Defense claims judge had inappropriate convo with blogger?

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
I remember I was curious about this when it happened..because I do read Marinade Dave's blog from time to time. At the time that JS made the comment Marinade Dave was going out of his way (IMO) to make sure that stories and comments on his blog were not of the bashing sort. He set the tone for the blog and seemed extremely neutral. When JS told him that he thought the blog was a good one (did he say "even" or something like that) I was a little surprised and wondered (to myself) ...could be construed as improper?

THEN I thought, JS seems so smart and reasonable, certainly he must know what he is doing. And I still think that--my thought was a fleeting thought, but I wonder what lawyers think of this. If JS called him up and only talked about marinade I would have felt more comfortable...but certainly JS knows what he is doing..and what is right and wrong. It will be so interesting to see how this pans out.

BTW, I think Marinade Dave's blog has gotten considerably anti KC (instead of more "even") as time has gone on.
 
nums24 said:
I think this is just a smokescreen by the defense. The defense has filed so many legally deficient motions and feel that their being treated unfairly (IMHO).

I think the real reason for this motion is so they can re-argue some of the motions that have been denied. I think that's their real angle. I also think that may be part of "budget" motion.

This is part of Florida rule of judicial administration 2.330, section H:

(h) Prior Rulings. Prior factual or legal rulings by
a disqualified judge may be reconsidered and vacated
or amended by a successor judge based upon a motion
for reconsideration, which must be filed within 20
days of the order of disqualification, unless good cause
is shown for a delay in moving for reconsideration or
other grounds for reconsideration exist.
Click to expand...

Well, that explains it, they want do overs!!!! :croc:
 
Was JB somehow missing from the fraud hearing where JS gave KC such a light sentence, showed his compassion (even though many of us thought the sentence was not tough enough)? I would hope JS would demand an investigator do a through investigation of the allegations against him to clear his name. If JS feels what he did was wrong he should step down. If JS is, as we suspect, an honorable judge he will not put up with this nonsense. Love to see JS make a statement to JB in court. I, too, feel if JB has his way with this motion KC will regret ever hiring her attorney because the next judge will not be putting up with what has been allowed up to this point.

My greatest fantasy is the judge saying: "Bailiff, everyone chewing gum must be removed from this courtroom. This is a courtroom and I would expect everyone here to respect and abide by our rules." JMO
 
LambChop said:
Was JB somehow missing from the fraud hearing where JS gave KC such a light sentence, showed his compassion (even though many of us thought the sentence was not tough enough)? I would hope JS would demand an investigator do a through investigation of the allegations against him to clear his name. If JS feels what he did was wrong he should step down. If JS is, as we suspect, an honorable judge he will not put up with this nonsense. Love to see JS make a statement to JB in court. I, too, feel if JB has his way with this motion KC will regret ever hiring her attorney because the next judge will not be putting up with what has been allowed up to this point.

My greatest fantasy is the judge saying: "Bailiff, everyone chewing gum must be removed from this courtroom. This is a courtroom and I would expect everyone here to respect and abide by our rules." JMO
Click to expand...

LambChop, it appears that, in Florida, the judge is not allowed to question or deny the facts alleged in the first motion to disqualify filed by a party:

Fla. Rule of Jud. Admin. 2.330(f)

The judge
against whom an initial motion to disqualify under
subdivision (d)(1) is directed shall determine only the
legal sufficiency of the motion and shall not pass on
the truth of the facts alleged. If the motion is legally
sufficient, the judge shall immediately enter an order
granting disqualification and proceed no further in the
action. If any motion is legally insufficient, an order
denying the motion shall immediately be entered. No
other reason for denial shall be stated, and an order of
denial shall not take issue with the motion.

:banghead:
 
magic-cat said:
He absolutely HAS been super fair, but that isn't the point. This motion is about the appearance of the thing, or what it could be interpreted as...not about what it is...and unfortunately, the terms of the motion do not even allow the judge to address the accusations re: truth/untruth...he must simply either remove himeself (and this is a win for the defense because it APPEARS as if the judge removed himself for impropriety) or he does not remove himself (and this is also a win for the defense because then they can levy up "charges" of bias against him all throughout the trial and then have grounds for appeal.)

Although the judge did absolutely nothing wrong...it could be interpreted differently by KC...and apparently according to the statutes, that is the only person who matters in this instance. If SHE perceives that his relationship with the media could inhibit a fair trial? It seems that is enough...sadly.
Click to expand...

