The best way to start this post off is to describe what in camera means. It is a closed and private session of court or some other kind of deliberating body, like a corporate board room. We are sticking to its meaning in a courtroom.

In court, in camera can take place during a trial or a hearing prior to trial. By requesting it, the judge can decide one way or the other. It is a rare and infrequent occurrence for a court to grant something like this because public access and transparency are both paramount to justice. It’s certainly an issue in an open state like Florida, with its Open Government and Public Records laws, which mandate that government must be held accountable to the people.

From time to time, there are overriding concerns where the violation of personal privacy and the vulnerability of witnesses or parties justify an in camera hearing, in which the public galleries are cleared, the doors are locked, and the only people in attendance are the judge, a court reporter, the party or parties involved, the attorneys and any witnesses.

A simple example would be in a civil case, such as a marriage annulment or divorce, where evidence of bedroom inadequacy is required. Since so few people are affected by this, there is little to no harm done in ordering that the evidence be given in camera. Otherwise, to receive this evidence in open court could cause significant embarrassment to the litigants. In this case, it is a matter of needing to know, and the public has no right to be privy to this sort of thing. Of course, it is still the judge’s call.

Let’s take a look at the Motion for In Camera Ex Parte Hearing, but first, ex parte is a decision made by the judge without requiring all parties to the controversy to be present. It is a legal proceeding brought by one party in the absence of and without representation or notification of the other parties.

COMES NOW the State of Florida, by and through the undersigned counsel, pursuant to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.220(m) and respectfully requests an ex parte in camera hearing with this court, recorded by an official court reporter, as grounds therefore the State would show,

• 1. Certain materials and information have come into the possession of Law Enforcement.
• 2. Those materials and information are discoverable under F.R.C.P. 3.220.
• 3. There is good cause to delay foreclosure of these materials and information pursuant to F.R.C.P. 3.220(k).

WHEREFORE, the State of Florida respectfully requests an ex parte in camera hearing with this court to explain the good cause to delay disclosure.

Upon reading the motion by the State, we take note that the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure cited is 3.220, with 2 significant suffix letters, an m and a k after 3.220. What is 3.220 all about? It’s all about DISCOVERY, baby!

RULE 3.220. DISCOVERY

(a) Notice of Discovery. After the filing of the charging document, a defendant may elect to participate in the discovery process provided by these rules, including the taking of discovery depositions, by filing with the court and serving on the prosecuting attorney a “Notice of Discovery” which shall bind both the prosecution and defendant to all discovery procedures contained in these rules. Participation by a defendant in the discovery process, including the taking of any deposition by a defendant or the filing of a public records request under chapter 119, Florida Statutes, for law enforcement records relating to the defendant’s pending prosecution, which are nonexempt as a result of a codefendant’s participation in discovery, shall be an election to participate in discovery and triggers a reciprocal discovery obligation for the defendant. If any defendant knowingly or purposely shares in discovery obtained by a codefendant, the defendant shall be deemed to have elected to participate in discovery.

This tells us that after a defendant decides to participate in the Discovery process, that person is bound by the rules set forth in 3.220 - all of them. Since m and k were specifically listed, let’s examine those two.

(m) In Camera and Ex Parte Proceedings.

(1) Any person may move for an order denying or regulating disclosure of sensitive matters. The court may consider the matters contained in the motion in camera.

(2) Upon request, the court shall allow the defendant to make an ex parte showing of good cause for taking the deposition of a Category B witness.

(3) A record shall be made of proceedings authorized under this subdivision. If the court enters an order granting relief after an in camera inspection or ex parte showing, the entire record of the proceeding shall be sealed and preserved and be made available to the appellate court in the event of an appeal.

It is very evident that the State is asking the judge to deny or regulate the disclosure of sensitive matters, and it needs to be discussed in private. Whatever materials and information came into the hands of law enforcement, prosecutors want to keep it out of the public’s hands for now, and quite possibly, the defendant’s. I am more inclined to think it is the former - the public is on a need to know basis and this is something or someone that needs no exposure. Whatever it is, the State doesn’t want it discussed in open court. It is protecting something or someone. I have a thought I believe is relevant, but it will be discussed in another article. It will touch on open investigations and obligations of law enforcement and the State Attorney’s Office. Meanwhile, if the judge decides to keep this under wraps, it can be unsealed if the case reaches the appellate court level.

(k) Court May Alter Times. The court may alter the times for compliance with any discovery under these rules on good cause shown.

The State clearly wrote there “is good cause to delay foreclosure of these materials and information…” No other inferences were made. From this, we cannot second guess the State and assume a real, live, witness, such as Dominic Casey, has come forward. We cannot put words in the State’s mouth by wishful thinking and gut feelings. This could be something big or it may be nothing at all that merits our total abandonment of all other evidence, a la the triumphant answer to all of our questions, the one that will cause Creme de la Poison to surge through Casey’s veins.

In the Government-In-The-Sunshine manual, Chapter D references exempt, confidential and limited access public documents and meetings and these statutes are quite focused.

D. Exempt, confidential and limited access public documents and meeting—exemption summaries. It is recommended that these summaries be used as a reference only—interested parties should refer to the full test in the Florida Statutes before drawing legal conclusions.

What I will do is proffer a few of the Florida Statutes that cover exempt, confidential and limited access public documents and meetings as they mayapply in this motion.

Section 39.201(2)(h), F.S. — A telephone number, fax number, or Internet protocol address from which the report was received by the hotline which is included in the abuse report pursuant to this subsection shall enjoy the same confidentiality provided to the identity of the reporter pursuant to s. 39.202.

This could be anyone, if the motion is trying to keep someone’s identity under wraps. At no time does the motion imply that, nor does it seek to hide anyone.

Section 39.202(2)(o), F.S. — Access to records concerning reports of child abuse or neglect shall be granted to any person in the event of the death of a child determined to be a result of abuse, abandonment, or neglect. Information identifying the person reporting abuse, abandonment, or neglect shall not be released, nor shall any information otherwise made confidential or exempt by law.

Suppose someone has now come forward stating that they once saw Casey smack Caylee very hard. It could have been in a mall restroom. It’s interesting information that would certainly help the state, but it’s hardly incriminating enough to stick a needle in Casey’s arm.

Section 112.08(7), F.S. — Medical records and medical claims records in the custody of county or municipal government relating to county or municipal employees, former county or municipal employees, or eligible dependents of such employees enrolled in a county or municipal group insurance plan or self-insurance plan are confidential and are exempt from s. 119.07(1). Such records shall not be furnished to any person other than the employee or the employee’s legal representative, except as provided in the subsection.

Section 112.08(8), F.S. — Patient medical records and medical claims records of water management district employees, former employees, and eligible dependents in the custody or control of a water management district under its group insurance plan established pursuant to s. 373.605 are confidential and exempt. Such records shall not be furnished to any person other than the employee or the employee’s legal representative except as provided in the subsection.

The above statutes could apply to a certain meter reader who was once an employee of the municipal government, particularly in water management. The defense is rigorously going after this former meter reader by the name of Roy Kronk. Is this a counter-measure by the state? I’m not saying it is. Hint. Hint. Wink. Wink.

Section 112.3188(2), F.S. — Except as specifically authorized by s. 112.3189, or this subsection, all information received by the Chief Inspector General or an agency inspector general or information produced or derived from fact-finding or other investigations conducted by the Department of Law Enforcement or the Florida Commission on Human Relations, is confidential and exempt from disclosure if the information is being received or derived from allegations as set forth in subsection (1) and an investigation is active. All information received by a local chief executive officer or appropriate local official or information produced or derived from fact-finding or investigations conducted by a local government pursuant to s. 112.3187(8)(b), is confidential and exempt if the information is received or derived from allegations as set forth in s. 112.3188(1)(a) or (b) and the investigation is active.

There has been an awful lot of discussion about Dominic Casey, specifically that he has turned against the Anthonys and is ready to testify for the State as an informant now immune to prosecution. Hip hip, hurray! At no time or location did I read that in the motion filed Wednesday. As a matter of fact, it is not written that this is a human being at all, nor have I ever heard of a person being referred to as materials and information. I also question why Dominic Casey wouldn’t just drive himself to the State Attorney’s Office instead of going through law enforcement if this is the case. It doesn’t seem logical to me. I’m inclined to lean toward law enforcement turning something over to the prosecution that could benefit their case against Casey right now, at the moment; but it’s also part of an open investigation and should remain confidential. It could merely be another piece of the puzzle. Does it have to do with latent prints, something else, someone else, or nothing earth shattering at all? All we can do is guess.

What we need to keep in mind is that courts must balance the public interest in protecting the flow of information against a defendant’s right to prepare a defense when ruling on whether disclosure is justified, and that the final decision rests in the hands of a very able judge, the Honorable Stan Strickland. Before we jump the gun on anything, let’s remember that death by firing squad is not an option in the state of Florida, and as much as we want justice for Caylee, the state wants it, too, and prosecutors are doing a great job of not shooting off their mouths.