Sunshine Law Question

[forensicfan]

This has been bugging me since the case began and NO, I don't believe the babysitter ever existed and I do believe Casey killed Caylee. I'm just really curious about something where all the secret talk is concerned.

If your child was kidnapped and you were told not to go to police or he/she would be killed but you knew you needed help or you would never see him/her again so you do go to the police, wouldn't the police be able to block the story from the public given the nature of the case?

I would think that if a child's life is at stake, they would be able to protect the case from being made public under the Sunshine Law.

[VII]

IF there was a for REAL kidnapper ...
I'm almost certain LE would NOT go to the media until the child was returned safely OR until they knew the end result of said kidnapping.
jmo
and I'm
stickin' to it

[Katprint]

Most states' Sunshine Laws (including Florida's) exempt active criminal investigative information from mandatory disclosure. See Public Records: A Guide for Law Enforcement Agencies published by the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Florida. http://myfloridalegal.com/webfiles.nsf/WF/MRAY-7E8QJ6/$file/2008LEGuide.pdf

So yes, if there is an active criminal investigation into such a kidnapping and the police did not want to release any information about it, they would not have to.

Also, I was interested to see, at page 37, that under Florida law, records which have been given or are required to be given to the person arrested cannot be withheld from public inspection as criminal investigative or intelligence information. In other words, any evidence that the prosecution plans to use at trial which they release to Baez, cannot be withheld from the public unless some other exception applies (for example, that the information will identify of a victim of sexual abuse or child abuse, or will compromise the defendant's right to a fair trial, or would be defamatory to a victim).

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

[Lady_Jean_La]

It is surprising to see how much information is being released in this case.

[Katprint]

It is surprising to see how much information is being released in this case.
Normally, the defense attorney in a case like this might bring a motion for a protective order/gag order concerning on the grounds that inadmissible evidence (for example, extensive defamatory hearsay) was improperly prejudicing the jury pool and thus affecting his client's right to a fair trial by an impartial, unbiased jury. This case was weird because the defense OPPOSED the prosecution's motion for such an order, and the defense attorney went on the talk show circuit. Now the defense is beginning to complain that they need a change of venue due to all the publicity, which they could have decreased. I am interested to see what the judge will do with this "unclean hands" situation.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

[Grins]

Hi Katprint and all!
On July 28, 2008 JB filed a motion to prevent publication of D's jail conversations and other prejudicial material.

http://www.wesh.com/news/17026786/detail.html

"Motion Denied To Block Anthony's Phone Calls
Judge Says He Was Going To Err On Side Of First Amendment
July 29, 2008
ORLANDO, Fla. -- In a hearing on Tuesday afternoon, Judge Stan Strickland denied the motion filed by Casey Anthony's attorney, Jose Baez, asking that jailhouse phone calls made from the mother of a missing toddler cease to be released.
Strickland said he was going to err on the side of the First Amendment....Baez said he also feels that the information out there has negatively portrayed his client.
..Eric Dunlap from the Orange County Sheriff's Office also went to the podium during the hearing to argue the motion filed by Baez. He said that what has been released is simply public record, and that the sheriff's office should be able to conduct their own investigation and make decisions about what information goes out and what stays with them -- not Casey Anthony, her attorney and her family...
The court requested that the attorney for the Orlando Sentinel be a part of the hearing to represent the media. She said the information is public record, just like a mug shot. She also said that secrecy is not the answer in a case like this -- transparency and openness are.

Baez said the argument that the information being released is not sensitive is absurd.
Strickland told Baez that, through his motion, he and the Anthonys want to dictate the flow of information -- contrary to the First Amendment. The judge described the conversations as "sterile."
..Baez filed the motion Monday, asking that the flow of information be cut off to protect his client's right to a fair trial and to protect the integrity of the investigation.
Sheriff's spokesman Deputy Carlos Padilla said so far the releases have not harmed the investigation."
http://www.wesh.com/news/17026786/detail.html

What do you think of the ruling by the judge? If we are entitled to see all police files and all discovery delivered to defense counsel, where is the rest of it?

Most especially, where is the report about the duct tape?

[Grins]

Exemption from the Sunshine Act of "Criminal intelligence information" and "criminal investigative information"

Here is the actual statute:
http://tinyurl.com/7gpdkn

The 2008 Florida Statutes
Title X
CHAPTER 119
PUBLIC RECORDS
119.01 General state policy on public records.
...
section
119.011
"...
Definitions
...
(3)(a) "Criminal intelligence information" means information with respect to an identifiable person or group of persons collected by a criminal justice agency in an effort to anticipate, prevent, or monitor possible criminal activity.