I disagree. If her perception is all that mattered, judge shopping would be rampant. The defense must offer proof of actual bias or proof that the party involved is directly connected with the case.

Members of the media are not directly connected parties in cases they cover.
 
Or they could get a judge who asks KC, "What are you smiling for and laughing so much, You're on trial for murdering your daughter?"
Maybe he'll kick the A's out for texting and chewing:)

No a new judge doesn't seem like a benefit.
 
Dunno, Do you think it is possiable that if they claim the judge in the case is bias and rules unjustly, unfairly against the motions the defense puts forth that if they lose it will save what they hope to have left of thier careers?

It wasn't my fault, the judge simply didn't like us? Sort of thing? Besides hey they want appeal material. I don't think they want him to leave, they are just using him. They blame everyone and everything but the client (of course) for their own short comings. Public opinion? Jury might feel sorry, the poor girl didn't really do it and figure hey the judge just didn't like her?

Oh yeah and an added bonus, the judge might lean more tword giving them what they want to avoid the appearance of being "unfair" due to these series of unfortunate events. (Like being asked to leave an all.)
 
Astraea said:
I did watch the proceeding (three times now), and JS asked the bailiff to call MD up before the proceeding was even finished. It is on the tape and was heard over the microphone. As a matter of fact he seemed to find it more important to speak to MD then to finish up what he was doing at that time. IMO

I dont disagree about the internet. I was simply stating that I think the judge should know better then to allow the appearance of impropriety. The motion was well written and based in fact and precedent in my opinion.

I have nothing against JS, I just feel it was a little over the line, especially given the media interest in this case(which apparently he is well read up on).
Click to expand...


What line do you think was crossed? What impropriety do you think the judge is allowing?
 
I thought you guys might want to read the whole rule for yourselves:

RULE 2.330. DISQUALIFICATION OF TRIAL JUDGES

(a) Application. This rule applies only to county and circuit judges in all matters in all divisions of court.

(b) Parties. Any party, including the state, may move to disqualify the trial judge assigned to the case on grounds provided by rule, by statute, or by the Code
of Judicial Conduct.

(c) Motion. A motion to disqualify shall:
(1) be in writing;
(2) allege specifically the facts and reasons upon which the movant relies as the grounds for disqualification;
(3) be sworn to by the party by signing the motion under oath or by a separate affidavit; and
(4) include the dates of all previously granted motions to disqualify filed under this rule in the case and the dates of the orders granting those motions.
The attorney for the party shall also separately certify that the motion and the client’s statements are made in good faith. In addition to filing with the clerk, the movant shall immediately serve a copy of the motion on the subject judge as set forth in Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.080.

(d) Grounds. A motion to disqualify shall show:
(1) that the party fears that he or she will not receive a fair trial or hearing because of specifically described prejudice or bias of the judge; or
(2) that the judge before whom the case is pending, or some person related to said judge by consanguinity or affinity within the third degree, is a party thereto or is interested in the result thereof, or that said judge is related to an attorney or counselor of record in the cause by consanguinity or affinity within the third degree, or that said judge is a material witness for or against one of the parties to the cause.

(e) Time. A motion to disqualify shall be filed within a reasonable time not to exceed 10 days after discovery of the facts constituting the grounds for the motion and shall be promptly presented to the court for an immediate ruling. Any motion for disqualification
made during a hearing or trial must be based on facts discovered during the hearing or trial and may be stated on the record, provided that it is also promptly reduced to writing in compliance with subdivision (c) and promptly filed. A motion made during hearing or trial shall be ruled on immediately.

(f) Determination — Initial Motion. The judge against whom an initial motion to disqualify under subdivision (d)(1) is directed shall determine only the legal sufficiency of the motion and shall not pass on the truth of the facts alleged. If the motion is legally
sufficient, the judge shall immediately enter an order granting disqualification and proceed no further in the action. If any motion is legally insufficient, an order
denying the motion shall immediately be entered. No other reason for denial shall be stated, and an order of denial shall not take issue with the motion.

(g) Determination — Successive Motions. If a judge has been previously disqualified on motion for alleged prejudice or partiality under subdivision (d)(1), a successor judge shall not be disqualified based on a successive motion by the same party unless the successor
judge rules that he or she is in fact not fair or impartial in the case. Such a successor judge may rule on the truth of the facts alleged in support of the motion.

(h) Prior Rulings. Prior factual or legal rulings by a disqualified judge may be reconsidered and vacated or amended by a successor judge based upon a motion for reconsideration, which must be filed within 20 days of the order of disqualification, unless good cause
is shown for a delay in moving for reconsideration or other grounds for reconsideration exist.

