OOkay, like I said on the other thread, I am not a CFCA sympathizer. I believe that she killed her daughter on purpose and that it was no accident. I also do not believe that the searches were for Caylee, but for her parents and I believe that she was 100% guilty and should be in prison for the rest of her life. I am on Caylee's side. I cannot stress this enough. But I am going to bring over a couple of posts below from the other thread to explain why this is a problem. Hopefully AZlawyer or Richard H can pop in and explain it better and correct anything that I may not have 100% correct.
From the other thread:
When the state takes someone to trial on something, they are required to turn over to the defense any information that could help the defendant. They are also not allowed to present anything at trial that they do not believe is 100% true. The state's witness is now coming forward and saying that before trial was over, he realized that there was a glitch in his program that made the results seem as though CFCA had searched and visited the chloroform website 84 times, when in truth, she had only gone there once. He is claiming that he went to the state and told them about the error and he was told that they already knew this long ago, but continued to say at trial that she had been there 84 times and did not disclose to the defense that the original report was in error. This was a violation of CFCA's Constitutional rights.
Had CFCA been convicted, her defense team could have presented this evidence to the court on appeals and her conviction could have been overturned and she could have sued the state for violating her rights. It does not matter in the least how important the evidence was or how much weight the jury could or would have given to it. The problem is not necessarily with the evidence or how important it was. The violation of her Constitutional rights pretty much trumps everything else. Now, if this is proven to be true (like if this man still has the emails or recorded the call) CFCA can sue the state of Florida and could possibly win. Especially since she was found not guilty, this makes it even easier for her to do so. If she wins that case, the state of FL will be paying her for violating her rights.
Case law explaining why it doesn't matter how important the evidence was. (I for one, gave no weight to the computer searches and still felt she was as guilty as the day is long, but this is why it is important):
http://supreme.justia.com/us/373/83/case.html
@@@I would start here:
"This ruling is an extension of Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U. S. 103, 294 U. S. 112, where the Court ruled on what nondisclosure by a prosecutor violates due process:
"It is a requirement that cannot be deemed to be satisfied by mere notice and hearing if a state has contrived a conviction through the pretense of a trial which, in truth, is but used as a means of depriving a defendant of liberty through a deliberate deception of court and jury by the presentation of testimony known to be perjured. Such a contrivance by a state to procure the conviction and imprisonment of a defendant is as inconsistent with the rudimentary demands of justice as is the obtaining of a like result by intimidation."
@@@And read to at least here:
"
There is considerable doubt as to how much good Boblit's undisclosed confession would have done Brady if it had been before the jury. It clearly implicated Brady as being the one who wanted to strangle the victim, Brooks. Boblit, according to this statement, also favored killing him, but he wanted to do it by shooting.
We cannot put ourselves in the place of the jury, and assume what their views would have been as to whether it did or did not matter whether it was Brady's hands or Boblit's hands that twisted the shirt about the victim's neck. . . . t would be 'too dogmatic' for us to say that the jury would not have attached any significance to this evidence in considering the punishment of the defendant Brady."
"Not without some doubt, we conclude that the withholding of this particular confession of Boblit's was prejudicial to the defendant Brady. . . . "
As long as I am not attacked, I will try to answer any questions I can about this, because it is important and I do not believe that this will be the last that we hear about this.
