted by Bobbywoo View Post
    So now that the discovery phase is starting in Florida and the defense attorneys are requesting documents from the state, how would that effect the courts request to seal the documents? I understand the defense team will get some if not all. BUT, do the discovery documents remain sealed to the public and the media? Thanks in advance.
    Discovery documents are not filed with the court at all, until and unless they are being offered as exhibits for some reason. The public/media would not get them from the court, but rather from the prosecutor's office or LE, through a public records request. At that point, the request might be denied for various reasons, or the documents might be partly redacted, or the documents might be released in full. But "sealed" is a thing that happens with court records, not with discovery exchanged by the parties.

    "It would seem to me that June 16, 2008 was the last time that the victim was viewed by her grandparents. It became quite evident that from the OS of the Defense that the 16th was a date of great importance and that a so called time line of activities dealing with CA, LA, GA and ICA on the 16th and what, if any, activities took place on the 15th, 16th and 17th of June on 24 hour cycles would have been, at least, of a minimal requirement of review. I take it at some point you had a computer expert look at that data?" HHJP, 6/21/11
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...139910&page=94

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    830
    Quote Originally Posted by AZlawyer View Post
    Discovery documents are not filed with the court at all, until and unless they are being offered as exhibits for some reason. The public/media would not get them from the court, but rather from the prosecutor's office or LE, through a public records request. At that point, the request might be denied for various reasons, or the documents might be partly redacted, or the documents might be released in full. But "sealed" is a thing that happens with court records, not with discovery exchanged by the parties.
    Thank you so much

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,230
    AZ, my understanding is only private conversations between spouses are covered under Florida law.
    Would I be correct that if there is another person present in any communications then the spouse would have to testify? Kinda like the attorney client privilege.
    Also my understanding is that anything she sees the spouse doing is not covered and she would have to testify about it. An example would be she see her husband packing his suitcase and only the two of them are there. Am I correct that she would have to testify about seeing him pack his suitcase, but not have to testify about any conversation they had while he was packing?

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    FLORIDA
    Posts
    3,778

    AZ Lawyer

    AZLawyer,

    Is it possible we will have to wait until after CWW's scheduled arraignment on November 16th, before the public record process may commence?

    Thank you very much for being here for us!

    -Nin
    If the key does not fit, it's the wrong key.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    843
    AZLawyer:


    I googled best I could & couldn't find statute or proced'l rules or case law from ANY state whatsoever about this question I've got for you .... What does NOT make ANY sense to me is this: How could it be possible under law that CWW's attorneys & CWW (for instance) are given Discovery that is now 100 percent secret from the general public (all's placed under Court seal presently), and THAT ANYONE COULD FORCE CWW HIMSELF not to blab about that Discovery, if CWW so chooses? I can see how the jail could easily 'watch' &, say, prohibit CWW from mailing the Discovery docs' (paperwork, c.d. roms/audio-video) to anyone by SnailMail. And, if CWW gets a non-attorney visitor, yes, the jail will not let CWW 'bring along the Discovery' when CWW sits in that window with the fone to talk to his visitor.