(i) Judge’s Initiative. Nothing in this rule limits the judge’s authority to enter an order of disqualification on the judge’s own initiative.

(j) Time for Determination. The judge shall rule on a motion to disqualify immediately, but no later than 30 days after the service of the motion as set forth in subdivision (c). If not ruled on within 30 days of service, the motion shall be deemed granted and the
moving party may seek an order from the court directing the clerk to reassign the case.
 
This was posted on the Shaeffer blog by goof:
http://marinadedave.wordpress.com/2009/11/30/say-hello-to-laura-and-joe/

A comment made by Dave:
Marinade Dave // March 18, 2010 at 3:00 pm
I’m back. I had lunch. We all went out. Jose and gang, Linda Drane Burdick and company. I told them we wouldn’t all fit in Waffle House, but dang! We did. Cheney Mason even picked up the tab – plus, he left a big tip! Judge Strickland was telling funny jokes the whole time. I coughed in my coffee, it was so funny. The only sad part for me was that they all ate dessert, but I couldn’t.

Supposedly this lunch took place after court March 18th... has anyone seen this or heard anything about it?

Wonder why the dream team didn't mention this in their motion ?? To me, this is way more damning than an innocuous "Hello" in court !! Me thinks the A Team should have checked out this loon more thoroughly ...
What next? Joy Wray is having an pen pal affair with Judge Strickland? LMAO !!
Maybe Marinade also knows George Bush and works for the CIA ??? It DOES take an awful lot of videos, but from his car though ... at least I don't think he's taken any hanging out of trees, but who knows ...
Man, just when I think this case can't get any crazier, BAM it does ...
 
Angel4u2Whisper2 said:
Dunno, Do you think it is possiable that if they claim the judge in the case is bias and rules unjustly, unfairly against the motions the defense puts forth that if they lose it will save what they hope to have left of thier careers?

It wasn't my fault, the judge simply didn't like us? Sort of thing? Besides hey they want appeal material. I don't think they want him to leave, they are just using him. They blame everyone and everything but the client (of course) for their own short comings. Public opinion? Jury might feel sorry, the poor girl didn't really do it and figure hey the judge just didn't like her?

Oh yeah and an added bonus, the judge might lean more tword giving them what they want to avoid the appearance of being "unfair" due to these series of unfortunate events. (Like being asked to leave an all.)
Click to expand...

There is no evidence to suggest JS is a biased judge. Therefore he's not going to change his ruling style in relation to this filing. People can complain all they want, but for the bark to have bite, they have to offer proof. Fair rulings that are consistent are not proof of anything except a consistently fair judge.
 
denjet said:
This was posted on the Shaeffer blog by goof:
http://marinadedave.wordpress.com/2009/11/30/say-hello-to-laura-and-joe/

A comment made by Dave:
Marinade Dave // March 18, 2010 at 3:00 pm
I’m back. I had lunch. We all went out. Jose and gang, Linda Drane Burdick and company. I told them we wouldn’t all fit in Waffle House, but dang! We did. Cheney Mason even picked up the tab – plus, he left a big tip! Judge Strickland was telling funny jokes the whole time. I coughed in my coffee, it was so funny. The only sad part for me was that they all ate dessert, but I couldn’t.

Supposedly this lunch took place after court March 18th... has anyone seen this or heard anything about it?

Wonder why the dream team didn't mention this in their motion ?? To me, this is way more damning than an innocuous "Hello" in court !! Me thinks the A Team should have checked out this loon more thoroughly ...
What next? Joy Wray is having an pen pal affair with Judge Strickland? LMAO !!
Maybe Marinade also knows George Bush and works for the CIA ??? It DOES take an awful lot of videos, but from his car though ... at least I don't think he's taken any hanging out of trees, but who knows ...
Man, just when I think this case can't get any crazier, BAM it does ...
Click to expand...

Dave wrote about the lunch in satire, not as truth.

He was being accused of siding with the Defense at that time, so he wrote that as a complete joke, nothing more.
 
Dignity4Victims said:
Dave wrote about the lunch in satire, not as truth.

He was being accused of siding with the Defense at that time, so he wrote that as a complete joke, nothing more.
Click to expand...

thanks for letting me know, it wasn't evident to those who don't post over there, and the person who posted next took it seriously ... in light of the recent motion, it's NOT funny and he should remove it ...
 
denjet said:
thanks for letting me know, it wasn't evident to those who don't post over there, and the person who posted next took it seriously ... in light of the recent motion, it's NOT funny and he should remove it ...
Click to expand...

