UPDATE: Since this post, a few things have come to light.<\/p>\n
It appears the Orange County Sheriff’s Office intentionally\u00a0suppressed exculpatory evidence that directly contradicted the State Attorney’s theory of premeditated murder in their attempt to have Casey convicted of First Degree Murder.<\/p>\n
Please read:<\/p>\n
In Brady v. Maryland<\/em>, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)<\/a>, the United States Supreme Court held that suppression of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process. Subsequently, in Giglio v. United States<\/em>, 405 U.S. 150 (1972)<\/a> and United States v. Bagley<\/em>, 473 U.S. 667 (1985)<\/a>, the Court made clear that all impeachment evidence falls within the Brady<\/em> rule.<\/p>\n Finally, in Kyles v. Whitney<\/em>, 514 U.S. 419 (1995)<\/a>, the United States Supreme Court not only reaffirmed that both exculpatory and impeachment evidence fall within the Brady<\/em> rule. The Court also reiterated \u201c\u2026 that the individual prosecutor has a duty to learn of any favorable evidence known to others acting on the government\u2019s behalf in the case, including the police.<\/strong>\u201d<\/p>\n But my question is how do we know the State Attorney’s Office didn’t know that the computer search was flawed. If they did, they not only had a duty to disclose it to the defense, but a duty to disclose it to the court, and more than likely a duty to correct it in front of the jury.<\/p>\n And let’s not forget, this is not the first case ASA Jeff Ashton was involved in where exculpatory evidence was suppressed. some of you may remember my post in\u00a0Casey Anthony: Insufficient Funds (Part Uno)<\/a>, where I explained about a trial conducted by the Elected Public Defender Robert Wesley:<\/p>\n —-<\/p>\nThis Ain’t the State’s First Rodeo Either<\/h2>\n