Page 13 of 114 FirstFirst ... 3 11 12 13 14 15 23 63 113 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 195 of 1698
  1. #181
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    7,356
    Quote Originally Posted by ohiogirl View Post
    1) "If the court determines, in camera, that any police or investigative report contains irrelevant, sensitive information or information interrelated with other crimes or criminal activities and the disclosure of the contents of the police report may seriously impair law enforcement or jeopardize the investigation of those other crimes or activities, the court may prohibit or partially restrict the disclosure." However, the court may also "prohibit the state from introducing into evidence any of the foregoing
    material not disclosed, so as to secure and maintain fairness in the just determination of the cause."

    And could that portion mean that this "materials and information" may have nothing to do with this case at all?
    No, if it had nothing to do with the case at all, then the information would not be discoverable by the defense, and the State would not have to ask the judge's permission to delay releasing the information to the defense.

    They are only obligated to turn over information to the defense that is related to KC's case.

    "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


  2. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to AZlawyer For This Useful Post:


  3. #182
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    7,356
    Quote Originally Posted by JWG View Post
    As I read the motion, the state says the information and materials are discoverable, and they want to delay their release, not prevent it.
    Exactly. I think we'll see it eventually.

    "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


  4. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to AZlawyer For This Useful Post:


  5. #183
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    16,024

    AZLawyer or Themis

    On some of the threads there is a constantly going back and forth about information that the SA or SD has not investigated or so some of us believe. So here is my question, and I guess it is partly because I am a Canuck. Here we know almost nothing until during or after the trial.

    If the OCPD or the SA investigate information, people or evidence and find that it is of no value to this case, or is "ruled out" as far as not connected to - are they required to tell us or anyone via Sunshine Laws that this information has been scrutinized?

    To me that wouldn't make sense. I can understand they might want to keep notes on their investigation in case it comes up in trial, but to release that "non-evidence" investigation information seems to me to be tedious and of no value.

    Could you please comment as to how the laws apply?


  6. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to logicalgirl For This Useful Post:


  7. #184
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,339
    Quote Originally Posted by logicalgirl View Post
    On some of the threads there is a constantly going back and forth about information that the SA or SD has not investigated or so some of us believe. So here is my question, and I guess it is partly because I am a Canuck. Here we know almost nothing until during or after the trial.

    If the OCPD or the SA investigate information, people or evidence and find that it is of no value to this case, or is "ruled out" as far as not connected to - are they required to tell us or anyone via Sunshine Laws that this information has been scrutinized?

    To me that wouldn't make sense. I can understand they might want to keep notes on their investigation in case it comes up in trial, but to release that "non-evidence" investigation information seems to me to be tedious and of no value.

    Could you please comment as to how the laws apply?
    This is my question too...but more specifically...

    If OCSO investigated Roy K. thoroughly, since he is the one who found Caylee's remains, and let's say they didn't find anything bad in his background, does the fact that they investigated him, and to what extent, have to be given over to the defense? Or if, in OCSO's opinion, nothing was found, that would affect the case and trial, are they under any obligation to turn over to defense?
    Last edited by mitzi; 02-06-2010 at 12:42 AM.


  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to mitzi For This Useful Post:


  9. #185
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Fort Myers, FL
    Posts
    480
    What is the process for removing a lawyer from representing a defendant before trial?

    Would "conflict of interest" warrant the removal of lawyer?

    What happens with the defendant if their lawyer is removed? Would the defendant be able to go through an interview process for a new private lawyer or would they automatically be assigned a public defender?

    I'm wondering IF the ex parte request could be because the investigators have evidence that shows Jose really does have some media etc.. contracts.

    Thank you in advance!
    "We wish to find the truth, no matter where it lies. But to find the truth we need imagination and skepticism both. We will not be afraid to speculate, but we will be careful to distinguish speculation from fact." Carl Sagan


  10. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to ClockWatcher For This Useful Post:


  11. #186
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    7,491
    Quote Originally Posted by AZlawyer View Post
    No, if it had nothing to do with the case at all, then the information would not be discoverable by the defense, and the State would not have to ask the judge's permission to delay releasing the information to the defense.

