Thursday, June 30, 2011

Issue with Cindy Anthony Cell phone records

Mason> The defense was notified by the prosecution that they were waiting for Cindys work record. It was done to impeach her testimony and her search for chloroform. This morning we received 200 pages. We object this as a discovery error.  The prosecution knew from Cindys previous testimony. Cindy disclosed it was her that made those searches. They waited until she testified. He testimony was consistent with her deposition.  Itis prejudicial. We are asking for the court to impose the appropriate sanctions
Burdick> WE are seeking to introduce a one page document of calls. WE are seeking to introduce a week of emails for the time in question . (march 17 2011 and march 21, 2011)  The computer records has the usage of Cindy Anthony with patient information omitted due potential HIPAA violations. In her deposition , Cindy did not dispute the work record. IN court she disputed her work record and Gentiva would pad her work hours. Burdick received the documents electronically. I received them last night and looked at them last night and provide them to the defense . Ms Clay Sims said she needs some time to interview the Cheif Compliance Officer.
Mason> Your Honor, you have said this is not to be a trial by ambush. We have taken 150 depositions. 27,000 pages of documentation have been given to us. The State never  questioned the testimony of Cindy Anthony. They should not spring on us , on the 8th week of testimony. You must reward the Prosecution. We urge you to note this as a discovery violation. To allow Clay Sims to look at documents during lunch hour is insufficient.
JP> When Cindy gave her testimony did she contest the validity of her work hours?
Burdick > My recollection is that we spent the majority of time questioning the computer searches. She did indicated she made searchs for chlorophyll due to her dogs lethargy.
BAEz> CA looked or chloroform and ingredients of chloroform. He reads through her testimony.
Burdick>I notified them yesterday about the documents. Earlier this week, I told them I was going to be asking for documents. I received the documents yesterday. I knew she was going to testify she did searches. I did not know she was going to contest her hours so extensively. She did say she was a salaried employee and could come and go.
Baez>She testiied she MAY  have searched chloroform. BAez is reading from document.
Baez> She did say she was a salaried employee.
JP> I am not talking about searches Was the defense aware that the work records were meaningless. Did she say that in any deposition or sworn statement.
Baez>  Kinda Yes,, I don't know how much she went into it.
JP> Other than her testimony being impeached. How would it would effect the defense if it is brought in.
Baez> It would infer we brought in false testimony.  What if Cindy pleads the 5th.
JP> If she does we MAY  deal with it.  I said MAY.   We could ask to strike all of her testimony.

JP> The state and defense can not ensure a witnesses testimony will go south.
Baez>  The State should have know 2 years ago.
BurdicK> the inquiry is it willful and intential,.It was inadvertant. Cindy Anthony went into a long answer and added information . I do not believe this is prejudicial  I urge that the judge find this is not a discovery error.
WE can correct the assumed prejudice.
Baez> This is not a simple issue.  This morning they decided to drop the informaton. The timng is way too late.
JP> Did Cindy know what she was going to say. Did she know she was going to say she was at home when her work records said she was at work.
Bez> Yes
JP> Did she know she was going to say her work records were meaningless
Baez> Yes.
JP > The work records that were introduced were they computer generated.
JP> WAS there any indication that anyone had an expert look at them and see if anyone "monkeyed" with them.
Burdick> They were entered with stipulation (they were true and accurate)
Baez says this is, "No simple issue." Says they will need to have their own experts look through these documents just handed over.
JP> According to Richardson vs STAte. This is not a discovery violation . As soon as the state had records they provided them to defense. DEfense enters into question of prejudice. The jury is to take sufficient evidence so they can speak a verdict that renders the truth. The jury will be instructed that they can believe all or part of any witness testimony.The remaining question is how much time to adequately to review records and prepare to adequately cross the witness. The defense indicated they need "computer expert" to authenticate records but from what both sides done in this trial they have stipulated for the record.  There is no testimony tht the prior records were fabricated.  Fabrication of records would be subject to having verdict thrown out.   I understand this gentleman has a problem. I am going to give the defense the balance of the day to talk to gentlemen. 
JP> Clay Simms , How much time do you need. I can make witness miss his doctor appt. Everyone knew this is coming. I don't think anyone thought the State was not going to get records. 
ClaySims> I am not sure(how much time is necessary)  About an hour or so. I just don't know. 
Burdick>  She could simply ask Gentiva computer person. The records are stored. 
Clay Sims> If I can get the expert to tell me about the times on the records. 
JP> I need to know more about witness medical condition and why he needs to be back in Atlanta. Can he come in afternoon? There are several flights from Atlanta.
COURT IS AT EASE.   Perry will allow the state to present the evidence.
The judge is back on the stand.  The jury is returned.

No comments: