Legal Questions for our VERIFIED Lawyers - Q & A ONLY ***No Discussion***

New Posts

I'm so grateful that we have this thread and thank you to all the lawyers who take the time to share with us. :D

I understand that the Prosecution must share documents with the Defense, but are not obligated to give away the fruits of their own labor. Why don't defense lawyers get their own subpoena for information from cell providers, etc.? I actually think it would be preferable for any opposing team to get their information directly from a source.

Does the DA ever subpoena records from the Defense?

Is the defense getting the same documents we the public are getting or are they getting everything un-redacted?

Who decides what gets edited out for public consumption? I understand deleting any patient-related or child-related things. Is information ever redacted from public eye that's integral to the prosecution's case, but not considered privileged by law?
 
FelicityLemon said:
I'm so grateful that we have this thread and thank you to all the lawyers who take the time to share with us. :D

I understand that the Prosecution must share documents with the Defense, but are not obligated to give away the fruits of their own labor. Why don't defense lawyers get their own subpoena for information from cell providers, etc.? I actually think it would be preferable for any opposing team to get their information directly from a source.

Does the DA ever subpoena records from the Defense?

Is the defense getting the same documents we the public are getting or are they getting everything un-redacted?

Who decides what gets edited out for public consumption? I understand deleting any patient-related or child-related things. Is information ever redacted from public eye that's integral to the prosecution's case, but not considered privileged by law?
Click to expand...

First, let's assume the defendants have opted in to the more extensive reciprocal discovery option available in Florida (because I think they have).

The prosecution isn't required to give away work product (e.g., internal analysis of data), but certainly is required to give away information they obtained through investigation or subpoenas.

There's really no reason for the defense to subpoena third parties for information the prosecution already subpoenaed/obtained and is required to turn over.

Subpoenas are only sent to non-parties, so the DA would never subpoena records from the defense. A defendant who opted in to the reciprocal discovery rules would have certain limited disclosure obligations, so the DA might file a motion to compel disclosure from the defense once in a while.

The defense would be getting everything unredacted.

The statutes about public release of documents specifically list things that are not to be released. There are a lot of exceptions. Medical records, autopsy photos, information relating to an active criminal investigation (there shouldn't be much of that here, unless someone else is still under investigation), social security numbers, ID of confidential informants, confessions by defendants (until their cases are over), etc. etc.

Whether or not the information is integral to or even relevant to the prosecution's case is not considered in deciding what to redact, unless the judge has issued an order limiting public information for some reason. Whether or not the information falls within what would be called "privilege" if the rules of evidence were involved is also not considered.

Keep in mind also that there's about a 95% chance that the person doing the public redactions is exhausted by going through this stuff line by line and is erring on the side of redacting things when in doubt, rather than including something by mistake.
 
:tyou:
AZlawyer said:
First, let's assume the defendants have opted in to the more extensive reciprocal discovery option available in Florida (because I think they have).

The prosecution isn't required to give away work product (e.g., internal analysis of data), but certainly is required to give away information they obtained through investigation or subpoenas.

There's really no reason for the defense to subpoena third parties for information the prosecution already subpoenaed/obtained and is required to turn over.

Subpoenas are only sent to non-parties, so the DA would never subpoena records from the defense. A defendant who opted in to the reciprocal discovery rules would have certain limited disclosure obligations, so the DA might file a motion to compel disclosure from the defense once in a while.

The defense would be getting everything unredacted.

The statutes about public release of documents specifically list things that are not to be released. There are a lot of exceptions. Medical records, autopsy photos, information relating to an active criminal investigation (there shouldn't be much of that here, unless someone else is still under investigation), social security numbers, ID of confidential informants, confessions by defendants (until their cases are over), etc. etc.

Whether or not the information is integral to or even relevant to the prosecution's case is not considered in deciding what to redact, unless the judge has issued an order limiting public information for some reason. Whether or not the information falls within what would be called "privilege" if the rules of evidence were involved is also not considered.