    They are only obligated to turn over information to the defense that is related to KC's case.
    Quote Originally Posted by mitzi View Post
    This is my question too...but more specifically...

    If OCSO investigated Roy K. thoroughly, since he is the one who found Caylee's remains, and let's say they didn't find anything bad in his background, does the fact that they investigated him, and to what extent, have to be given over to the defense? Or if, in OCSO's opinion, nothing was found, that would affect the case and trial, are they under any obligation to turn over to defense?
    (BBM)

    AZ
    Conversely, if LE investigated Kronk further and did find something but it is totally unrelated to the Anthony case, could this be what the SA needs guidance from the judge on before releasing?
    Last edited by Harmony2; 02-06-2010 at 01:11 PM.


  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Harmony2 For This Useful Post:


  13. #187
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Cary, NC
    Posts
    215
    I know that as a defense attorney, you can't put your client on the stand and knowingly ask them questions that will lead them to commit perjury (i.e. if you client told you they did it, and you ask them on the stand if they did and they say no), but what if you put your client on the stand and DON'T ask them about it...then the prosecutor does and your client lies? Do you have to do something about it? You didn't suborn perjury, but you know he/she committed perjury.

    I hope you can make sense of what I just wrote...


  14. The Following User Says Thank You to hroark2112 For This Useful Post:


  15. #188
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    CT/NC
    Posts
    21,162
    Not sure an attorney can answer this question but can a PI legally conduct an investigation in another state other than where they have their license?


  16. The Following User Says Thank You to LambChop For This Useful Post:


  17. #189
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,284
    Quote Originally Posted by hroark2112 View Post
    I know that as a defense attorney, you can't put your client on the stand and knowingly ask them questions that will lead them to commit perjury (i.e. if you client told you they did it, and you ask them on the stand if they did and they say no), but what if you put your client on the stand and DON'T ask them about it...then the prosecutor does and your client lies? Do you have to do something about it? You didn't suborn perjury, but you know he/she committed perjury.

    I hope you can make sense of what I just wrote...
    There are ethical rules on how to deal with this. The attorney has a duty of candor (truthfulness) to the court as an officer of the court. For example, the attorney who knows his client -- or any other witness -- has lied on the stand in giving evidence cannot use that lie in argument. Sometimes, the deliberate avoidance of what would be clearly expected in an argument or to support a motion, is a red flag that essentially puts the court and the other counsel on notice that the witness has lied.


  18. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Themis For This Useful Post:


  19. #190
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,284
    Quote Originally Posted by LambChop View Post
    Not sure an attorney can answer this question but can a PI legally conduct an investigation in another state other than where they have their license?
    When a state license is required for any occupation, that licensed professional may not practice in another state without getting the other state's license. There are a few exceptions; such as when an attorney gets admitted to practice for a single case. If the PI licensing has an exception like this, the PI could do that. Otherwise, the client will have to hire a PI in the other state and the two PIs can associate with each other in getting the job done.


  20. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Themis For This Useful Post:


  21. #191
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,284
    Quote Originally Posted by ClockWatcher View Post
    What is the process for removing a lawyer from representing a defendant before trial?

    Would "conflict of interest" warrant the removal of lawyer?

    What happens with the defendant if their lawyer is removed? Would the defendant be able to go through an interview process for a new private lawyer or would they automatically be assigned a public defender?

    I'm wondering IF the ex parte request could be because the investigators have evidence that shows Jose really does have some media etc.. contracts.

    Thank you in advance!

    Maybe you are thinking of recusal (removing oneself), disqualification or disbarment? Generally, if an attorney is licensed to practice, they can represent a client even if the other side or the court doesn't think it is right. Issues of conflict of interest are generally a client's cause of action, not opposing counsel's or the court's. If an attorney has misrepresented something to the court is wouldn't normally be grounds for removal, but would be a basis for a disciplinary action with a complaint to the bar or a contempt of court procedure. If an attorney becomes unavailable for any reason during a client's case, the client may choose a new attorney. Sometimes, if an attorney becomes unable to proceed with cases in progress, like illness or disability, other local law firms will be asked to offer their services or the state bar may step in with a bank of attorneys to handle immediate matters until the client can select an attorney of their choice.