    BUT HOW IN THE WORLD COULD THE COURT 'shut CWW HIMSELF up' from talking about the Discovery ??? CWW is charged with Murder 2 right now, so if CWW asks some non-attorney (e.g. his wife or his dad, or J.R.'s GF) to come talk to him at this Fla. jail now (& that person shows up to see & talk with CWW), IMO NO ONE could compel CWW NOT to blab 100 percent on any & ALL Discovery, should CWW choose to do so. IMO it would be utterly unconstitutional because 'presumed innocent' CWW is locked up & he'd be screaming 'THIS IS NOT RUSSIA - YOU CAN'T LOCK ME UP & SHUT ME UP -- Remember I am Innocent in the USA unless I'm PROVEN guilty !!', and he could easily scream 'I CAN'T PREPARE MY DEFENSE IF YOU GAG ME IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM!!' It's COMPLETELY unjust to charge any person with Murder 2 & then say, 'OK, you sit in jail for however long it takes & we are NOT going to let you/defendant see all The Goods we have on you & discuss it with visitors CWW gets, visitors such as CWW's dad, CWW's wife, JR's GF, Lenka!!!!' -- that would be utterly crazy if there were any law or rule that made CWW wear a Hector Lecter head covering at this time.
    CWW NEEDS all of the Discovery in his hands RIGHT AWAY, because the sooner anyone charged with Murder 2 can see what 'they've' got against him & can get his mind clicking on how he can defend himself, the better. It's CWW who best should be able to suggest to his lawyer all ideas to build a defense for CWW. All that makes sense to me is that, once charged with the crime, lawfully no court/no law could prohibit CWW himself from getting all Discovery into his very hands ASAP, & no law could block CWW from spilling the beans on ANY & ALL court-sealed case-related Discovery & other documents, should CWW choose to do so. (Pretend the rule was that CWW could ONLY blab to his potential witnesses for his defense: All CWW would need to do is write his Witness List this way: 'Everyone in the USA'.
    ---
    I guess a related-sort of question is: How come 'we the people' don't even get to view the Court's Order (sealing all) itself ? I can understand that IF no one was presently charged, but NOT when CWW sits in Fla. jail facing Murder 2 & it is CWW having been arrested & now sitting in the Fla. county jail that is the cause/basis/reason for the Order in the 1st place??? tyia
    Last edited by MinnesotaMary; 11-05-2015 at 01:09 PM.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    7,763
    Quote Originally Posted by ohreally View Post
    AZ, my understanding is only private conversations between spouses are covered under Florida law.
    Would I be correct that if there is another person present in any communications then the spouse would have to testify? Kinda like the attorney client privilege.
    Also my understanding is that anything she sees the spouse doing is not covered and she would have to testify about it. An example would be she see her husband packing his suitcase and only the two of them are there. Am I correct that she would have to testify about seeing him pack his suitcase, but not have to testify about any conversation they had while he was packing?
    Yes, under Florida law it seems there is not a general privilege to prevent your spouse from testifying--only a communications privilege. Normally the presence of a third party would destroy that type of privilege, at least if both spouses were aware that the third party was within hearing distance.

    Yes, she should have to testify about actions she observed. Those wouldn't be covered. Unless maybe it was an action that conveyed a message, like sign language or flipping her off.

    Quote Originally Posted by No it's not View Post
    AZLawyer,

    Is it possible we will have to wait until after CWW's scheduled arraignment on November 16th, before the public record process may commence?

    Thank you very much for being here for us!

    -Nin
    If a public records request has been made by media or citizens, the timing of the release shouldn't depend on anything happening in the court case. Things might be held back due to a continuing investigation, though.

    Quote Originally Posted by MinnesotaMary View Post
    AZLawyer:


    I googled best I could & couldn't find statute or proced'l rules or case law from ANY state whatsoever about this question I've got for you .... What does NOT make ANY sense to me is this: How could it be possible under law that CWW's attorneys & CWW (for instance) are given Discovery that is now 100 percent secret from the general public (all's placed under Court seal presently), and THAT ANYONE COULD FORCE CWW HIMSELF not to blab about that Discovery, if CWW so chooses? I can see how the jail could easily 'watch' &, say, prohibit CWW from mailing the Discovery docs' (paperwork, c.d. roms/audio-video) to anyone by SnailMail. And, if CWW gets a non-attorney visitor, yes, the jail will not let CWW 'bring along the Discovery' when CWW sits in that window with the fone to talk to his visitor.

    BUT HOW IN THE WORLD COULD THE COURT 'shut CWW HIMSELF up' from talking about the Discovery ??? CWW is charged with Murder 2 right now, so if CWW asks some non-attorney (e.g. his wife or his dad, or J.R.'s GF) to come talk to him at this Fla. jail now (& that person shows up to see & talk with CWW), IMO NO ONE could compel CWW NOT to blab 100 percent on any & ALL Discovery, should CWW choose to do so. IMO it would be utterly unconstitutional because 'presumed innocent' CWW is locked up & he'd be screaming 'THIS IS NOT RUSSIA - YOU CAN'T LOCK ME UP & SHUT ME UP -- Remember I am Innocent in the USA unless I'm PROVEN guilty !!', and he could easily scream 'I CAN'T PREPARE MY DEFENSE IF YOU GAG ME IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM!!' It's COMPLETELY unjust to charge any person with Murder 2 & then say, 'OK, you sit in jail for however long it takes & we are NOT going to let you/defendant see all The Goods we have on you & discuss it with visitors CWW gets, visitors such as CWW's dad, CWW's wife, JR's GF, Lenka!!!!' -- that would be utterly crazy if there were any law or rule that made CWW wear a Hector Lecter head covering at this time.
    CWW NEEDS all of the Discovery in his hands RIGHT AWAY, because the sooner anyone charged with Murder 2 can see what 'they've' got against him & can get his mind clicking on how he can defend himself, the better. It's CWW who best should be able to suggest to his lawyer all ideas to build a defense for CWW. All that makes sense to me is that, once charged with the crime, lawfully no court/no law could prohibit CWW himself from getting all Discovery into his very hands ASAP, & no law could block CWW from spilling the beans on ANY & ALL court-sealed case-related Discovery & other documents, should CWW choose to do so. (Pretend the rule was that CWW could ONLY blab to his potential witnesses for his defense: All CWW would need to do is write his Witness List this way: 'Everyone in the USA'.
    ---
    I guess a related-sort of question is: How come 'we the people' don't even get to view the Court's Order (sealing all) itself ? I can understand that IF no one was presently charged, but NOT when CWW sits in Fla. jail facing Murder 2 & it is CWW having been arrested & now sitting in the Fla. county jail that is the cause/basis/reason for the Order in the 1st place??? tyia
    I haven't had time to keep up on all the details. Can someone give me a link to this idea that the "discovery" is "sealed"? Discovery is exchanged between the parties. It is not filed in court, so there is no need to seal it unless and until parts of it need to be filed for some reason (hearing/trial exhibits, attachments to briefs, etc.). And if things ARE sealed, then yes, the court order sealing them would be public. I just don't want to answer a lot of hypothetical questions about a situation that I can't imagine is an accurate description of what is happening.

    "It would seem to me that June 16, 2008 was the last time that the victim was viewed by her grandparents. It became quite evident that from the OS of the Defense that the 16th was a date of great importance and that a so called time line of activities dealing with CA, LA, GA and ICA on the 16th and what, if any, activities took place on the 15th, 16th and 17th of June on 24 hour cycles would have been, at least, of a minimal requirement of review. I take it at some point you had a computer expert look at that data?" HHJP, 6/21/11
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...139910&page=94

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,246
    Quote Originally Posted by AZlawyer View Post
    Yes, under Florida law it seems there is not a general privilege to prevent your spouse from testifying--only a communications privilege. Normally the presence of a third party would destroy that type of privilege, at least if both spouses were aware that the third party was within hearing distance.

    Yes, she should have to testify about actions she observed. Those wouldn't be covered. Unless maybe it was an action that conveyed a message, like sign language or flipping her off.



    If a public records request has been made by media or citizens, the timing of the release shouldn't depend on anything happening in the court case. Things might be held back due to a continuing investigation, though.



    I haven't had time to keep up on all the details. Can someone give me a link to this idea that the "discovery" is "sealed"? Discovery is exchanged between the parties. It is not filed in court, so there is no need to seal it unless and until parts of it need to be filed for some reason (hearing/trial exhibits, attachments to briefs, etc.). And if things ARE sealed, then yes, the court order sealing them would be public. I just don't want to answer a lot of hypothetical questions about a situation that I can't imagine is an accurate description of what is happening.
    I hope that I'm not making this more confusing in an attempt to simplify. I think the confusion re: "sealed" discovery stems from the judge sealing the file on or about Oct 15, and then later CWW's defense attorney filing a notice? to participate in discovery. This may have signaled to posters that CWW/Parker received at least some discovery shortly after Oct. 20, and that these documents would be available via public records request. Last (more recent) piece of the puzzle; the state attorney's office reply to NIN's information request stating nothing is public record because CWW has not been formally charged by the state, yet.


