Maybe others on WS know something I don't but I've never seen evidence that would support charging LS's daughter.
A teenager buying stuff at mom's direction that is later used to clean up the scene and driving mom around or picking mom up in a car at mom's direction isn't really enough to be charged as an accessory so far as I know. Those actions can easily be a matter of being LS's minor daughter and did not require the daughter to have had knowledge LS was guilty or knowledge of LS's intended future actions. And we don't have evidence the daughter actively aided in the body disposal so far as I know. We'll likely know more after LS's trial.
If strong evidence implicating others as intentionally, voluntarily, and actively participating in the crime is available, I'd expect them to be charged.
JMO
'Pinky Promises leads me to believe she beat him often.
She also tried to break his mind.
He could never tell his mother and he could never tell his father.
Yet, even after the presumed awful beating, he still stood up for his truth and he defended himself. He had not been lying.
So, in that she didn't win, though she went on to allegedly kill him.
He knew who he was and he knew what the truth was.
Special little boy. May love always accompany his spirit.
I totally agree with youGood Morning.
Always thinking of Gannon, along with the rest of You!
JMVHO.
I thought the argument was rock solid. Point number 10 stands out.
I thought the argument was rock solid. Point number 10 stands out.
Yes, I agree about point 10 especially because it's more of the defense saying it's OK for us (and may be of value to us) but it's not OK for you. The cake and eat it too defense!
What I didn't find strong (specific to the statute in question) is that it's pretty clear that recording the defendant in this situation (i.e., competency evaluation) is essentially optional (no statutory rule preventing but not mandatory) whereas recording the defendant is required for an insanity examination, which this is not.
Nonetheless, I think the defense has been contradicting itself all along and since they've stated they found value in having the first recording for themselves, I think the court will allow recording the second competency evaluation. But I also think this issue has been a misuse of the court's time.
MOO
^^RSBBM"Cake ownership" aside, it doesn't make sense to me why the state would be privy to a competency eval tape as that shouldn't be part of the actual criminal case (5th amendment issues IMO) unless LS asserts an insanity or diminished capacity defense. And if she did that (no evidence she will) that would have to be based on a separate eval that definitely would be taped.
^^RSBBM
See point #4 of the Peoples Response (P20).
Pursuant to C.R.S. 16-8.5-194(1)., Defendant is deemed to waive confidentiality or privilege in competency evaluation and includes access to the evaluation reports without consent.
My mind keeps going back to the "check the box" order, and I've never believed taping the competency evaluation has ever been automatic. These competency evaluations are quite typical, and not foreign to the 4th District. And now I forget why the defense did not object when the first evaluation was requested taped!The report yes, certainly. That a tape automatically be made and turned over, no. Obviously the report and a tape are quite different or else the state wouldn't want a tape.
My mind keeps going back to the "check the box" order, and I've never believed taping the competency evaluation has ever been automatic. These competency evaluations are quite typical, and not foreign to the 4th District. And now I forget why the defense did not object when the first evaluation was requested taped!
Just a few counter points:I see what you are saying @Seattle1. And I agree with you about the other points in the state's brief.
Too much of the brief seems to be focused on (essentially) saying if taping is required here and there under different circumstances, why the heck not require it now? In my mind, it ought to be a matter of making a good case FOR taping in the face of the defendant's constitutional rights and in the interest of the validity of the evaluation. (It's hardly a secret taping can inhibit responses from an evaluated person. And yes, the evaluated person would have to be told about the taping by the licensed evaluator.) But the state seems, at times, to be saying "the defense has to prove why it shouldn't be done" (even though the state initially requested taping under a non-applicable statute.) In addition, the state seems to argue comparing tapes could help the parties who lack meaningful psychological assessment training determine which trained evaluator is "right" in case of a split decision. Just not persuasive to me.
I do agree the defense has been inconsistent and has done a bad job in some respects. I will never ever understand why they didn't object to taping from the very beginning! I guess "better late than never," but objecting to taping at the start would have been a no-brainer among attorneys I know. Of course, I get your point about "it's my cake, none for you!" not working on its face.
But I can also understand why from a purely psychological assessment perspective one would want the second evaluator to be able to see what the first team saw. (I'm assuming both evals will be unbiased. That may or may not be true. But there's no reason a priori to think the 2nd evaluator will be more biased towards the defense than the 1st evaluator would have been to the state.) And I assume there is nothing prohibiting Evaluator #2 from talking to Evaluator #1 or from reading Eval Report #1. While the two evaluators may come to different conclusions about LS's competency, competency evaluators aren't really "adversaries" or normally shouldn't be if justice is to be served. Pre-trial competency evals really are in a different category than evals conducted for use during a trial or during sentencing.
"Cake ownership" aside, it doesn't make sense to me why the state would be privy to a competency eval tape as that shouldn't be part of the actual criminal case (5th amendment issues IMO) unless LS asserts an insanity or diminished capacity defense. And if she did that (no evidence she will) that would have to be based on a separate eval that definitely would be taped.
So essentially Point #10 seems to be saying the defense wants to use Tape #1 for X re: the competency evaluation so we get to use Tape #2 for Y re: proving guilt. So IMO it's not exactly a matter of equal treatment of the two parties. And so that's not so persuasive to me.
