On February 3, 2010 Jeff Ashton, on behalf of the State of Florida, filed a motion requesting an incamera ex parte hearing with Judge Strickland concerning evidence they wanted permission to delay releasing. This request boils down to: the prosecution was asking to speak to the Judge, without defense counsel present, and under sealed transcript, so they could prove to the Judge there was a valid reason why they should be allowed to NOT give the discovery to the defense team as required under Florida criminal procedure rules.
Ultimately Judge Strickland ruled that the prosecution could not have their hearing, BUT could submit via sealed motion to him detailing their reason for requesting the delay in release. Judge Strickland apparently has received and reviewed that motion and ruled yesterday that the release of the discovery may be delayed for 30 days with the option for prosecution to submit via sealed motion for extension if they can still prove just cause.
Now, when the prosecution filed the original request for an incamera, ex parte hearing they stated unequivocally that what they are requesting a delay on DOES fall under the Florida criminal procedure rules for discovery. That means the moment they obtained the discovery they had 15 days to let the defense know of the new discovery and to “inspect, copy, test, and photograph” the information if it is “in the possession or control” of the state. This applies if it was new physical evidence discovered, the name of a new witness, or information provided by an informant.
So let’s see if we can apply some critical thinking and weed the chaff from the grain on what this could be.
The only things that are not subject to the rules of discovery under Florida criminal procedure rule 3.220 are:
3.220(g)(1) Work Product. Disclosure shall not be required of legal research or of records, correspondence, reports, or memoranda to the extent that they contain the opinions, theories, or conclusions of the prosecuting or defense attorney or members of their legal staffs.
3.220(g)(2) Informants. Disclosure of a confidential informant shall not be required unless the confidential informant is to be produced at a hearing or trial or a failure to disclose the informant’s identity will infringe the constitutional rights of the defendant.
So with the prosecution stating that what they have falls under the rules of discovery, we can rule out either of the above.
Note that the prosecution referenced, and Judge Strickland ruled to delay release based on 3.220(k). This paragraph states:
3.220(k) Court May Alter Times. The court may alter the times for compliance with any discovery under these rules on good cause shown.
To be clear, this paragraph supplies the authority to the court and provides the mechanism by which a party may request delay of release (i.e. the 15 days). It means nothing more than that. If a party has something that falls under the regulations of discovery and they have ANY reason to delay release, this paragraph gives them the means by which to request that delay, and gives the court the power to grant it if good cause is shown. Note that at the first of last year the defense team requested a delay in release of discovery on the basis it would tip the state to what Casey’s defense strategy would be. Judge Strickland ruled that was not “good cause”. Let’s face it, this isn’t a poker hand.
So, if you have SOMETHING that does not fall into 3.220(g)(1) or (2) listed above you have SOMETHING that falls under the rules of discovery. And you don’t get to “self rule” on it. If you believe you have a good reason to not release it under the rules of 3.220, you MUST go to the court and request that delay in the manner provided in 3.220(k).
If we go back through the rules of discovery in 3.220 we find that there is actually very few exemptions to the 15 day release. They are:
3.220(b)(2) If the court determines, in camera, that any police or investigative report contains irrelevant, sensitive information or information interrelated with other crimes or criminal activities and the disclosure of the contents of the police report may seriously impair law enforcement or jeopardize the investigation of those other crimes or activities, the court may prohibit or partially restrict the disclosure.
3.220(e) Restricting Disclosure. The court on its own initiative or on motion of counsel shall deny or partially restrict disclosures authorized by this rule if it finds there is a substantial risk to any person of physical harm, intimidation, bribery, economic reprisals, or unnecessary annoyance or embarrassment resulting from the disclosure, that outweighs any usefulness of the disclosure to either party.
So we can conclude at this point that this SOMETHING is not work product, not an informant and falls into either 3.220(b)(2) or 3.220(e). We are dealing with new evidence, information or a person who either has led to an investigation that is ongoing and the state feels would be jeopardized if released, or has created a situation where if the information is released it could lead to a substantial risk to a person of “physical harm, intimidation, bribery, economic reprisals, or unnecessary annoyance or embarrassment.” And whichever it was…the court agreed.
Common sense would tell us it most likely isn’t that they found Casey’s fingerprint on evidence they already had. Because they would not meet either of the requirements above to show just cause. In fact, I think Judge Strickland would slap them with a wet noodle if they requested withholding information like that. In addition, there is something else we can glean from what has happened so far. The Judge has taken the extraordinary step of sealing the written motion the state provided to him; meaning THE DEFENSE IS STILL CLUELESS as to the nature of this SOMETHING. The Judge has sealed the state’s argument until such time as whatever cause won the delay, exists no more.
It appears that this new information is either:
* new physical evidence that implicates a new person in either the commission of the original crime, the cover up of the crime, or some other form of obstruction of justice after the fact and the state is working to complete an investigation on this new person and this new crime (i.e. charge?), OR
* new evidence/information that has led the state into a new avenue of investigation against Casey Anthony and they are seeking information that could be destroyed if certain parties or the public became aware of it, leading them to take steps to preserve the evidence until they can obtain it, OR
* some one has come forward that the state is concerned if they release their name and/or statement will come under unacceptable stress of some sort that could be so egregious it OUTWEIGHS the usefulness of the defense being privy to the person’s statement.
Possibly one of the most intriguing phases of this case since Casey went cell-side.
Valhall.
Related posts:
- Casey Anthony case: A review of the defense’s motion concerning State expert witness Lowe
- Today’s Hearing: Death or Cake
- Caylee Anthony case: Prosecution files motion to compel discovery
- Caylee Marie Anthony case: NeJame says…bad faith, bad bad faith! And smacks defense’s nose with a newspaper.
- Caylee Anthony case: Rulings on defense motions and hearing today 01/24/11
Click here to join the discussion