    Oct. 15 - The judge agreed to seal all documents related to Wright's case, citing an ongoing criminal investigation. http://www.nbc-2.com/story/30266122/...i#.VjvwHLxh2jT

    Oct. 20 - On Tuesday, Parker filed a waiver of arraignment, meaning Wright likely won't appear in court for his scheduled arraignment on Nov. 16. Parker also filed a written plea of not guilty, which is typical in criminal cases. Parker also filed paperwork Tuesday to begin the evidence-sharing process between the prosecution and the defense known as discovery. Parker is requesting the names and address of witnesses and any statements they may have provided to law enforcement, as well as documents relating to electronic surveillance and searches. http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...presenting-CWW


    Recent posts re: replies to info requests and discovery posted below from http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...ty-Jail/page18

    Quote Originally Posted by No it's not View Post
    [FONT="] [/FONT][FONT="]
    From the [/FONT][FONT="]Communications Director at the [/FONT][FONT="]State Attorneyís Office in response to my public information request letter:[/FONT]
    [FONT="]

    Hello...
    [/FONT]
    [FONT="]
    Thank you for your request. At this time, nothing in that case is public record as the case is still under review and he has not been charged by our office yet. Please feel free to submit your request again in the future. I do not have a time frame for charges, thus canít say exactly when the public record process will start.

    [/FONT]
    [FONT="]S........ S.......[/FONT]

    [FONT="]Communications Director[/FONT]
    [FONT="]State Attorneyís Office[/FONT]



    Quote Originally Posted by No it's not View Post
    While nothing seems impossible in this case..I am pretty sure we are on schedule in a formal timeline.

    CWW appeared briefly before the judge during his first preliminary appearance right after he had been extradited the night before from MO and driven over to Florida by Sergeants Michael Down and David Lebid from the Major Crime Unit of the LCSO.

    The preliminary first appearance will be followed by CWW's formal arraignment on November 16th.Formal charges will have been filed by the prosecutor by then. The formal charges are being contained in the indictment or information (document).

    [Bold mine]

    'The indictment or information is drafted by the Office of the State Attorney or District Attorney, whereas the charging document at the first appearance is usually drafted by the police.

    Once a person has been arrested, the charges are sent over to the prosecutor's office for review. After reviewing the facts and circumstances of each case, the prosecutor will usually formally file charges.'
    ..

    'Once the formal arraignment is over and a not guilty plea has been entered, the discovery process begins. Discovery is the process by which the defense attorney investigates the allegations contained within the information. Discovery also serves as the trial preparation. Once a "not guilty" plea has been entered, the defendant should file a notice of intent to participate in discovery with the office of the prosecutor. This requires that the prosecutor turn over any and all materials which are relevant to either guilt or innocence.'
    ..

    'The Defendant also has a discovery obligation, however this obligation is only triggered if the defendant informs the State of his intent to participate in discovery.'

    http://www.orlandoattorneys.com/inde...iminal-defense


    -Nin


  11. #71
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    7,763
    Quote Originally Posted by creepingskills View Post
    I hope that I'm not making this more confusing in an attempt to simplify. I think the confusion re: "sealed" discovery stems from the judge sealing the file on or about Oct 15, and then later CWW's defense attorney filing a notice? to participate in discovery. This may have signaled to posters that CWW/Parker received at least some discovery shortly after Oct. 20, and that these documents would be available via public records request. Last (more recent) piece of the puzzle; the state attorney's office reply to NIN's information request stating nothing is public record because CWW has not been formally charged by the state, yet.


