2011.06.30 TRIAL Day Thirty-two (Afternoon Session)

Not open for further replies.


Active Member
Mar 22, 2009
Reaction score

if they go with not a discovery violation (if we, let's say, call it a win-the-battle-lose-the-war type of thing)

is the war lost (in a sense) bc does that open a stronger angle for the mechanics of an appeal ?

Am I totally confused?

And I also have a huge problem believing Cindy would CHOOSE to fall on a sword for ICA. (claim she searched if she really didnt.... risk being charged with perjury...)




New Member
Jan 28, 2009
Reaction score
I was a salaried employee and i had to sign in nd out every day but only got paid for 40 hours no matter if i worked 30 or 80 hrs.

Then technically you were not a salaried exempt employee and could have sued your employer for overtime violations under the FLSA.

BTW- there's a 2 year statute of limitations unless you can prove it was a willful violation (in which case the statute of limitations is extended).


New Member
Sep 22, 2008
Reaction score
HHJBP: Does the state intend to present rebuttal?

LDB: We do and the estimated time for that is less than a day.

There is an issue that the Defense has raised dealing with some discovery. Mr. Baez, would you present your concerns about this issue?

Your Honor, Mr. Mason will be handling the argument for that.

Mr. Mason -

Your Honor, yesterday afternoon counsel advised us that they were expecting some records and documents coming in from somewhere regarding the employment/work records of CA for the obvious purpose of attempting to impeach her testimony as to whether she was at work or not at work for the time that she had made the computer search for chloroform. This morning they presented us with a few hundred pages of records of some kind from various people and we are objecting to this as a clear discovery violation. CA's testimony was not new or a surprise in fact she had testified in deposition regarding this issue on 7/28/09 - almost 2 years ago. They knew since then, that CA had disclosed that it was she who had made those computer searches, and yet, having that info, they waited until after we called to testify that which was consistent and then subpoenaed documents. That is a discovery violation and has prejudiced the defendant. Counsel cross examined CA on this issue and then goes and gets witnesses from this company to now impeach that testimony. We now move the court to impose the appropriate sanction which is to prohibit that testimony.

For the court's info, the documents we intend to present, there is a 1 page document that is entitled "report for CMAnthon - a log in and log out system maintained by Gentiva for the week in March. In addition, there is a series of deleted emails for the week of 3/17 to 3/21 They have only asked for documents for 3/17 and 3/21. It's a spreadsheet document showing activity on CA's work computer. It is correct to say CA talked about doing chlorofill searches in her depo in 7/09. At that time she did not extensively dispute the accuracy of her work records and did talk extensively about that in her testimony last week. The sanction of exclusion is the ultimate sanction. The info was first requested from Gentiva on 7/24 by the OCSO. They had to have an investigative subpoena. The records came in pieces starting 6/27, 6/28 and 6/29. She informed counsel yesterday morning that they were coming and she presented them this morning. Mr. Camperlango is the chief compliance officer from Gentiva. He came from Atlanta and is prepared to testify. DS began an inquiry of him over the lunch hour and indicates that she needs some additional time to speak with him. That should cure any prejudice if any for the late....

CM: You have admonished all counsel that this is not to be a trial by ambush. CA gave this testimony 2 years ago. The state, will all it's resources has had plenty of time to investigate. At no time was there ever an issue raised about these work records. CA clearly testified about the issue of chloroform search. The state should not be able to sit back and allow CA to testify on such an important issue and then spring on them witnesses that claim she testified falsely. You must not reward the prosecution and support the prejudice in a capital murder case such as this. We urge you to realize this is in fact a material violation. I urge you to accept my motion to prohibit those witnesses from testifying.

HHJBP: Both sides? When CA's depo was given, did she give an indication or contest the validity of her employment records?

CM: I defer to JB.

LDB: She recalls that they spent the majority of the inquiry talking about the computer searches and whether or not she searched chloroform. She indicated that she made searches for chlorophyl because her dogs were chewing on bamboo leaves.

JB: I believe that that might be a complete response. I believe she did mention chloroform and the ingredients of such. Her response to searches of chloroform was "I may have".

HHJBP: The current records, when did they come into the State's possession?

LDB: Yesterday afternoon. The OCSO was gathering them Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday.

HHJBP: When did you notify the Defense?

LDB: I notified them yesterday I was expecting them. She may have notified them earlier in the week that they were planning on having someone from Gentiva testify.

HHJBP: Is this a new issue?

LDB: I can say I knew she would testify to chlorophyl searches. I did not know she would testify of her work records so extensively.

JB: She did say that she may have searched chloroform. "And possibly chloroform because my dogs were eating bamboo leaves... She also says she remembers looking up chlorophyl in March and not sure if I looked up chloroform as well.