Keep in mind also that there's about a 95% chance that the person doing the public redactions is exhausted by going through this stuff line by line and is erring on the side of redacting things when in doubt, rather than including something by mistake.
Click to expand...

AZlawyer: again and again you have my/our thanks for your time and sharing! You are SO appreciated. *trying not to sound too smarmy* :banghead:

:tyou:

I'm learning a lot. So, while the defense will get this same raw info, they can and probably will interpret the information differently.

And I see I misuse legal terms :silly: in almost every question lol, and you very kindly never plink my sore forehead.

I can't imagine being the person who has to go through thousands and thousands of pages making the edits before releasing :/ talk about stress. Very thankful for them, too.
 
FelicityLemon said:
:tyou:

AZlawyer: again and again you have my/our thanks for your time and sharing! You are SO appreciated. *trying not to sound too smarmy* :banghead:

:tyou:

I'm learning a lot. So, while the defense will get this same raw info, they can and probably will interpret the information differently.

And I see I misuse legal terms :silly: in almost every question lol, and you very kindly never plink my sore forehead.

I can't imagine being the person who has to go through thousands and thousands of pages making the edits before releasing :/ talk about stress. Very thankful for them, too.
Click to expand...

No worries. Answering WS questions has made me so much better at figuring out when my clients are confused and how to explain things to them in plain English. :)
 
Hey AZ.... when the SAO, actually the Asst SA, filed their Notice of Intent to Seek the Death Penalty , why did he not include the Notice of Aggravating Factors? In the Amendment the first thing stated, as "good cause" (to amend), is "The omission was inadvertent" (meaning the omission of Aggravating Factors).

My intent is not meant to be nasty in any way BUT not including the Notice of Aggravating Factors seems to be a gross oversight and/or sloppy handling in such a high profile case. PLEASE CORECT me if I'm wrong here.
 
msboo said:
Hey AZ.... when the SAO, actually the Asst SA, filed their Notice of Intent to Seek the Death Penalty , why did he not include the Notice of Aggravating Factors? In the Amendment the first thing stated, as "good cause" (to amend), is "The omission was inadvertent" (meaning the omission of Aggravating Factors).

My intent is not meant to be nasty in any way BUT not including the Notice of Aggravating Factors seems to be a gross oversight and/or sloppy handling in such a high profile case. PLEASE CORECT me if I'm wrong here.
Click to expand...

It was an extremely new requirement. Most likely whoever prepared it just grabbed an old form and didn't realize the mistake. I agree it was a pretty important thing and ought to have been the subject of an office-wide training meeting.
 
So who exactly, or rather which office is responsible for doing the actual redactions of the evidence? And who initially sets the guidelines or parameters for what is to be redacted?
 
AlwaysShocked said:
So who exactly, or rather which office is responsible for doing the actual redactions of the evidence? And who initially sets the guidelines or parameters for what is to be redacted?
Click to expand...

The guidelines are set forth in the statutes, and clarified in manuals handed out to government employees. Low-level government employees are normally responsible for the redactions, although in an important case a higher-level person might mention some specific things to watch out for (like "Hey, Dave, when you're going through these texts there's a lot of personal medical information from Dr. Sievers's patients, so keep an eye out for that").
 
Quite frankly, I have never understand the difference between a charge and a conviction in common law jurisdictions. Yes, I study law, but in a civil jurisdiction : a whole other ballgame.

What's the victim surcharge ? Or maybe I confuse with Canada.


Thank you, lawyers and paralegals, for enlightening us !
 
Giucy said:
Quite frankly, I have never understand the difference between a charge and a conviction in common law jurisdictions. Yes, I study law, but in a civil jurisdiction : a whole other ballgame.

What's the victim surcharge ? Or maybe I confuse with Canada.


Thank you, lawyers and paralegals, for enlightening us !
Click to expand...

I've read this a couple of times and quite honestly I'm just not sure what the question is, sorry. :(
 
AZlawyer said:
I've read this a couple of times and quite honestly I'm just not sure what the question is, sorry. :(
Click to expand...

There are actually two questions.

