1211 users online (271 members and 940 guests)  



Websleuths News


Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 18
  1. #1

    2010.02.11 Defense objection to discovery schedule

    http://www.wftv.com/pdf/22534561/detail.html


    The defense only objects only one thing in the state's proposed discovery schedule, according to the Orlando Sentinel
    sniped:


    "According to the objection, the defense team and prosecutors assigned to Casey Anthony's case met Feb. 8 and agreed on an "overwhelming majority" of discovery issues.

    "The defense objects to one item though — dealing with the Oak Ridge Laboratory. The defense claims the laboratory may attempt to claim Strickland doesn't have jurisdiction over them, and so more litigation may ensue to resolve the issues.

    The defense asks Strickland amend the state's proposed discovery order to either exclude the deadline for the laboratory and its officials, or set an alternative date for matters related to that agency."
    Last edited by The World According; 02-11-2010 at 09:49 PM.

  2. #2
    I am happy that the defense stipulated to nearly all of the prosecutors proposed discovery schedule. It is a start. The litigation with the labs could take months, so surely they have drafted their motions to have the court get started....right? LOL!!!
    Last edited by The World According; 02-11-2010 at 09:30 PM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    310
    FOR THE LOVE OF PETE:

    Would someone please teach these people proper grammar and get someone to proof read their stuff!!!!!

    They did NOT meet on Feb 8, 2009.....2010 maybe, but not 2009

    and "they WHERE able to agree..." WTH?? were....not where


    Their typos drive me nuts
    Last edited by kew17; 02-12-2010 at 12:01 AM. Reason: dad gum typos!!!

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Culpeper, Virginia
    Posts
    3,188
    I just saw the title of this thread and said out loud "you gotta be kidding me!"
    I am no longer going to use JB as the scapegoat on this stuff anymore, either. I think AL has to be on board with this, too, and not just rubber stamping her signature on these things-maybe this is one of the tactics she has in her playbook: when you can't win the case, be the biggest buffoon you can so that your client at least has a strong appeal based on ineffective counsel.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Liverpool Branch
    Posts
    5,256
    I wonder if there is any accountabilty or penalty for the overall Discovery Schedule though?

    It sounds like the Oak Ridge Laboratory could be a cause for further delays but even if that is resolved .... is there any teeth to this that if the Defense continue to drag their feet .... is there any penalty for missing these dates or all dates?

    Is this Discovery Schedule worth the paper it is written on?
    Disclaimer: All posts are my own humble opinion. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.



    Justice for Caylee

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Culpeper, Virginia
    Posts
    3,188
    Quote Originally Posted by cyberborg View Post
    I wonder if there is any accountabilty or penalty for the overall Discovery Schedule though?

    It sounds like the Oak Ridge Laboratory could be a cause for further delays but even if that is resolved .... is there any teeth to this that if the Defense continue to drag their feet .... is there any penalty for missing these dates or all dates?

    Is this Discovery Schedule worth the paper it is written on?
    Maybe this should go on the legal thread for anyone that is knowlegable in federal and/or Tennessee law. Even though Judge S. has said that FBI/Oakridge will have to appear before him to at least explain themselves, I don't know that this is something Judge S. can order. It might be that Oakridge and FBI can give the proverbial finger (as long as they did not give their findings to the prosecution) to everybody in this case, I don't know.
    What I do know is that Judge S. told the defense that Oakridge/FBI cannot be their excuse for dragging their feet-He told them that they needed to honor their obligation to set a schedule, and that they should be able to do this regardless of what FBI/ORL has given them. He advised them to get the attorneys for those entities in his courtroom if necessary, but he also seemed to make it pretty clear that they still needed to provide a timeline for everything else they have. At least that is the way I understood JS.
    Maybe this is because Judge S. knows that the defense/state may never get this info from FBI/ORL, and he cannot compel it, so they need to plan on making thier case without those findings.

    ETA-I asked the legal eagles to come to us on this thread, if they please, to give some guidance-Sorry if there is one here already and I overlooked.
    Last edited by Just Jayla; 02-11-2010 at 09:55 PM.

