Police blotter: Flap over nude photos of Cameron Diaz

(continued from previous page)

Furthermore, Rutter argued, allowing this new evidence meant he would have to retain a computer expert to again review the contents of the laptop and assess the validity of the prosecution's expert's opinion based on those contents. Rutter specifically rejected a continuance in order to have time to prepare a response to the prosecution's new evidence. A continuance would "severely prejudice" him, Rutter contended, because it would deny him his right to a speedy trial. He noted both sides had answered ready for trial and the jury had already been selected.

In response, the prosecutor argued the evidence at issue was not new. Rutter's defense team had been given unfettered access to the computers for two years before trial. It was not the prosecution's fault if Rutter's computer expert did not see or appreciate the significance of the contents of the laptop or did not draw the same conclusions from the evidence the prosecution's expert drew. Furthermore, the prosecution had advised Rutter's defense counsel three months before trial it reserved the right "to use any file items contained on the various drives and other media seized during execution of the search warrant in this case." Finally, the prosecutor told the court he had only recently been assigned to the case and had asked the computer expert to prepare the report in question so he would have a summary of the computer-related evidence for trial. He confirmed he gave a copy of the report to Rutter the day after he received it.

The trial court denied the motion to exclude the expert's testimony. The court ruled "we are not dealing here with new evidence, forensic or otherwise" and pointed out the defense had access to the hard drives and the ability to perform whatever forensic examinations it wished. For these reasons, the court concluded, "this isn't any surprise; isn't any ambush; isn't any violation of discovery."

On appeal Rutter argues the trial court erred in not excluding the prosecution expert's opinion, drawn from his examination of the laptop, because the prosecution did not turn over the expert's report of his examination until a few days before trial. This argument has no merit.

Rutter cites the first sentence of Penal Code section 1054.7 which states: "The disclosures required under this chapter shall be made at least 30 days prior to the trial, unless good cause is shown why a disclosure should be denied, restricted or deferred." But Rutter ignores the next sentence of section 1054.7 which states: "If the material and information becomes known to or comes into the possession of, a party within 30 days of trial, disclosure shall be made immediately..."

In this case it is undisputed the prosecution immediately turned over its expert's report to Rutter. Thus the prosecution satisfied section 1054.7 as to the computer expert's report. Nothing in the record suggests the prosecution learned of its expert's opinion based on the laptop evidence prior to receiving his written report. Thus, Rutter failed to establish a violation of section 1054.7 as to any statement by the expert prior to delivery of his report.

[paulreid99]

So he DOESN'T deny that it was a forgery...

...only whether or not it could be tied to him? But the entire contract was between him and Cameron Diaz, wasn't it? Wouldn't he have KNOWN that it was a forgery even IF someone else put it there? Wouldn't that still make him guilty, because he was trying to blackmail^V^V^V^V^V^V^V^V negotiate with her by the use of a known forgery?

I'm really not following how he's proving he's innocent here.

[SatQ]

Stupid defense

The only thing he's proving is how much of an idiot he is. His lawyers aren't too bright either to even try such a defense.

[gernblan]

I'd flap over this too!

After all, she's not that hot.

[disco-legend-zeke]

Wouldn't there be a piece of *GASP* paper?

It is still general practice to have models exicute an ink on paper contract.

Why would the court even need to look at computer files here?

What am i missing?

[NWLB]

Plus there are dozens of photos of her on the net aside from these.

So she dislikes having somebody make money of the pictures, not the fact there are pictures. This from a woman that covorts on public beaches (topless) with men. Annoying that this is even considered news.