If LS is trying to pull a con re: her competency (personally I'm not sure she is-- might be too much for her ego to do that) that still doesn't speak to her guilt re: the crime as it's not only guilty defendants who try to avoid prison! But if used in court, perhaps that kind of "evidence" would persuade some jurors even if struck based on a defense objection. (Can't unring a bell.)
I don't know how much of a delay there will be. But if the taping decision has to come down before Eval #2 can start, results from that eval can't possibly be delivered to the court by Nov 12 (the date I believe was originally scheduled back in early Sept.) After all, the defense has until 10/30 to reply to the state's brief. I initially had assumed taping would occur but Evaluator #2 would hold the tape until the decision was made as to whether anyone could see the tape. Others don't seem to agree it will work that way. So if not, there will be another delay. Certainly if the judge is going to decide everybody and his brother can see both tapes, it would be helpful for Eval #2 to occur after the 2nd evaluator views Tape #1. So upon reflection, I can see why Eval #2 may not have begun yet.
JMO
Just a few counter points:
1) Since the defense requested a competency evaluation the defendant waives all rights to privacy. If the defense hadn't done that then it appears the initial tape would have been forever sealed out of an abundance of caution, but they did.
2) The tape is still restricted to the prosecution and defense and court, so it isn't released to "everybody and their brother" under any circumstance unless the defense wants to use it in trial.
3) IMO, the defense noted that the prosecutors cited the correct law in the request, but noted that only the 2 supplemental citations were included in the order. If they objected immediately the judge would have simply written in the correct citation to the order and reissued it. IMO, they wanted to see if they could get away with taping one and not the other.
I do agree that this will push the second evaluation back. January would be my guess.
The judge should possibly "split the baby" by ordering the second evaluation to be taped but placed under seal, only to be unsealed if there is an opposing eval result. If the first video is to be released, then only under extremely strict orders from the judge. No copies and no sharing!
1. Clearly I am referring to privacy relative to the evaluation, not anything beyond that.Just a few counter-counter points:
1. You stated:
"Since the defense requested a competency evaluation the defendant waives all rights to privacy. If the defense hadn't done that then it appears the initial tape would have been forever sealed out of an abundance of caution, but they did."
I am not sure the defendant waived "all rights to privacy." As @Seattle1 noted in an earlier post, competency evaluation reports are released without additional consent. In addition, the evaluator can testify without further consent from the defendant required. That doesn't mean ALL rights have been waived.
I'm also not sure what you mean by this sentence: "If the defense hadn't done that then it appears the initial tape would have been forever sealed out of an abundance of caution, but they did."
They did what exactly? Ask for the initial competency eval? If the defense hadn't asked for that, and the judge hadn't ordered it, no tape would exist because no eval would have been done. Regardless, if any party (but especially a defense attorney) has doubts about a defendant's competency to stand trial, the request for an evaluation shouldn't carry with it a trampling of the defendant's Constitutional rights. Those are much more important than any individual defendant.
Finally, what suggests Tape #1 would have been "forever sealed out of an abundance of caution?" It had already been delivered to all parties. The judge temporarily (and belatedly) sealed it after the defense objection. There's nothing I know of to say that would have happened otherwise.
2. You stated:
"The tape is still restricted to the prosecution and defense and court, so it isn't released to "everybody and their brother" under any circumstance unless the defense wants to use it in trial."
Perhaps it's clear to you but certainly not to me that if the tape is released to the state, only the DA may view it. I would assume those working with him could also view it. Same with the defense. I would not assume only the two PD's could view it. Do you have a citation saying that? For example, when discovery materials are released, the defense can share those with its experts as can the state. So while "everybody and his brother" is just an expression, if the tapes ARE released, are you saying there is a statute preventing each side from sharing those tapes with their experts? If not, and those experts testify, it seems it would be pretty easy for material to get out there.
Furthermore, the state says in its brief the tapes will be "best evidence" in the case of a split recommendation re: competency. Sounds like it wouldn't be the defense wanting to use the tapes in court! And it was the state that asked for taping, not the defense. So I don't see how it could have been a defense plot.
3. You stated:
"The defense noted that the prosecutors cited the correct law in the request, but noted that only the 2 supplemental citations were included in the order. If they objected immediately the judge would have simply written in the correct citation to the order and reissued it. IMO, they wanted to see if they could get away with taping one and not the other."
Why? At the time the defense didn't know there would be a second eval to "get away with not taping." And why is "not taping" a pre-trial competency eval "getting away" with anything?
The statute the state cited covers required taping of evaluations for sanity and diminished responsibility. The state initially appeared to suggest the statute covered competency evals. Since it doesn't, it was the "wrong" statute. (But there isn't a "right one" to be written in since no statute mandates taping competency evals.)
I'm not sure what you mean by supplemental citations.
JMO
1. Clearly I am referring to privacy relative to the evaluation, not anything beyond that.
As for the defense request triggering things, I believe the court ordered the first eval.
2. The law is very specific about who can see the eval reports and any recordings. Discovery materials are nearly all public at some point.
3. Why would the defense find value in a recording of the states psych and no recording of their private psych? Seems obvious to me that they could attempt to find minute errors in the recording that exists.
As for the defense not knowing if they needed to request a new eval, well obviously they wouldn't need to do anything if she was ruled incompetent, which is their goal here.