    Oct. 15 - The judge agreed to seal all documents related to Wright's case, citing an ongoing criminal investigation. http://www.nbc-2.com/story/30266122/...i#.VjvwHLxh2jT

    Oct. 20 - On Tuesday, Parker filed a waiver of arraignment, meaning Wright likely won't appear in court for his scheduled arraignment on Nov. 16. Parker also filed a written plea of not guilty, which is typical in criminal cases. Parker also filed paperwork Tuesday to begin the evidence-sharing process between the prosecution and the defense known as discovery. Parker is requesting the names and address of witnesses and any statements they may have provided to law enforcement, as well as documents relating to electronic surveillance and searches. http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...presenting-CWW


    Recent posts re: replies to info requests and discovery posted below from http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...ty-Jail/page18
    Thanks, cs! OK, as to the Oct. 15 order, that seems clearly overbroad, if the judge really sealed the whole file. But some judges will do that, just from laziness I think. But since the documents we want to see wouldn't be part of the court file anyway, let's move on....

    The state attorney's response makes sense. The Oct 20 notice of participation in discovery would normally trigger a response within 15 days. However, if the arraignment hasn't happened yet I don't see how the state's attorney could be forced to participate before then. The documents should be available via public records request (subject to "continuing investigation" and other exceptions) from the sheriff's office, though. But it sounds like the state's attorney will have an officially open case soon enough.

    "It would seem to me that June 16, 2008 was the last time that the victim was viewed by her grandparents. It became quite evident that from the OS of the Defense that the 16th was a date of great importance and that a so called time line of activities dealing with CA, LA, GA and ICA on the 16th and what, if any, activities took place on the 15th, 16th and 17th of June on 24 hour cycles would have been, at least, of a minimal requirement of review. I take it at some point you had a computer expert look at that data?" HHJP, 6/21/11
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...139910&page=94

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    144
    In regards to this case: If LE make additional arrests, are they obligated to inform the public?

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    7,763
    Quote Originally Posted by Arachne 1 View Post
    In regards to this case: If LE make additional arrests, are they obligated to inform the public?
    They're not obligated to put out a press release, of course, but the arrest wouldn't be secret--it could be discovered through public records requests if nothing else. In this case, though, I would certainly expect a press release based on the sheriff's enthusiasm about informing the public of his progress.

    "It would seem to me that June 16, 2008 was the last time that the victim was viewed by her grandparents. It became quite evident that from the OS of the Defense that the 16th was a date of great importance and that a so called time line of activities dealing with CA, LA, GA and ICA on the 16th and what, if any, activities took place on the 15th, 16th and 17th of June on 24 hour cycles would have been, at least, of a minimal requirement of review. I take it at some point you had a computer expert look at that data?" HHJP, 6/21/11
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...139910&page=94

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Born & raised in the Deep South
    Posts
    821
    I have a very basic question so don't laugh. Does every criminal case go before a GJ?

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    7,763
    Quote Originally Posted by MrsArk View Post
    I have a very basic question so don't laugh. Does every criminal case go before a GJ?
    No. Many crimes may be charged without a GJ indictment. But in Florida, a GJ indictment is the only way to initiate a 1st degree murder charge.

    "It would seem to me that June 16, 2008 was the last time that the victim was viewed by her grandparents. It became quite evident that from the OS of the Defense that the 16th was a date of great importance and that a so called time line of activities dealing with CA, LA, GA and ICA on the 16th and what, if any, activities took place on the 15th, 16th and 17th of June on 24 hour cycles would have been, at least, of a minimal requirement of review. I take it at some point you had a computer expert look at that data?" HHJP, 6/21/11
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...139910&page=94

Page 5 of 18 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 15 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 395
    Last Post: 03-20-2017, 04:17 PM
  2. Legal Questions for our VERIFIED Lawyers
    By beach in forum Lisa Irwin
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 12-29-2015, 02:16 PM
  3. Legal Questions for our Verified Lawyers #4
    By Kimster in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 1792
    Last Post: 12-12-2013, 11:50 PM
  4. Legal Questions for our VERIFIED Lawyers #3
    By beach in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 1282
    Last Post: 06-20-2011, 07:34 PM
  5. Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #2
    By BondJamesBond in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 1610
    Last Post: 05-09-2011, 09:28 PM

Tags for this Thread