Desmirelle,
You wrote, "What you seem to be ignoring is the FACT that the defense had a recording of the ceremony that took place BEFORE the 'silly string' incident and chose NOT to show it to the jury. Why aren't her defenders tarring and feathering her defense team for that?"
“Because a judge ordered it suppressed, the jury never saw a police surveillance video of the grave site taken earlier that same day, where Darlie Routier was seen weeping and praying.”
Link1
“During Routier's trial, a detective testified that investigators hid microphones near the boys' graves in Rockwall before Devon's birthday in the hopes that someone might make a confession that would lead police to the killer. In 1997, after an FBI investigation, U.S. Attorney Paul E. Coggins announced that the Rowlett Police Department would not face federal charges for planting the hidden microphones. Attorneys and others questioned the legality of the move. The investigation determined that the decision was based on legal advice indicating the technique was lawful. In June 1998, Routier's mother and husband filed a lawsuit accusing the police detectives and a prosecutor of invading their privacy. The suit was later dismissed.”
Link2
The above material is what I have found out so far. I believe that the judge ordered it suppressed because there was no warrant (I seem to recall reading that but could easily be mistaken). Do you mean that there is a
separate recording made by someone else?
Now on to some other things. According to summaries of a later ruling on this case by the 5th circuit court of appeals, there is no expectation of privacy in a public graveyard; however, until this 2001 ruling, I don't know of a reason to consider the question settled. Moreover, "In determining whether Kee and Routier had an expectation of privacy while at the grave site, the Fifth Circuit examined such factors as how loudly they spoke, the proximity or potential of others to overhear them, the potential for their conversation to be reported, and anything Kee and Routier had done to keep their conversation private."
Link4 After reading this, I would say that whether or not there is an expectation of privacy in a publicly accessible cemetery depends on the circumstances.
With respect to the defense team, there appear to be several things that they did wrong. Offhand, I would say that if they have a second recording of the service (ceremony), then playing it would seem like a very good idea. Furthermore, some of the prosecution's character attacks (that she had breast implants, for example) should have been rebutted in some fashion. BTW I do not have a strongly pro- or anti-Darlie position; I have some very preliminary opinions only.
At least one investigator seems to have decided that there was probably no intruder long before the DNA evidence would have come in: “Cron testified that he walked through the home, conducting a visual inspection of the evidence. During testimony, Cron agreed that after 20 to 30 minutes of examining the scene he made the comment ‘that looks to me like there was no intruder here.’”
Link3