(b) "Criminal investigative information" means information with respect to an identifiable person or group of persons compiled by a criminal justice agency in the course of conducting a criminal investigation of a specific act or omission, including, but not limited to, information derived from laboratory tests, reports of investigators or informants, or any type of surveillance.

(c) "Criminal intelligence information" and "criminal investigative information" shall not include:
...
5. Documents given or required by law or agency rule to be given to the person arrested, ...
~~~~~~~
Then see:
Section
119.071 General exemptions from inspection or copying of public records.--

(1) AGENCY ADMINISTRATION.--
..
(c)1. Active criminal intelligence information and active criminal investigative information are exempt from s. 119.07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution.
[Emphasis supplied]
~~~~~~~
Now we have legal argument as to interpretation of the above "Definition:"

=1. does it mean all "Criminal intelligence information" and "criminal investigative information" are exceptions to the Sunshine Law and unavailable to the public until after a trial
or
=2. does it mean all info given to D is available to public
or
=3. D has an exception to exemption and can get the information when otherwise he could not get it. It does not mean the public can get it.
~~~My opinion favors 1 and 3.

[Grins]

My opinion is that the Exemption statutory section I cited in s.119.071 gives to LE and SA a protection in the form of an an exception to the general rule of making all agency documents available to the public.

Homicide detectives do not want the product their investigation in the news every day in my experience.
We have heard forever that, "We cannot give out any evidentiary information because this case is under investigation."

SO the question then is: well if the case info is secret then how can the defendant get it in discovery to prepare for trial?

Aha=the law gives the defendant that right by this provision from 119.011:
(c) "Criminal intelligence information" and "criminal investigative information" shall not include:
...
5. Documents given or required by law or agency rule to be given to the person arrested, ...
Sooooo
~~that as to her/him the exception will not apply and discovery may be obtained.
There is no language to justify any meaning beyond that. Paragraph 5. is a Definition and not a substantive clause granting rights to media.

My posts are my opinion based upon research and not legal advice.

[Katprint]

Hi Katprint and all!
On July 28, 2008 JB filed a motion to prevent publication of D's jail conversations and other prejudicial material.

http://www.wesh.com/news/17026786/detail.html

"Motion Denied To Block Anthony's Phone Calls
Judge Says He Was Going To Err On Side Of First Amendment
July 29, 2008
ORLANDO, Fla. -- In a hearing on Tuesday afternoon, Judge Stan Strickland denied the motion filed by Casey Anthony's attorney, Jose Baez, asking that jailhouse phone calls made from the mother of a missing toddler cease to be released.
Strickland said he was going to err on the side of the First Amendment....Baez said he also feels that the information out there has negatively portrayed his client.
..Eric Dunlap from the Orange County Sheriff's Office also went to the podium during the hearing to argue the motion filed by Baez. He said that what has been released is simply public record, and that the sheriff's office should be able to conduct their own investigation and make decisions about what information goes out and what stays with them -- not Casey Anthony, her attorney and her family...
The court requested that the attorney for the Orlando Sentinel be a part of the hearing to represent the media. She said the information is public record, just like a mug shot. She also said that secrecy is not the answer in a case like this -- transparency and openness are.

Baez said the argument that the information being released is not sensitive is absurd.
Strickland told Baez that, through his motion, he and the Anthonys want to dictate the flow of information -- contrary to the First Amendment. The judge described the conversations as "sterile."
..Baez filed the motion Monday, asking that the flow of information be cut off to protect his client's right to a fair trial and to protect the integrity of the investigation.
Sheriff's spokesman Deputy Carlos Padilla said so far the releases have not harmed the investigation."
http://www.wesh.com/news/17026786/detail.html

What do you think of the ruling by the judge? If we are entitled to see all police files and all discovery delivered to defense counsel, where is the rest of it?

Most especially, where is the report about the duct tape?
There is a difference between the jailhouse recordings and the police investigation documents i.e. photos, investigation notes, interview transcripts/summaries, etc. Lawfully-made recordings of Casey's own words are almost certainly going to be admissible, and there is a philosophy that if the jury is going to hear it later then it does no harm for them to hear it sooner. (Note: I don't necessarily agree with this philosophy. I tend to agree with the "first one to a blank mind wins" philosophy.) By contrast, Casey's friends' statements to investigators about whether Casey is using various drugs and/or is hanging out with people who use drugs, and that she is a liar and a thief, and the controversy over whether or not she graduated from high school, and so forth, are highly prejudicial but not necessarily admissible.