HHJBP: Was there any awareness on the part of the defense that CA would testify that, even though her work records showed that she was at work, that she would come in and say that her work records were not accurate?

JB: I think what we had hear is that we had the witness testifying to the searches in the March time frame. So, to answer your question, she did say she was a salaried employee - salaried employees come and go.

HHJBP: I'm not talking about the searches. Was the defense aware that despite the time records showing she was at work the records were not accurate and in fact meaningless.

JB: I think we both expected that.

HHJBP: Did she ever say that in any sworn statement.

JB: How far she went into it, I don't know. The answer is a kinda yes.

HHJBP: Other than the possibility of her testimony being impeached, what prejudice would the defense suffer if those records were to come in to contradict her testimony?

JB: I think we would be severely punished by appearing to present untrue evidence. I don't think there is a remedy other than exclusion. Even if we called her on sur-rebuttal what is to stop her from pleading the 5th.

HHJBP: Well we will deal with that. That could cause all of her testimony to be stricken.

JB: There is another problem, I think this is way too late. We've rested and they have now given us this evidence. We could have attacked this evidence in another manner and we do not want the stigma of presenting false testimony.

HHJBP: Unfortunately, unless a witness tells you they are going to lie - and you put them on - that's when counsel gets into trouble. Counsel can't guarantee or warranty that a witness will go south or shade their testimony.

JB: I would agree, but I would bring to light what this court has often said - did the offering part know or should have known that this is going to be an issue.

LDB: I believe the inquiry is whether or not it is intentional or willful. I believe CA was trying to defend her position quite vigorously and started talking about emails and passwords and log ins, so we followed up on it. I was never argue that JB was trying to dupe the jury and at this juncture they have not established that this was willful. At this point we would urge the Court to find no discovery violation at all and the prejudice, if any, could be cured by speaking with Mr. Camperlengo.

JB: That is not all we can do. These are computer print outs and sometimes can be a bit misleading. We would need our expert to see how these records are compiled. This is no simple issue.

HHJBP: Let me ask this last question. Before CA took the stand, did you know she was going to say what she said that she was at home and not at work as her employment records state?

JB: Yes. The work records are in evidence and not something we disputed. But to go ahead and bring in new stuff...

HHJBP: Let me rephrase. Were you aware when CA took the stand she was going to testify that despite the records showed that she was at work, that those work records were meaningless?

JB: Yes sir.

HHJBP: But you knew she was going to testify to that? Now the work records introduced, were they computer generated?

LDB: They appear to be. It's a time card history report.

HHJBP: Was it generated by the use of a computer or manually done?

LDB: No computer generated.

HHJBP: Did anyone have an expert to look at those records to see if anyone had tampered with the computer records to question the accuracy of those records?

LDB: No sir. We engaged in a stipulation regarding the accuracy.

JB: She was salaried and did not punch a clock. We believed there was an explanation of how she could do the computer searches. If she could explain it - perfect - and that is what she did on the stand.

HHJBP: Anything else? Pursuant to Richardson - The Court will find that this was not a discovery violation. As soon as the records became pertinent, the State sought them and provided them to the defense. The Defense raises the issue of prejudice. Trials are supposed to be about a search for the truth. Juries are supposed to be given sufficient evidence so that they can apply the law to the facts and speak a verdict that renders the truth. The court will instruct the jury about credibility or believability of witnesses - all or any part of witnesses testimony can be used. The remaining question is how much time does the Defense need to adequately review the records to cross examine the witness who will be presenting the testimony. The Defense has indicated they need their "computer expert" to look at and authenticate these records; but from what both sides have done in this trial, they have stipulated to the records and there is no evidence that the prior records or these records are a result of a fabrication. Both sides know the penalty for fabrication of records, if it is proven would be subject to having what ever happens in this case thrown out - provided there is a guilty verdict. In fairness to the defense, I am giving them the balance of the day to talk to him. Ms. Sims, how much time do you need? I understand this man needs to be back for a doctor's appointment. I will make him miss it if necessary. Everyone knew this was coming based on CA's testimony. I don't think it was a surprise. As an officer of the court, based on the oath you made when you became a bar member, how much time do you need?

DCS: Maybe an hour or so -it's confusing because this is a backup tape and the times are different.

LDB: The Chief Compliance Officer had someone else compile this information. Because of the age of the documents, they are stored somewhere else and had to be retrieved. The only time difference is that the server is in Kansas City and that is central time.

DCS: There is a time difference due to the conversation. I am willing to go out now and start working on it.

HHJBP: Witness's medical issues?

JA: I'll go find out.

HHJBP: If the appointment is at 7:00 in the morning, there are several flights, could he not come back in the afternoon?


