Just the mere fact of an ethics violation wouldn't be discoverable. But if, hypothetically, either of them actually tampered with the evidence, that would be discoverable.
This is an intriguing possibility! I pose two hypothetical situations.....................
Scenario 1. JB knows where Caylee's remains are located, having learned the general location from Casey. JB sends DC out to locate the remains and report back to him. DC finds the remains and reports to JB the exact location and what he found. JB tells DC to move the remains to a location distant from the Anthony home. DC tells JB he can't do that as the remains are small pieces scattered over a broad area. JB tells DC to remove and dispose of anything from the remains site that would tie Caylee's murder directly to Casey. DC returns to the remains site and removes several items, which he keeps.
Scenario 2. Cindy knows the general location of Caylee's remains, having learned this either directly from Casey when she was out on bond, or from Lee whom Casey confided in. Cindy sends DC out to locate Caylee's remains. DC finds the remains and reports back to Cindy who instructs him to dispose of the remains permanently - bury them in some remote location preferably far from Orlando. DC tells Cindy he can't do that as the remains are spread far and wide. Cindy instructs DC to go back to the remains site and remove anything that could be incriminating to Casey and dispose of it. DC returns to the remains site and removes several items that could tie Casey directly to Caylee's murder. Instead of disposing of these items, he keeps them.
In both of these scenarios we have an individual who has knowledge of where Caylee's remains were located. In both cases these individuals are motivated to keep Caylee's remains from being found, or if found, to make sure that there's nothing with the remains that incriminates Casey.
In both cases we have a private investigator who realized that if he disposed of Caylee's remains he would become an accessory after the fact and that may have played a role in him refusing to dispose of the remains. And in both scenarios, the private investigator keeps the items he was told to remove. Keeping these items may be two-fold. First of all, he knows he's in possession of evidence in a criminal case, and secondly, those items become an "insurance policy" for him to be paid for his services.
If either of these two scenarios proves to be accurate, would that qualify as a just cause for the prosecution's motion for an in camera, ex-parte hearing with the judge without the presence of the defense?
If the first scenario proves to be correct, would that be cause to have JB removed from the case and possibly disbarred?
If the second scenario proves to be correct, would that be grounds for charges of evidence tampering against Cindy and/or George Anthony? Could either of them be charged with accessory after the fact?
And, if either scenario proves correct, could DC be in a position of being offered immunity from prosecution in exchange for his testimony?
And, if either scenario proves correct, what would this do to the case against Casey Anthony?