IMO Baez' motion was not an automatic-grant motion. Perhaps if he had written it more persuasively, or with more legal authority to back up his position, it would have gone better. Also, it is always important not to ask for too much in a grant-or-deny situation because then you will get nothing. I suspect he did not ask for the investigative files not to be released because he did not know all the bad stuff that was going to be in them. I doubt Casey was completely honest with him, or perhaps she has had SO MUCH unfavorable history that she cannot be objective about what bad facts to tell Baez about so that he can do appropriate pre-emptive damage control. Among other things, I doubt Baez knew that Caylee's body had been dumped in a vacant lot where Casey used to hang out with her friends (and bury dead pets) a few houses away from the Anthony residence, or he would probably have worked harder to negotiate a favorable plea agreement. Then again, maybe not. Neither the President of the Florida Criminal Bar Association nor myself understand Baez' strategic decisions.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

[IM4Truth]

This has been bugging me since the case began and NO, I don't believe the babysitter ever existed and I do believe Casey killed Caylee. I'm just really curious about something where all the secret talk is concerned.

If your child was kidnapped and you were told not to go to police or he/she would be killed but you knew you needed help or you would never see him/her again so you do go to the police, wouldn't the police be able to block the story from the public given the nature of the case?

I would think that if a child's life is at stake, they would be able to protect the case from being made public under the Sunshine Law.

In answer to both of your questions, yes, it would be exempt from public disclosure. If my child was kidnapped I think I would immediately notify the FBI before I would notify the local authorities if there was a threat like Casey is claiming. I would let them know about the threat before giving them any personal information and get assurance from them that nothing would be reported. I would cooperate with wire taps on all phones and anything else they asked of me.

[Grins]

Hello =am new to this case discussion but my dears n/t and KKKKKKatie asked me over on this subject=also I am from PA and this law is strange to me.
Many thanks Katprint for the excellent analysis. Surely do agree with you on strangeness of defense so far. Also I have been astounded at the flood of file info and wonder how all this will be viewed in an appellate court.
Other notorious Florida cases did not see this kind of enormous doc dump and for so many months.
Is all this justified under the Florida Sunshine Law?
How do I get to see the actual Motions filed and other court documents?
How do I get to see what is filed in the clerk's office?
I have tried but no success.

[aubrey04]

Normally, the defense attorney in a case like this might bring a motion for a protective order/gag order concerning on the grounds that inadmissible evidence (for example, extensive defamatory hearsay) was improperly prejudicing the jury pool and thus affecting his client's right to a fair trial by an impartial, unbiased jury. This case was weird because the defense OPPOSED the prosecution's motion for such an order, and the defense attorney went on the talk show circuit. Now the defense is beginning to complain that they need a change of venue due to all the publicity, which they could have decreased. I am interested to see what the judge will do with this "unclean hands" situation.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

Yes, that was extremely odd. Baez fought against the DA's office's efforts for a gag order. It was role reversal and very bizarre. I still don't understand his motivations for that move but I am sure he has something up his sleeve.

[Dells]

Yes, that was extremely odd. Baez fought against the DA's office's efforts for a gag order. It was role reversal and very bizarre. I still don't understand his motivations for that move but I am sure he has something up his sleeve.

I think it was odd as well, but I think Baez fought the gag order because he wanted the media to cover the Caylee sightings tips that came in. He was trying to create reasonable doubt that Caylee was actually kidnapped and taken by someone. Of course now that the body has been found, that gig is up.

[forensicfan]

Thank you to all who answered my question.

I asked because I was wondering if the defense, in going with "zanny the nanny did it" was going to try to imply that had the case not gone public, Caylee might be alive today.

That's why I was wondering if that could be debunked by the prosecution should they attempt that route.

Also, all through this case Casey keeps claiming that she can't say what she knows because she was trying to protect Caylee from harm. I'm assuming she was made aware that the information she had to give, had she been willing to talk would have been kept from the public then.

I guess she'll have to think up something fast before the trial to accomplish that "aha, now I see" moment we are all supposed to have.

[Grins]

All good points Forensicfan! Surely we know LE and the FBI would have kept all missing child data secret if the situation required it; they have experience in all phases of such a case. Sunshine Law as all have agreed would not require release of any info.

Consider this:
=someone hates D so much that they kidnap them both and hold C
for sale to an adoptive family out of state;
=D is released with threats to kill her and all her family if she goes to LE;
=how would D deal with this?
.....perhaps just as she has done.....

[tulpje]

Hello =am new to this case discussion but my dears n/t and KKKKKKatie asked me over on this subject=also I am from PA and this law is strange to me.
