Yesterday we learned that the state withheld from the defense the reports (printouts, excel…) prepared by the state IT man, Kruidbos. We also learned that the state presented to the defense something in the way of discovery related to the phone data on June 4th, two days before the hearing. O'Mara had filed a motion that brought this issue to that hearing yesterday:
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST STATE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR DISCOVERY VIOLATIONS AND REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL INQUIRY INTO VIOLATIONShttp://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0513/motion_for_sanctions.pdfOn Page 6, last sentence of the second paragraph, and the entire third paragraph, it states that he is requesting the court
"inquire of the state regarding the existence of these REPORTS, and to demand that they be forwarded to the defense …a judicial inquiry concerning this discovery violation AND whatever sanctions the court deem necessary."The "REPORTS" was identified specifically, while the motion made it clear the discovery violation "AND" the sanctions were two separate issues to address. So what does Nelson do about the former of the two issues, discovery violations?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf_0D6Bf ... ge#t=2800sShe mentions
"the documents you already have," but I missed that evidently. I do not recall the state ever claiming that the "REPORTS" prepared by Kruidbos as having been provided to the defense.
I recall the state referencing some reports prepared by their FDLE man they claimed were in the June 4 discovery package, or part of them anyway, but not anything from Kruidbos. Nelson never even asked Bernie if the Kruidbos reports were a part of the June 4 package provided to the defense, who (West) made it clear they had no idea, yet, what that disclosure included (that would be the "inquiry" asked for).
Nelson's response to O'Mara pointing out there are TWO issues to address transforms the inquiry into discovery withheld into "other sanctions."
Did I miss something?