Casey defense team files motion to dismiss case--Could KC walk!

[Disguiseduser0308]

That's it, JB reminds me of the public defender from My Cousin Vinny.

Start watching at 4:42

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1q7mjoxHzm4&feature=related"]YouTube - Funny court scene from My cousin Vinny[/ame]

JB is tripping all over himself just like the PD in this movie.

 

[lin]

I went to WFTV looking for the Shaeffer video; didn't find it but did find another quote regarding the 'spoilation' of evidence:

http://www.wftv.com/news/20972889/detail.html

"WFTV legal analyst, Bill Sheaffer, said there is no chance the motion will be approved.

"This motion is without precedent, it's without substance, easy call on this one, denied," Sheaffer said."

That's what I found when I logged into my service and looked today --- absolutely no criminal case even using a variation of the phrase. This service has cases back to the 1800's and is updated daily.

This is another misapplication of the law on the part of the defense. I think they're eating the CA Chili (thanks whomever coined that phrase) and thinking if they want something badly enough, saying it will make it so. They file pleadings and claim supporting documentation that doesn't actually show what they claim it shows; cite cases that don't stand for what they claim, etc. etc. First year law students know better than this. I agree with Mr. Shaeffer -- they have NOTHING.

 

[Brini]

I went to WFTV looking for the Shaeffer video; didn't find it but did find another quote regarding the 'spoilation' of evidence:

http://www.wftv.com/news/20972889/detail.html

"WFTV legal analyst, Bill Sheaffer, said there is no chance the motion will be approved.

"This motion is without precedent, it's without substance, easy call on this one, denied," Sheaffer said."

That's what I found when I logged into my service and looked today --- absolutely no criminal case even using a variation of the phrase. This service has cases back to the 1800's and is updated daily.

This is another misapplication of the law on the part of the defense. I think they're eating the CA Chili (thanks whomever coined that phrase) and thinking if they want something badly enough, saying it will make it so. They file pleadings and claim supporting documentation that doesn't actually show what they claim it shows; cite cases that don't stand for what they claim, etc. etc. First year law students know better than this. I agree with Mr. Shaeffer -- they have NOTHING.

.. and they are in a SERIOUS panic, because the state has just demanded that they turn over said "nothing."

 

[lin]

Change of venue and motion to dismiss are pretty standard in this type of case. There is no reason to expect the motion to dismiss to be granted. Change of venue is more likely to be granted.

The evidence tampering is more concerning since the defense claims that the state provided them with photographic evidence of this. I hope evidence tampering did not occur, but there is no way to judge if it did or not without seeing the evidence.

I didn't read their motion that way. Will you please quote the part to which you refer? I read their motion to indicate that processing the scene destroyed evidence and caused them to be unable to gather exonerating evidence. I don't recall reading anything about the state deliberately "tampering with evidence" and their being photographic proof of same, other than what I've described above, which I'm sure the state will freely admit. There is no nefarious interpretation of unknown "tampering" to be gleaned here, imo.

 

[Spangle]

.. and they are in a SERIOUS panic, because the state has just demanded that they turn over said "nothing."

When you got nothing, you got nothing.

I wonder if KC really knows what JB has for her case..

 

[lin]

I downloaded the pdf of the Motion to Dismiss and converted to searchable text so I could find the word "tamper." The only accusation that came up in my search was on the memorandum, page 6 of the pdf, Summary of Argument first paragraph:

"Here, the State effectively destroyed exculpatory and impeaching evidence by
tampering with the victim's remains and excavating the location of their discovery before
the defense could have its experts observe the scene in situ."

Are there any other allegations of "tampering" by the state?

 

[cecybeans]

These folks have just taken too literally the "best defense is a good offense" line. That only works when it's not TOO offensive.

This whole move smells of desperation and of somebody not listening to (or perhaps misinterpreting the advice of) the one actual expert in DP cases. This dog don't hunt, and using a taxidermist, a barking soundtrack, and putting it on a skateboard to roll into court is not gonna fool the ducks in the jury.

 

[Mamabear1963]

I downloaded the pdf of the Motion to Dismiss and converted to searchable text so I could find the word "tamper." The only accusation that came up in my search was on the memorandum, page 6 of the pdf, Summary of Argument first paragraph:

"Here, the State effectively destroyed exculpatory and impeaching evidence by
tampering with the victim's remains and excavating the location of their discovery before
the defense could have its experts observe the scene in situ."

Are there any other allegations of "tampering" by the state?

Let me get this straight.. they should have left the remains there...in the bags..etc...until the defense had a chance...I don't think so...come on...this can't be real...

 

[lin]

I looked for something regarding the defense's initial requests to visit the remains site; so far haven't found it but did find this quote from Strickland in reference to a subsequent motion to immediately examine evidence while LE was still processing the scene:

http://www.wftv.com/news/18288396/detail.html

"But Strickland quickly shot down that argument, ruling the defense team has no right to interfere with detectives as they process the crime scene."

 

[Texas Mist]

Just in case no one has seen it, I recorded it off the Internet.

YouTube - Casey Anthony's Attorneys Want Case Dismissed

wow - Hornsby pretty much kicks JB in the jimmy (so to speak)...then the reporter says "the drama continues" - LOL....gotta love it!!