  7. #7
    Oh how right you are. The will miss every deadline, we can bet, and then the state will have to file motions to compel the defense to show cause of why and it will drag on and on. If I were a taxpayer in Florida, I would be livid. I wish Mr. Hornsby or Mr. Sheaffer would take over the case. I want her to get a fair trial, of course, we all want that. If she had a serious lawyer who knew what they were doing it would be so much better for Casey and everyone. It was funny at first, now it has really gotten pathetic.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    3,817
    Quote Originally Posted by Just Jayla View Post
    Maybe this should go on the legal thread for anyone that is knowlegable in federal and/or Tennessee law. Even though Judge S. has said that FBI/Oakridge will have to appear before him to at least explain themselves, I don't know that this is something Judge S. can order. It might be that Oakridge and FBI can give the proverbial finger (as long as they did not give their findings to the prosecution) to everybody in this case, I don't know.
    What I do know is that Judge S. told the defense that Oakridge/FBI cannot be their excuse for dragging their feet-He told them that they needed to honor their obligation to set a schedule, and that they should be able to do this regardless of what FBI/ORL has given them. He advised them to get the attorneys for those entities in his courtroom if necessary, but he also seemed to make it pretty clear that they still needed to provide a timeline for everything else they have. At least that is the way I understood JS.
    Maybe this is because Judge S. knows that the defense/state may never get this info from FBI/ORL, and he cannot compel it, so they need to plan on making thier case without those findings.

    ETA-I asked the legal eagles to come to us on this thread, if they please, to give some guidance-Sorry if there is one here already and I overlooked.

    Very foggy memory on my part, but am I recalling a hearing very early in the case when there was a discussion about Oak Ridge and Baez was complaining that SA did not contact OR to ask them to send reports to Baez.....JS then reminded Baez that it is HIS job to request from OR and they can send or not, their choice, but that he (JS) did not have jurisdiction to ORDER them to.

    Baez then tried arguing point with JS, whereas JS stated to Baez something about Oak Ridge would have to retain counsel as would Baez and the two "duke it out" as to whether Baez can force them to submit to them?

    Memory is VERY foggy, but thought maybe someone else has better recollection?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    7,757
    Quote Originally Posted by Just Jayla View Post
    Maybe this should go on the legal thread for anyone that is knowlegable in federal and/or Tennessee law. Even though Judge S. has said that FBI/Oakridge will have to appear before him to at least explain themselves, I don't know that this is something Judge S. can order. It might be that Oakridge and FBI can give the proverbial finger (as long as they did not give their findings to the prosecution) to everybody in this case, I don't know.
    What I do know is that Judge S. told the defense that Oakridge/FBI cannot be their excuse for dragging their feet-He told them that they needed to honor their obligation to set a schedule, and that they should be able to do this regardless of what FBI/ORL has given them. He advised them to get the attorneys for those entities in his courtroom if necessary, but he also seemed to make it pretty clear that they still needed to provide a timeline for everything else they have. At least that is the way I understood JS.
    Maybe this is because Judge S. knows that the defense/state may never get this info from FBI/ORL, and he cannot compel it, so they need to plan on making thier case without those findings.

    ETA-I asked the legal eagles to come to us on this thread, if they please, to give some guidance-Sorry if there is one here already and I overlooked.
    I don't think a Florida state criminal judge can order a Tennessee organization (or the FBI in Virginia or wherever they are) to produce information to the defense. But the SA will pressure the FBI and ORL to produce whatever the SA thinks is going to be necessary for them to be permitted to use FBI/ORL evidence at the trial. The SA does not want the FBI and ORL to be uncooperative IF the defense requests are reasonable, because that would create a risk that the judge would find that the defense was hampered in addressing the FBI/ORL evidence and thus it cannot be used against KC.

    "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. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Culpeper, Virginia
    Posts
    3,188
    Quote Originally Posted by AZlawyer View Post
    I don't think a Florida state criminal judge can order a Tennessee organization (or the FBI in Virginia or wherever they are) to produce information to the defense. But the SA will pressure the FBI and ORL to produce whatever the SA thinks is going to be necessary for them to be permitted to use FBI/ORL evidence at the trial. The SA does not want the FBI and ORL to be uncooperative IF the defense requests are reasonable, because that would create a risk that the judge would find that the defense was hampered in addressing the FBI/ORL evidence and thus it cannot be used against KC.
    Lovely as usual, AZ-I would not have thought of it like that, but then I guess that's prolly cause I did not put in the many years it takes to be a legal professional! My extent of knowledge is in the collections arena, so unless Baez has uttered a bad check, or needs a Summons to Answer Interrogatories, I am pretty clueless!
    Defense asserted that because TES was working in conjunction with the state of Florida, that they were agents of the state and therefore were within Orange County's jurisdiction. Would this not hold true for ORL as well (hold aside Quantico as they are a federal agency)? Do you find merit in that argument?