Many thanks Katprint for the excellent analysis. Surely do agree with you on strangeness of defense so far. Also I have been astounded at the flood of file info and wonder how all this will be viewed in an appellate court.
Other notorious Florida cases did not see this kind of enormous doc dump and for so many months.
Is all this justified under the Florida Sunshine Law?How do I get to see the actual Motions filed and other court documents?
How do I get to see what is filed in the clerk's office?
I have tried but no success.



Yep, it's all justified under the florida sunshine law.

For the rest do your own research, it's been posted here in the past.

Start with the "links only" threads.
There is lots and lots of info in there.
Nobody can give you that answer, if you're new in this discussion, good luck, you're way behind, it will take you months to catch up.

[Grins]

Yep, it's all justified under the florida sunshine law.

For the rest do your own research, it's been posted here in the past.

Start with the "links only" threads.
There is lots and lots of info in there.
Nobody can give you that answer, if you're new in this discussion, good luck, you're way behind, it will take you months to catch up.Hi Tulpje! To clarify, I am only new to the IS discussion of the case; I have followed the facts unfolding elsewhere for 6 months and mostly concentrated on legal research on publicity prior to trial causing reversals.
My concern and posting for all that time has been to plead with LE and SA to stop the doc flood. It may cause a reversal of a hard-won conviction.
Consider the anguish that would cause.

In the Dr Sam Sheppard case:
"U.S. Supreme Court
Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (1966)
Held, in part:
"Held:

1. The massive, pervasive, and prejudicial publicity attending petitioner's prosecution prevented him from receiving a fair trial consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 384 U. S. 349-363.

(a) Though freedom of discussion should be given the widest range compatible with the fair and orderly administration of justice, it must not be allowed to divert a trial from its purpose of adjudicating controversies according to legal procedures based on evidence received only in open court. Pp. 384 U. S. 350-351.

(b) Identifiable prejudice to the accused need not be shown if, as in Estes v. Texas, 381 U. S. 532, and even more so in this case, the totality of the circumstances raises the probability of prejudice. Pp. 384 U. S. 352-355.

(c) The trial court failed to invoke procedures which would have guaranteed petitioner a fair trial, such as adopting stricter rules for use of the courtroom by newsmen as petitioner's counsel requested, limiting their number, and more closely supervising their courtroom conduct. The court should also have insulated the witnesses; controlled the release of leads, information, and gossip to the press by police officers, witnesses, and counsel; proscribed extrajudicial statements by any lawyer, witness, party, or court official divulging prejudicial matters, and requested the appropriate city and county officials to regulate release of information by their employees.
[Emphasis supplied]
Pp. 384 U. S. 358-362.

2. The case is remanded to the District Court with instructions to release petitioner from custody unless he is tried again within a reasonable time. P. 384 U. S. 363.

346 F.2d 707, reversed and remanded."
http://supreme.justia.com/us/384/333/

Did the Judge in this case follow this requirement?

[Grins]

Hi Bratlings !
How about MR maybe getting $10,000 to 20,000 for a pic of a snake. Oh that snake surely was critical to this case and prolly will be in evidence at trial heh?
Huh?
Hey I will sell 100 fer fifty bucks~
They really insult our intelligence with enormous pic license agreements and then say we do not pay for interviews.

[Grins]

Defense lawyers agree on publicity

"...Cheney Mason has practiced law in Florida for nearly 30 years. He's been on several high-profile cases, including the Lisa Nowak case.

News 13 asked him about paying for a defense of this magnitude. Mason said Baez might be thinking more about notoriety than a payday.

"There's some lawyers that take cases when they can't get money simply because they want the free publicity. They think it’s going to have people to storm the doors to hire them," Mason said.

He quickly pointed out that if any attorney were to write a book about a case they worked on, they wouldn't be able to practice law in Florida.

Mason also said if Anthony were to claim she was partially indigent, the state could help pay for the case and any expensive experts.

“It can be a very expensive process, in order to ensure the evidence is tested and the defendant has a fully and just trial,” Mason said.

Regardless of experience or credibility, one thing most defense lawyers agree on, including Baez, is that the details of any case should come out in the courtroom and not on the courthouse steps.

“She's not guilty yet. We still don't know such little things like are there any fingerprints of hers on this duct tape? Any trace evidence to link it to her house," Mason said..."
~
The court house steps are broad and wide and long in this case~~~sadly

http://www.cfnews13.com/News/Local/2009/1/22/new_motion_hearing_scheduled_in_casey_anthony_case .html

[Grins]

Discovery Rules

Prosecutor’s Discovery Obligation.
Within 15 days after service of the Notice of Discovery, the prosecutor shall serve a written Discovery Exhibit which shall disclose to the defendant and permit the defendant to inspect, copy, test, and photograph the following information and material within the state’s possession or control witnesses, reports and all.

Notice of Discovery was filed last October. Way past 15 days...