Well-Known Member
Oct 6, 2008
Reaction score

CM up argue yesterday received info from sa they subpoenaed employment records of CA to impeach herself whether @ work or not during computer inquiry re: chloroform.....we object to this testimony re: clear discovery violation...her testimony not new or a surprise....she had testified to this in July 28 2009...almost 2 years ago...SA knew since then CA made those computer seraches yet they waited until after we call her to testify...discovery violation...prejudice to dt because we have relied upon sworn testimony...counsel SA go out and obtain business records....employment history....we are indeed prejudiced by that...

LDB -1 pg document for cmanthon...log in and log out unity system maintained by gentiva begins Mar 7 to 3/30 2008....1 pg document....series of deleted email for week of (CA) only asked for documents for 17th vand 21st...deleted emails, sent emails and received emails...multipage document ....excell spreadsheet doesn't print in normal format...will tell court the broken up 232 pages so that is 1/2 of that ...desk top job date/entry/job time/user name...re: patient activity with patient info HIPPA removed...it is ....CA talked about doing chlorophyl searches in ....talked extensively here in court last Thursday ...Gentiva had these records and she didn't have access to them...passwords...of course court has been discovery hearings violation....sanction hearing...information first requested by LE by Gentiva requested on 6/24/11 last friday...subpoena issue to document support or refute CA claims...came in pieces on 6/27 and 6/28 and 6/29....sent electronically...informed counsel didn't have documents in hand...informed DT review last night and gave them to DT today...mr. kemperlango ...is Gentiva document is ready to testify.....
any testimony last week necessitated records...

CM you have said many times this is not to be a trial by ambush...SA got this info 2 years ago....we did over 150 depos....27,000+ pages of documents provided to us...at no time ever issue raised bout work records seeking now to introduce...she told 2 years ago chlorophyl...such an important issue and spring on us in the last days of these proceedings that she testified falsly...discovery violation...no you don't get to get to do that .....they had record testimony long before she testified in court room...you Must not all prejudice as this in a capital murder case.....allow Ms Sims to look @ 232 pages over lunch out....prohibit those witnesses and documents to testify...by your specific and repeated orders and admonishments...

HHBP - have a question...when depo was given...did she contest employment records will show various employment of when working.....recollection spent majority of inquiry about computer searchers...if she ever searched chloroform ...she did indicated she made searches for chlrorophyl dogs chew on bamboo leaves acting lethargic...figure source of their ...might be....

JB do not believe that is complete...she did mention chlroform ...when asked by LDB about chloroform she said I may have...went onto mention other areas...rather give exact testimony....

LDB - on depo given line 22 where i ask do you ever do google searches on desktop....searches themselves vs records negate her being home @ time of question.....

HHBP - when did records come into SA posession?

LDB yesterday after noon gather Mon, Tues, Wed....I notified them yesterday expecting records from Gentiva...I may have indicated earlier this week we may have someone from Gentiva...wouldn't know if testify until records arrived.....got them in court yesterday afternoon.

HHBP - new issue or since she testified..

LDB - I knew she did perform chloroform searches but I did not know she would argue her employment hours so extensively....nothing to what extent she testified last thursday..

JB - where she refers to chloroform....I know chlorophyl getting sick yorkies....look up chlrophyl ...don't know choroform as well but looked up alcohol, peroxide as well....in March timeframe....

HHBP -any DT know she would come in and testify that her records from work were not accurate to necessarily reflect whether she was at work....

JB she did say she was salaried employee ....they come and go....
we both expect her to testify about these searches..

HHBP don't care about searches ....time records were not accurate and meaningless...

JB - I think both sides knew that.

HHB ever say that in sworn statement....

it was Ms. LDB depo - I don't know I would say part yes....

what other reason other than impeach..how does that contradict .....

JB we would be prejudiced ....she is salary employ and doesn't punch a clock...within time frames of march when search was done.....even if we were to call her back on rebuttal what to stop her from plead 5th....

HHBP if she does plead 5th it may and all of her testimony will be stricke and jury will told to disregard...

JB - i think way too late...just given these documents...could have attacked in nother manner...don't want stigma attached to DT that we are supporting false testimony...

HHBP unless witness tells you they will lie...and they tell you they will lie...that is when counsel gets in trouble....counsel cannot warranty witness don't go south,shade or taint testimony..

JB I would agree but this court has often said.....did party know this would be an issue answer is yes 2 years ago yes

LDB - inquiry was intential or willful....I believe CA on stand was trying to defend quite vigorously with emails and passwords...so we followed up on it...I would never believe JB tried to bias jury with false testimony....I didn't think DT knew she would say it I didn't know....Mr kamperlingo is waiting....