1) What's the difference between a charge and a conviction ?

2) What's the meaning of victim surcharge ?
 
Giucy said:
There are actually two questions.

1) What's the difference between a charge and a conviction ?

2) What's the meaning of victim surcharge ?
Click to expand...


A charge means you have been accused of a crime. A conviction means you have been found guilty of a crime.

In some countries, and perhaps in some US jurisdictions, a "victim surcharge" is an additional fine the convicted person has to pay.
 
Thank you for the answers.

What's the victim surcharge for ? Why the Criminal Code did put in place the victim surcharge ?
 
Giucy said:
Thank you for the answers.

What's the victim surcharge for ? Why the Criminal Code did put in place the victim surcharge ?
Click to expand...

To compensate victims, I assume. But I don't think that's something they have in Florida.
 
AZlawyer said:
It was an extremely new requirement. Most likely whoever prepared it just grabbed an old form and didn't realize the mistake. I agree it was a pretty important thing and ought to have been the subject of an office-wide training meeting.
Click to expand...

This error did not bode well for the Prosecutor's Office back when it happened. And now this same office has not provided discovery to the JRR defense, explaining they are having trouble gathering files and inviting the defense attorney to come to their office to attempt to gather evidence because the files need to be reformatted.
The judge agreed with this.

Does this mean that no one in this office has the computer skills to convert a file from one format to another? Cannot outside help be employed? Or is making sure discovery deadlines are met just not high up on a Prosecutor's to-do list?
 
AlwaysShocked said:
This error did not bode well for the Prosecutor's Office back when it happened. And now this same office has not provided discovery to the JRR defense, explaining they are having trouble gathering files and inviting the defense attorney to come to their office to attempt to gather evidence because the files need to be reformatted.
The judge agreed with this.

Does this mean that no one in this office has the computer skills to convert a file from one format to another? Cannot outside help be employed? Or is making sure discovery deadlines are met just not high up on a Prosecutor's to-do list?
Click to expand...

Discovery deadlines are not always a big deal. It depends on the type of deadline, the court system you're in, how tight the schedule is leading up to trial, how likely the trial is to actually happen as scheduled, and the judge, among other things. If the judge didn't seem pissed, that probably means it was one of those deadlines that isn't considered a big deal.
 
I just heard on Nbc-2 that Mark's brother is looking to adopt Teresa's girls. How is this even entertained, when Teresa's will specified that her brother, Patrick, should have custody? And since Patrick is the trustee in charge, he commands what he feels is best for the girls, and what he knows Teresa would have wanted.

I would think that the majority of family members, from both sides, would agree that the best place for the Sievers girls to experience Life would be in Connecticut--away from the ugly horror and constant reminder of how their beloved mother was taken from this world.

I thought it was a done deal that Mary Ann could move the girls to Connecticut.

Aren't there penalties in place for people who continue to badger the courts with frivolous lawsuits?
 
Is there a lot of life insurance money attached to these girls? Could be why Mark wants his family to have control.of them. If the Judge hasn't even made his mind up about them being taken to Connecticut, why would he ever agree to send them to Missouri with a virtual stranger?

Fortunately the Judge will be coming from the aspect of what is in the best interest of the children. Who have already been with their maternal grandmother for, what, two years now?
 
AlwaysShocked said:
Is there a lot of life insurance money attached to these girls? Could be why Mark wants his family to have control.of them. If the Judge hasn't even made his mind up about them being taken to Connecticut, why would he ever agree to send them to Missouri with a virtual stranger?

Fortunately the Judge will be coming from the aspect of what is in the best interest of the children. Who have already been with their maternal grandmother for, what, two years now?
Click to expand...

He is a narcissist. Over 4 million dollars in life insurance, that Mark wants. He will do anything to get it. Even have his wife murdered.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 197 more.
Total: 4,249 (members: 198, guests: 4,051)

Online statistics

Members online
198
Guests online
4,051
Total visitors
4,249
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,359
Messages
17,967,991
Members
228,756
Latest member
Curious.tea
Back
Top