What does Rule 3.202 Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure say? And how is it applied to this case?
Finnell wrote that this "rule does not apply since the State did not timely file notice of intent to seek the death penalty or having filed such a notice withdrew the notice and filed a second notice after the expiration of the 45 day time period."
I assume she's talking about the part of the rule that has to do with how long the defendant has to notify the state of its mental mitigation experts. The rule might not apply here, because the state didn't file its notice of intent to seek the death penalty within the time period that would trigger the rule. BUT IMO if HHJP has ordered his own time limits, who cares about the default time limits provided in the rule?
My question relates to the touch DNA testing that was supposed to be back a few days ago, but we've heard nothing about it. I've heard people say that if it came back any of the A's DNA, it wouldn't be a big deal or surprise. So it sounds like they wouldn't have to file anything unless it was someone other than an A's DNA on the shorts? Could they keep the results to themselves if it's just another A DNA to use at trial? Could they say Casey didn't do it because mom or pop or Lee's DNA is on Caylee's shorts, so one of them did it? Would this be considered trial by ambush if they just go after another family member? I'm just thinking they don't have a whole lot except three family members to try to pin it on other than Casey at this point.
The way I read the discovery rule, the defense (in a case like this one, in which the defense has opted in to reciprocal discovery) would have to disclose scientific test results on evidence regardless of whether they intended to use those results at trial. Certainly, they could not use at trial any results they didn't disclose.
http://www.wesh.com/pdf/26557921/detail.html
Hi - on page 13 of
Motion for approval of investigative hours for the penalty phase - the investigator billed for "Travel to Kodak to conduct interview and obtain personal employment records" and "Interview witness at Kodack and obtain records", on 12/12/10
If the defense had already obtained this information for trial, is it usual for the defense to do it again for the penalty phase and the investigator get paid just because it's for the penalty phase?
And is there a chance that they never did this leg work for the trial and are now using the investigator to obtain this for trial and penalty phase but saying it's for the penalty phase?
Very cynical of me, I know but the defense hasn't done most of what they should have already done by now.
No, they couldn't get paid for duplicate work, assuming someone at the JAC notices that it's duplicate work.
I would not be surprised if they hadn't done this "leg work" until now, but I don't see why it matters if they label it as "guilt phase" work or "penalty phase" work.
On the other hand, I'm sure it is penalty phase work, because how could it be relevant to the guilt phase?
What is the likelihood of Dominic Casey being questioned at trial? He is on the SA's witness list, has most likely had an investigative interview/deposition, but the defense seems to have no interest in questioning him or requesting a transcript. I personally believe that is because the DT knows exactly what Dominic has to say and they don't want anyone else to hear it. Aside from that, if the defense never hears what Dominic will testify to, can the State still present him as a witness?
I don't know if DC has anything relevant to say. The SA won't put him on the stand to say, "This psychic lady told me to look for Caylee on Suburban but I didn't find her."
You would THINK the defense would want to put him on the stand to say, "This psychic lady told me to look for Caylee on Suburban, and it was totally dry at the time so it was easy to look, and I looked and took a video and was in the 'exact spot' she was later found but she wasn't there." But as you say the defense seems to have no interest in calling him as a witness. :waitasec: There are a couple of possible reasons for this. Maybe they think he would say there was lots of water. Maybe they think he will say he didn't look in the exact spot. Also, attorneys aren't permitted to put a witness on the stand knowing that the witness is committing perjury. Maybe they are personally aware that some aspect of what he told LE is false?
The SA has listed DC as a witness, and the defense is free to take his deposition if they want to know more about his testimony. There is nothing to prevent the SA from putting DC on the stand if he has something relevant to say.
, and I don't think they want to make it look like only CINDY knew where Caylee was dumped--unless they can connect the "daisy chain" back to Casey.