  22. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Themis For This Useful Post:


  23. #192
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,284
    Quote Originally Posted by logicalgirl View Post
    On some of the threads there is a constantly going back and forth about information that the SA or SD has not investigated or so some of us believe. So here is my question, and I guess it is partly because I am a Canuck. Here we know almost nothing until during or after the trial.

    If the OCPD or the SA investigate information, people or evidence and find that it is of no value to this case, or is "ruled out" as far as not connected to - are they required to tell us or anyone via Sunshine Laws that this information has been scrutinized?

    To me that wouldn't make sense. I can understand they might want to keep notes on their investigation in case it comes up in trial, but to release that "non-evidence" investigation information seems to me to be tedious and of no value.

    Could you please comment as to how the laws apply?
    Sunshine laws, or public records acts, pertain to all matters that are in a public record. Generally, the disclosure obligations to not require the public entity to keep records. So, if there are no records, kept, there is nothing to disclose as per public records. Further, agency notes, internal memorandum or working papers do not need to be disclosed. These are "thought process" notes and are just thinking on paper. Those are not generally subject to disclosure, although if pushed, there can be a balancing of the public's need to know vs a right to know. There are also many exceptions and exclusions to the sunshine laws. The specific request for disclosure has to be compared to what is sought to be excluded each and every time and the reason for nondisclosure must be cited. Finally, if it is in a public record, doesn't meet an exclusion and tedious or of no value, it must still be disclosed. Relevancy is not the test. Existance in a public record without an exception for nondisclosure is the relevant test.


  24. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Themis For This Useful Post:


  25. #193
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    CT/NC
    Posts
    21,162
    Quote Originally Posted by Themis View Post
    When a state license is required for any occupation, that licensed professional may not practice in another state without getting the other state's license. There are a few exceptions; such as when an attorney gets admitted to practice for a single case. If the PI licensing has an exception like this, the PI could do that. Otherwise, the client will have to hire a PI in the other state and the two PIs can associate with each other in getting the job done.
    My husband was a PI licensed in the State of Connecticut for 20 years and that is what he had to do. He had to hire another PI. Then how was MS able to conduct an investigation in TN if he is not licensed there????


  26. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to LambChop For This Useful Post:


  27. #194
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    7,356
    Quote Originally Posted by Harmony2 View Post
    (BBM)

    AZ
    Conversely, if LE investigated Kronk further and did find something but it is totally unrelated to the Anthony case, could this be what the SA needs guidance from the judge on before releasing?
    Well, they didn't ask for guidance (a ruling on discoverability). They said the information WAS discoverable (therefore would potentially lead to relevant evidence) but they wanted a DELAY before releasing it to the defense.

    "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


  28. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to AZlawyer For This Useful Post:


  29. #195
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Polk County, Florida
    Posts
    7,207
    Bringing this question over from another thread...

    Can someone who searched for Caylee, with TES, refuse to talk to the defense?
    <Click on User CP>
    Scroll down and on the left
    <Click on Edit Ignore List>
    In add a Member to your list
    <start typing the name of the person you want to ignore>
    <Click on OKay>

    IF WE COOK IT THEY WILL COME!



Page 13 of 114 FirstFirst ... 3 11 12 13 14 15 23 63 113 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Questions for our VERIFIED LAWYERS*~*~*NO DISCUSSIONS*~*~*
    By Kimster in forum Zahra Clare Baker
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: 07-20-2011, 04:04 PM
  2. Replies: 458
    Last Post: 06-28-2011, 02:16 PM
  3. Legal questions for our VERIFIED lawyers on the board
    By Capri in forum Haleigh Cummings
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 09-12-2010, 04:36 PM
  4. Legal Q&A Answers from VERIFIED Legal professionals only
    By JBean in forum Somer Renee Thompson
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-17-2010, 02:40 AM
  5. Legal Questions
    By daisy7 in forum Byrd and Melanie Billings
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 01-01-2010, 09:18 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •