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.

Discovery? What discovery?

So, after four days of trying to go to trial and getting a plea done, it's off to Independence after being ordered to appear for a scheduled show cause hearing in State v. Lopez. For the past eight months the prosecutor hasn't complied with discovery and its show cause day.

Or is it. The judge is in trial and, incredibly, decides that what would work best is for the defense to tell the Court (again) what discovery is missing! Does anyone else see something strange here? The defense is missing whatever discovery the State has not provided, and the defense doesn't know what that missing discovery is.

Which witness addresses have not been updated? Don't know.
Which witnesses have undisclosed arrests and convictions? Don't know.
What transcripts from co-defendants cases have not been provided? Don't know.

Oh well. Like so many cases in Jackson County, we'll sort it out in a post-conviction hearing . . . .

Oh No! Not Again!

Another day, another discovery violation.
Ever since Merriweather v State, it's been clear that the prosecutor's duty to disclose convictions of State witnesses is taken seriously by the Supreme Court. After all, only the prosecutors have access to computerized databases such as NCIC and MULES.
Representing a man on a post conviction hearing. There had been an undisclosed deal with a co-defendant (dismissal--pretty good deal!) but the prosecutor had, belatedly, disclosed convictions on four State's witnesses. Since convictions are so rarely disclosed, started looking at the four witnesses on case.net.
Oh No! The first witness had additional convictions, not disclosed.
Oh No.! The second witness had additional convictions, not disclosed.
Oh No.! The third witness had additional convictions, not disclosed.

Oh No.! The fourth witness had additional convictions, not disclosed.
A perfect record! All told, about 10 missing convictions.
Perhaps most alarming is that the prosecutor says that they ran the witnesses and the convictions didn't show up. Pretty good evidence that however the prosecutors are "running" their witnesses is being done correctly.
We'll see what happens now.

Oh No! Not Again!

O.K. In a most unusual happening, we have a post conviction case where the Jackson County Prosecutor appeared to have actually provided all discovery. Well, everything except what they say they don't have to provide.

We have this ongoing dispute, or actually a few disputes. In this case, the prosecutor cut a deal with a co-defendant. Jackson County Prosecutors think that it is O.K. to cut a deal and not tell anyone until the deal is done: I'll give a witness probation, but it's not a done deal until probation is given, so they claim they don't have to disclose the deal.

Or, the prosecutor sits in on a deposition of a witness taken in a co-defendant's case. So, there is a statement under oath by a state's witness, but the prosecutors think they don't have to disclose that.

ANYWAY, in this post conviction case, other than not disclosing a deal and not providing a deposition of a witness, the assistant prosecutor had apparently done pretty well.

The prosecutor had actually provided a list of witnesses with convictions!!! Now, of course, that is required by Supreme Court Rule, but in Jackson County the prosecutors just ignore that little detail. Even though the Missouri Supreme Court, in Merriweather v. State, said that the failure to provide convictions is a due process violation and automatic reversal, it is still something that Jackson County doesn't do very often.

Anyway, the prosecutor in this case had listed four witnesses with convictions. On a lark, I entered the first witness in casenet (the public website listing Missouri criminal cases). Now, casenet won't show all convictions, won't show closed convictions (like suspended imposition of sentence), but it's pretty good.

First witness . . . casenet shows two convictions not disclosed by the prosecutor.

Second witness . . . casenet shows five convictions not disclosed by the prosecutor.

Third witness . . . casenet show one conviction not disclosed by the prosecutor.

Fourth witness . . . casenet shows two convictions not disclosed by the prosecutor.

Don't know what database the prosecutor is using, but it makes you wonder if they EVER disclose convictions as the Supreme Court requires. Most bizarre is that they had disclosed out of state convictions and convictions from other counties, but had missed convictions from Jackson County.

Sometimes the system works . . .

So, the client had been in jail for over a year on some ridiculous bond that only Bill Gates could make. It had been specially set in February for a July 13, 2009 trial date. Speedy trial motion filed. (See July 13 rant.)
Anyway, bond hearing to modify bond conditions given that the prosecutor had blown the trial date with a record setting 418 pages of missing discovery. So . . . Judge Schieber very quickly remembered the case and ordered a signature bond with county house arrest.