 

[Spangle]

Let me get this straight.. they should have left the remains there...in the bags..etc...until the defense had a chance...I don't think so...come on...this can't be real...

Pretty much what they are saying.. However...

http://www.wftv.com/news/20972889/detail.html

"WFTV legal analyst, Bill Sheaffer, said there is no chance the motion will be approved.

"This motion is without precedent, it's without substance, easy call on this one, denied," Sheaffer said."

 

[kew17]

What about the statement that the OCSC "dismantled" the remains....

ummmm......

 

[Spangle]

I looked for something regarding the defense's initial requests to visit the remains site; so far haven't found it but did find this quote from Strickland in reference to a subsequent motion to immediately examine evidence while LE was still processing the scene:

http://www.wftv.com/news/18288396/detail.html

"But Strickland quickly shot down that argument, ruling the defense team has no right to interfere with detectives as they process the crime scene."

I noticed in their motion that they mentioned each time the LE thought they would be finished and would turn over the crime scene.. What wasn't mentioned was that something more was found, and it was decided to further investigate the crime seen more thoroughly. And each time they found MORE evidence.

Yet the motion does not mention that more evidence was found. Instead, it's trying to make a case that it was done to prevent the defense from accessing the site with specialist. OF course, when this motion isheard, I'm sure that will be pointed out. That the LE really wasn't done with the scene. It wasn't as quick and easy as they thought it would be.

 

[AZlawyer]

Clearly you've done more research on this than has the defense. They may try to hire you cos you seem to understand more about law than do they.

I just did a quick search of Florida case law and didn't find the word "spoilation" in any criminal cases. Zero. Likewise, no criminal results using the search parameter "spoil* w/7 eviden*" This isn't to suggest it can't apply in other jurisdictions.

Even so, it appears the intent is the deliberate or negligent destruction or withholding of evidence. None of that applies to the instant case, imo. The best attorneys in the world, (which are not on the defense, imo), would be hard pressed to show how processing a crime scene is deliberate or negilgent destruction of evidence.

The reason you probably didn't find the case law is because the word is, for no good reason I can think of, spelled "spoliation"...except when it's spelled wrong in the case law.

 

[kew17]

I think this motion would have come about anyway:
1) LE didn't release the crime scene soon enough for JB's liking or
2) If they had, then they would be accused of not investigating thoroughly enough.
MOO :banghead:

 

[lin]

I noticed in their motion that they mentioned each time the LE thought they would be finished and would turn over the crime scene.. What wasn't mentioned was that something more was found, and it was decided to further investigate the crime seen more thoroughly. And each time they found MORE evidence.

Yet the motion does not mention that more evidence was found. Instead, it's trying to make a case that it was done to prevent the defense from accessing the site with specialist. OF course, when this motion isheard, I'm sure that will be pointed out. That the LE really wasn't done with the scene. It wasn't as quick and easy as they thought it would be.

Believe it or not, I am truly not easily angered. However, it really infuriates me to no end the spurious and mendacious allegations made by the defense et al about the actions of the state, desperately trying to find every tiny little bone of Caylee's; night and day; bugs, snakes, mosquitos; rain or shine. We all know they didn't want Caylee found but once she was found, they complain about the pains taken on hands and knees for several days to try to give her the respect her family refused.

 

[Mystic]

I would LOVE for the court to deal with the fact that the defense and her family have been all in the media.. constantly. And that they fought against the gag order. Making sure the info is in ALL markets, not just Orlando.

It is a problem of the defense's own making. And can not be resolved by moving the trial. Basicly making it that she will get just as fair trial in Orlando, as any place else. I think the state can now argue such and it hold up.

ITA and if you go by their actions thusfar, you can assume they will do the same in a new local imo

 

[Spangle]

Believe it or not, I am truly not easily angered. However, it really infuriates me to no end the spurious and mendacious allegations made by the defense et al about the actions of the state, desperately trying to find every tiny little bone of Caylee's; night and day; bugs, snakes, mosquitos; rain or shine. We all know they didn't want Caylee found but once she was found, they complain about the pains taken on hands and knees for several days to try to give her the respect her family refused.

Lots of folks feel that way. It's one of the main reasons so many are following this case so closely. The family is totally unbelievable in their disrespect towards their own baby.

 

[lin]

The reason you probably didn't find the case law is because the word is, for no good reason I can think of, spelled "spoliation"...except when it's spelled wrong in the case law.

Thanks but I tried that spelling too. There are several civil cases including two from 1935 regarding estate taxes but no criminal cases that I found. This is more of the way they do things up north not matching what we do here, at best. My personal opinion is it's more grasping at straws and trying to make new law. IIRC, they cited no cases on point regarding a crime scene intervention by defense counsel or a case finding the state improperly processed a crime scene by excavating remains.

 

[QB.]

When a hearing is set to have this motion heard, will the SA need to provide hard evidence linking the suspect to the crime in order for the judge to deny the motion? IOW, will they have to tip their hand and show what they have been withholding, if indeed they are withholding anything?
It will most definitely be an interesting session.