That's why it pays to read all of it, instead of just part of it, even if people are necessarily "posters" over there.

The same thing applies to his blog entry, "Casey must die!" The article, taken at face value if one only read the title, would seem to appear completely different in content than what was actually stated within the article should someone take the time to read it. But not everyone did read the article; they only grab headlines and run with what they thing they "know".

That's exactly how rumors begin, when people go on knee-jerk reaction, half-informed, (or less), and then begin spreading misinformation.
 
I haven't seen this mentioned yet sooo.......with the date completely wrong on the stamp (notary) and with it clearly not being Casey's signature how is this motion even legit? Could this be a motion that the defense knew would not be allowed as it is completely wrong and they filed it only to get it out there in the media as they did with Kronk's ex wives statements? I truly do not see how this motion will even be heard in court. The SA will bring up the things wrong with the motion (expired stamp date, not Casey's signature) and the motion will be denied. I honestly don't see what all of the fuss is about and it seems to me that it is simply once again the defense trying to try the case in the public court instead of the actual court.

Can AZLawyer or someone else talk about those two aspects of the motion and if the motion is even worth the paper it is printed on? Please and thank you!
 
denjet said:
This was posted on the Shaeffer blog by goof:
http://marinadedave.wordpress.com/2009/11/30/say-hello-to-laura-and-joe/

A comment made by Dave:
Marinade Dave // March 18, 2010 at 3:00 pm
What next? Joy Wray is having an pen pal affair with Judge Strickland? LMAO !!
Maybe Marinade also knows George Bush and works for the CIA ??? It DOES take an awful lot of videos, but from his car though ... at least I don't think he's taken any hanging out of trees, but who knows ...
Man, just when I think this case can't get any crazier, BAM it does ...
Click to expand...

RSBM. As a matter of faaact, MD is friendly with JW. Yikes! My question is, if JS gets replaced, will the State also get a chance to redo any motions they lost? Such as the video of KC the day Caylee was found??:waitasec:
 
absolut_alexis said:
There is no evidence to suggest JS is a biased judge. Therefore he's not going to change his ruling style in relation to this filing. People can complain all they want, but for the bark to have bite, they have to offer proof. Fair rulings that are consistent are not proof of anything except a consistently fair judge.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a personal vendetta to me.
If there was anything improper in the conversation I really doubt JS would have done it in open Court..
 
strawberry said:
RSBM. As a matter of faaact, MD is friendly with JW. Yikes! My question is, if JS gets replaced, will the State also get a chance to redo any motions they lost? Such as the video of KC the day Caylee was found??:waitasec:
Click to expand...

I had posted a similar question about the Judge's prior decisions .. Oct '09 is when the alleged inappropriate conversation with MD occurred so I wouldn't think it would not affect any motions he ruled on prior to that ...

I was hoping AZlawyer could answer that ... it's premature at this point I suppose to be discussing the ramifications of the judge stepping down, but I was wondering too ...
 
strawberry said:
RSBM. As a matter of faaact, MD is friendly with JW. Yikes! My question is, if JS gets replaced, will the State also get a chance to redo any motions they lost? Such as the video of KC the day Caylee was found??:waitasec:
Click to expand...

Wow....maybe the good citizens of Orlando should start demanding to see that video now.
 
denjet said:
I had posted a similar question about the Judge's prior decisions .. Oct '09 is when the alleged inappropriate conversation with MD occurred so I wouldn't think it would not affect any motions he ruled on prior to that ...

I was hoping AZlawyer could answer that ... it's premature at this point I suppose to be discussing the ramifications of the judge stepping down, but I was wondering too ...
Click to expand...

AZlawyer's post 352, above, had this in it:

"(h) Prior Rulings. Prior factual or legal rulings by a disqualified judge may be reconsidered and vacated or amended by a successor judge based upon a motion for reconsideration, which must be filed within 20 days of the order of disqualification, unless good cause is shown for a delay in moving for reconsideration or other grounds for reconsideration exist."

I'm very poor on deciphering legal jargon but it sounds like all prior rulings could be reconsidered. Or am I reading too much into that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 196 more.
Total: 477 (members: 197, guests: 280)

Online statistics

Members online
197
Guests online
280
Total visitors
477
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
609,292
Messages
18,252,144
Members
234,596
Latest member
gentlep23
Back
Top