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Culpeper, Virginia
    Posts
    3,188
    I understand why KC's lawyers have taken an adversarial approach to the FBI and Oakridge. However, IIRC, the Anthony's contacted the FBI first. It is reasonable to say that the FBI and Oakridge, working as independant agencies who will need their credibility intact long after this case, coud just have easily found evidence to support KC's Zenaida theory or evidence that shows KC could not have done this (vis a vie someone else's fingerprints). But they did not, presumably because it does not exist.
    I hope the state points this out at trial, that these agencies, especially ORL because they are not LE, do not have a horse in this race.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Waiting
    Posts
    4,523
    Quote Originally Posted by AZlawyer View Post
    I don't think a Florida state criminal judge can order a Tennessee organization (or the FBI in Virginia or wherever they are) to produce information to the defense. But the SA will pressure the FBI and ORL to produce whatever the SA thinks is going to be necessary for them to be permitted to use FBI/ORL evidence at the trial. The SA does not want the FBI and ORL to be uncooperative IF the defense requests are reasonable, because that would create a risk that the judge would find that the defense was hampered in addressing the FBI/ORL evidence and thus it cannot be used against KC.
    Hi, AZ! IIRC, the items that JB wants and the FBI/ORL are refusing to give him are results on testing from other cases that they say has no bearing on this case. JB is going to dispute their findings, saying that they have made mistakes in this case like in others, IMO, and he wants these cases and info given to him so he can "fish" out the details. The labs are saying "No way, Jose!" Would the fact that they are keeping files from him that pertain to other cases, but allowing things pertaining to Caylee's case, create the same risk you mentioned in your post? Thanks!




    It Was Ancient Aliens!

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    271
    Quote Originally Posted by kew17 View Post
    FOR THE LOVE OF PETE:

    Would someone please teach these people proper grammar and get someone to proof read their stuff!!!!!

    They did NOT meet on Feb 8, 2009.....2010 maybe, but not 2009

    and "they WHERE able to agree..." WTH?? were....not where


    Their typos drive me nuts
    Yes, I cringed too - they also used improper conjunctions (it's instead of its used TWICE) and wrote "a overwhelming" instead of "an overwhelming". If there's one thing I can't stand, it's improper use of the English language, especially by some of the most highly educated individuals in the country.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    7,757
    Quote Originally Posted by chefmom View Post
    Hi, AZ! IIRC, the items that JB wants and the FBI/ORL are refusing to give him are results on testing from other cases that they say has no bearing on this case. JB is going to dispute their findings, saying that they have made mistakes in this case like in others, IMO, and he wants these cases and info given to him so he can "fish" out the details. The labs are saying "No way, Jose!" Would the fact that they are keeping files from him that pertain to other cases, but allowing things pertaining to Caylee's case, create the same risk you mentioned in your post? Thanks!
    If I were the SA, I would be encouraging the labs to turn over everything, just in case the judge agreed with JB re: the other docs potentially leading to relevant evidence.

    "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

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    3,817
    Quote Originally Posted by chefmom View Post
    Hi, AZ! IIRC, the items that JB wants and the FBI/ORL are refusing to give him are results on testing from other cases that they say has no bearing on this case. JB is going to dispute their findings, saying that they have made mistakes in this case like in others, IMO, and he wants these cases and info given to him so he can "fish" out the details. The labs are saying "No way, Jose!" Would the fact that they are keeping files from him that pertain to other cases, but allowing things pertaining to Caylee's case, create the same risk you mentioned in your post? Thanks!
    Interesting article on 2/08/10 about that particular subject with commentary by Richard Hornsby. Also interesting that article starts out in reference to Ward case, but RH brings KC case into it as well.

    "The National Academy of Forensic Science came out with a scathing report on virtually every crime laboratory in the United States, basically saying that because they are overseen by law enforcement that they are not being neutral or objective in their findings," Orlando defense attorney Richard Hornsby said.

    Hornsby said the reliability of law enforcement lab testing was also questioned in that recent National Academy of Forensic Science report.

    "They find that many of the tests do not stand up to scientific scrutiny," Hornsby said.

    All of that scrutiny, Hornsby said, can lead up to something very important to defendants like Ward and Casey Anthony. The more errors that can be found in how law enforcement processed and tested key evidence, the more doubt jurors could have about its reliability.


    http://www.wesh.com/news/22502609/detail.html

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Defense Motion to Seal Penalty Phase Discovery Documents
    By truckengirl in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 345
    Last Post: 01-09-2011, 03:14 PM
  2. Motion to Compel Reciprocal Discovery - What is the Defense Trying to Hide??
    By hroark2112 in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 123
    Last Post: 06-09-2010, 11:11 PM
  3. Peterson's defense to oppose motion to seal discovery
    By Paintr in forum Kathleen Savio
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 07-20-2009, 01:09 PM
  4. What discovery does the defense have to turn over to prosecutors
    By Pixie_Dust in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 10-21-2008, 04:44 PM