Prosecutors caught cheating in Casey Anthony trial.

Remember all the evidence about Casey Anthony searching about "chloroform" 84 times? Certainly had everyone thinking that Caylee had been chloroformed, even though the cause of death was unknown.
Turns out the information was a fraud: a glitch in a computer program produced the bad information AND the prosecutors and police were alerted to the false data during the trial and did not correct it.

"Chloroform" had been searched for one (yep, that's 1) time, and then a web site was on the use of chloroform in the 1800s was accessed.

The programmer alerted prosecutors and police to the error and the correct data during the trial and the prosecutors did not alert the court and defense counsel.

“The prosecution is absolutely obligated to bring forth to the court any and all evidence that could be exculpatory,” Mr. Mason said. “If in fact this is true, and the prosecution concealed this new information, it is more than shame on them. It is outrageous.” Here's the link from the New York Times:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43807133/ns/us_news-the_new_york_times/

Can I call the prosecutor as a witness?

So, I'm appearing in a rural county where the local sheriff has obtained a search warrant to search my client's farm. According to the affidavit, the sheriff received a call about a loud noise and went to investigate. Being the thorough investigator that he his, he decided to peek into the windows of an out-building garage and saw five marijuana plants growing. So, according to the affidavit, he then sought a search warrant and the rest is history. Anyway, I just returned from court and a meeting with the (very nice) prosecutor. During our chat, she asked me: "Do you really know why you're here?" Assuming that "because my client is charged with a crime" was the wrong answer, I shyly said: "Not really." The prosecutor then explained that my (stupid) client had had his neighbor mow the pasture. Again, feeling a little stupid, I asked if mowing the pasture was why I was "really" here (or there). She politely explained that the neighbor was a former Deputy Sheriff, and he had seen the marijuana plants and called the current sheriff. Soooo . . . the good news is that I now know why my client got charged. The bad news (or good news for us) is that the current sheriff filed a false affidavit about a loud noise and carefully left out the source of his information. So, the sheriff filed a false affidavit to hide the source of his information, but the person telling me this is the elected prosecutor. Is the prosecutor now my witness, or do I hope that the sheriff will tell the truth about his perjury? Just another day . . . .

Sisco found not guilty on all counts

Late yesterday, Anthony Sisco was found not guilty of murder first degree, armed criminal action, assault first degree and armed criminal action. The jury started deliberations on Monday at about 2:30 p.m. and, according to the jury, were 11-1 for acquittal when they broke at 5 p.m.

The jury thought the case was clearly self-defense, both because the purported victims had pointed an AR-15 at Anthony and because once Sylvester Sisco started shooting, a "reasonable person" would think he was in imminent danger of death or serious physical injury.

As previously noted, the KCPD, the crime lab and the prosecutors had managed to keep from four judges, one petit jury, and four grand juries the fact that their "enhanced" video showed the AR-15 being pointed at Anthony Sisco.