JB we need to have our own computer experts look @ the SA this morning tried to drop on us...way too late...

HHBP before CA took stand did you know she was going to say she was home and not @ work would indicate.....

JB as in discovery....the work records ....but to go in and bring in new stuff that we have not had the voracity to look @

HHBP - were you aware when CA took stand that she would testify her work records were meaningless..

JB - yes sir....MS. LDB elicited from her..

HHBP you knew she would testify to that...
were those work records computer generated? I didn't do discovery you all did....was it computer generated? or manually done?

LDB no it was computer records generated...

HHBP anyone tampered with those records?

LDB - we engaged in a stipulation

JB - she was a salary employee - know full well what work records show...we knew Ms A show and tell about work records....she could explain it and she did that on the stand...she didn't go any further....that is when SA go out and elicit more info and introduce new records..

Richardson vs. sTate - court will find this was not a discovery violation ....as soon as it became pertinent the SA sought those records as pertinent to the dt...dt said prejudice...trials are supposed to be about search for truth...jury are supposed to be given sufficient evidence so they can speak a verdict to render the truth...court will instruct this jury certain credibilty of witnesses...they can believe all or any part of any witness testimony....

how much time does DT need to adequately review records and be prepared to effective and intelligent cross examin the witness...DT said need "computer expert" to look @ all this and authenticate these records...both sides have done in this trial they have stipulated from this organization....these records and the records before ....both sides know the fabrication of records anypoint in time would be subject to whatever happens in this case thrown out provided there is a verdict of guilt....thrown out if not...never get to that question....I understand this witness has an issue but i need to give Ms. sims balance of the day to go thru records...this gentleman needs to be back for a Dr. appointment I will make him miss his appointment if necessary....everyone knew this was coming ...don't think anybody didn't think they were going out to get this records...but as an officer of the court.....

DS - not really sure...confusing times and backup....don't know ....

LDB - an individual that assisted in compiling this information who could simply say I produced the documents they are stored and had to be retrieved....the only time difference is from Kansas City it is that time....this is backup tape and converted...

HHBP - more detail why medical issues why can't delay appointment in atlanta...appt @ 7:45 am....several flights back in orlando where he could testify in afternoon...

court will be at ease



New Member
Sep 6, 2008
Reaction score
How long will it take for the DT to fnd a computer IT expert??????? Cause Im sure they will need to look outside the U.S.!! grrrrr


New Member
Aug 29, 2008
Reaction score
Maybe, if JB tries another case in the future, he will not wait 2 years to start or be forced to Prepare the case of his client!!!!! It will bite you in the arse Everytime.


Not to be confused with A_News_Junkie
Aug 27, 2008
Reaction score
"Court will be at ease." I've never heard that one before.


Retired WS Staff
Jan 4, 2011
Reaction score
Perry: "Court will be at ease." #caseyanthony
by oscaseyanthony via twitter at 1:18 PM

"Court will be at ease."
by judgeperrysays via twitter at 1:18 PM

"There are several flights from Orlando back to Atlanta."
by judgeperrysays via twitter at 1:17 PM

Sims says she is willing to go right now and talk with witness. #CaseyAnthony -jfell
by cfnews13casey via twitter at 1:17 PM


All the darkness in the world cannot put out a sin
Feb 5, 2009
Reaction score
ICA looking a little green around the gills.


Maybe all one can do is hope to end up with the ri
Feb 17, 2009
Reaction score
Man, I wonder what CA is going to do on the stand again. The 5th?

Well she might because she heard what HHJP said. Her ENTIRE testimony would be stricken. Which would make CA pleased as punch.


Well-Known Member
May 9, 2011
Reaction score
interesting....if I was Sims I'd look at that calendar and be very careful not to give this jury the case the night before a holiday !!!!


Retired WS Staff
Jan 4, 2011
Reaction score
Perry will allow the state to present the evidence. #caseyanthony
by oscaseyanthony via twitter at 1:18 PM

Perry wants to know more about witnesses medical concurs. Can he miss appointment or come back to Orlando etc.. #CaseyAnthony -jfell
by cfnews13casey via twitter at 1:18 PM


Language analyst
May 9, 2011
Reaction score
Why are the Anthonys leaving? I can't get any sound on CNN all of a sudden.


New Member
Aug 6, 2008
Reaction score
this defense team is a disaster - i'm really praying for a mistrial so Ms. Anthony can get a fair trial. its almost like the defense is working for the prosecution.

You are hoping for a mistrial??? Seriously? The judge asked ICA if she was satisfied with council and she said YES!!!
She's guilty as sin.....time for her to pay the piper!!!
JP bent over backwards for this DT!!!!!!!!!!!!
Not open for further replies.