If so, subpoena the cell phone records, the landline records and the email records of Linda Drane Burdick, John Bradley, and the sheriff office representative that Bradley says he communicated with.
Also, take Linda’s laptop and desktop, the sheriff’s laptop and desktop and Bradley’s laptop and destop. But… don’t use Bradley’s software – use the other company’s software, Net Analysis, to analyze all the emails and documents – just to make it fair.
Let the cards fall the way they fall.
If it turns out that Linda Drane Burdick was communicated with in sufficient time for her or Jeff to discuss the matter in court before the jury reached the verdict, but she chose to conceal the information – she should resign and if the D. A. himself was aware of it as well ahead of time, he should step down as well.
I find it interesting that the Prosecution did not reference the searches in closing arguments – considering the searches represented the cornerstone of their case. I believe they knew because Bradley either told them on a phone call and/or via an email in advance of their closing arguments.
Baez did not know about Bradley’s revelations because Burdick and Ashton kept it from the defense. All Baez knew was that Net Analysis only showed 1 search and that conflicted from Bradley’s software that showed 84 searches.
Also, when Baez attempted to talk about the difference in the search count between the two companies and the two witnesses, the Prosecution objected.
Prosecution departments from time to time do not play fair – violating laws and rules of the court and they hope it is never found out and used to grant an appeal or even a reversal of a verdict.
In this case, a person on HLN (her first name is Casey but I cannot remember her last name) said that because Casey was found Not Guilty, even if the Prosecution did what they are being accused of, it does not need to be looked at because it did not hurt anyone.
To that, I say Phooey…. if someone did something intentionally wrong, they will continue doing things like that in hopes that every time they do things like this in the future, it will result in them not getting caught.
Doing things wrong to not get caught is what criminals do – so if Linda Drane Burdick did what she is being accused of doing, she by definition is also a criminal.
If Baez ends up being charged for violating rules in a trial – so be it. But, just because people do not like what he did in the court, it does not give the Prosecution the right to violate the law or the rules of the court.
Remember this: If YOU are ever on trial, you would insist that the prosecution follows all the laws and that they should not do anything underhanded or illegal to convict you. They are the one’s who requested the grand jury and they are the ones who brought you to trial – if the evidence and the testimony is not strong enough to convict you, they have no right to play games illegally to get you convicted.