2009.5.04 Change of Venue and tainting the Jury Pool

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Chezhire said:
It's true that a COV is sometimes warranted to protect an accused's rights to a fair trial, but I have a difficult time reconciling Caseys defense attorneys' claims with the fact that (1) they opposed the SA's gag order (do I say that often enough?!?! :gavel:) and (2) they continue to appear and speak on radio and television shows.

I think that Judge Strickland, after weighing things out, will rule against this motion.
Click to expand...

So...now that I've read this motion my opinions remain the same.

JBaez fails to explain away the fact that he, with his client standing next to him on occasion, continued to be interviewed by the very news/radio stations that he's listed in this motion.

The only way this motion would have any chance of being granted is if JBaez admits that (1) he shouldn't have opposed the gag order and that (2) he shouldn't have been going on television and radio shows, and (3) JBaez asks that he be allowed to withdraw from the case.

Point being that if an attorney screws things up media-wise such that a COV has to be filed to protect the defendant's rights to a fair trial by impartial jurors, said attorney shouldn't be allowed to continue on the case. Maybe Judge Strickland will file another complaint...
 
As far as those polls on the newspapers websites...I've voted in those polls and I DON'T live in Florida...
 
Chezhire said:
So...now that I've read this motion my opinions remain the same.

JBaez fails to explain away the fact that he, with his client standing next to him on occasion, continued to be interviewed by the very news/radio stations that he's listed in this motion.

The only way this motion would have any chance of being granted is if JBaez admits that (1) he shouldn't have opposed the gag order and that (2) he shouldn't have been going on television and radio shows, and (3) JBaez asks that he be allowed to withdraw from the case.
Click to expand...

in the motion he mentiions that kc is held due to a report of misisng child on JUNE 9th.....so he is going back on old info...should this have been corrected??
 
zoey said:
in the motion he mentiions that kc is held due to a report of misisng child on JUNE 9th.....so he is going back on old info...should this have been corrected??
Click to expand...

I think they both have told so many "mis-truths" and "half-truths" they can't keep them straight and they probably can't remember what they lied about and to whom they lied.
 
zoey said:
in the motion he mentiions that kc is held due to a report of misisng child on JUNE 9th.....so he is going back on old info...should this have been corrected??
Click to expand...

If you're referring to the last sentence on page one of the motion, that reads "...The charges stemmed from the Defendant's report to local police that her two-year-old daughter had been missing since June 9, 2008 and the alleged subsequent false...," see here: http://www.wftv.com/pdf/19374401/detail.html, I'd say it isn't incorrect. The writer is only reiterating what the initial charges were based upon, and is not saying therein that said information is actually correct.
 
Chezhire said:
If you're referring to the last sentence on page one of the motion, that reads "...The charges stemmed from the Defendant's report to local police that her two-year-old daughter had been missing since June 9, 2008 and the alleged subsequent false...," see here: http://www.wftv.com/pdf/19374401/detail.html, I'd say it isn't incorrect. The writer is only reiterating what the initial charges were based upon, and is not saying therein that said information is actually correct.
Click to expand...


I was and thank you....just struck me as odd since that date dies down then pops back up and around and around we go.....thanks...
 
zoey said:
I was and thank you....just struck me as odd since that date dies down then pops back up and around and around we go.....thanks...
Click to expand...
I understood what you meant, and also why you thought what you thought. "Legalese" is a different language at times. LOL
 
Chezhire said:
Exhibit C interests me...it's supposedly listing comments from "blogs"...anyone wonder if it's a WS page??? I sure do.

SNIPPED: "...Specifically, blog sites in which users express their opinions on the facts of the case are readily accessible to all local internet users. A sampling of some blogs are attached hereto. See Exhibit C...."

http://www.wftv.com/pdf/19374401/detail.html See page 5 of 14.

Interestingly, JBaez FAILS to explain why these internet blogs won't be assessible to internet users in other counties.
He can't explain that though, can he. :doh:
Click to expand...

Well, that sucks! Clerk of Court charges a DOLLAR A PAGE for copies. Wish I would have known WFTV was going to put this up, would've saved me $20....

after I got it I ran into Kathi and gave her kudos for asking Baez the hard questions. :)

There were about 50 pages of online media articles and blog posts, but all the blog posts were from Topix, did not see any from WS. There was a Media Exposure Report (Exhibit D) as well as affidavits from the people that put put it together. I will scan it and put it up a little bit later. In the Private area...
 
Chezhire said:
So...now that I've read this motion my opinions remain the same.

JBaez fails to explain away the fact that he, with his client standing next to him on occasion, continued to be interviewed by the very news/radio stations that he's listed in this motion.

The only way this motion would have any chance of being granted is if JBaez admits that (1) he shouldn't have opposed the gag order and that (2) he shouldn't have been going on television and radio shows, and (3) JBaez asks that he be allowed to withdraw from the case.

Point being that if an attorney screws things up media-wise such that a COV has to be filed to protect the defendant's rights to a fair trial by impartial jurors, said attorney shouldn't be allowed to continue on the case. Maybe Judge Strickland will file another complaint...
Click to expand...

And if any of these three things happen, I will be checking my white birch trees to see if oranges are growing on them. Of course, I'll be carrying an umbrella cause pigs will be flying overhead. :)
 
Muzikman said:
Well, that sucks! Clerk of Court charges a DOLLAR A PAGE for copies. Wish I would have known WFTV was going to put this up, would've saved me $20....

after I got it I ran into Kathi and gave her kudos for asking Baez the hard questions. :)

There were about 50 pages of online media articles and blog posts, but all the blog posts were from Topix, did not see any from WS. There was a Media Exposure Report (Exhibit D) as well as affidavits from the people that put put it together. I will scan it and put it up a little bit later. In the Private area...
Click to expand...

Thanks for all your efforts in getting these, Musikman! :blowkiss:
 
6angels said:
I think the media her parents her attorney everyone has caused this to turn into a circus. JMO. I respect yours hopefully others can respect mine.
Click to expand...

I agree with you about her parents, her attorney and imo, everyone associated with team KC turning this into a circus. Would you please explain what you mean by "everyone else" and what contributions you believe were made to this circus by anyone outside of team KC? It's much easier to respect one's opinion when it's clear what that opinion entails and why. TIA :)

I didn't see/hear your spot on HLN and don't recall reading in the thread your basis for your opinion that there will not be a "fair trial" for KC. Would appreciate reading your explanation. I, too, do not think there will be a "fair trial" because most accused do not have the resources and talent she has at her disposal. I can't recall any case where a "dream team" was assembled that was funded solely through the criminal act of which the defendant was accused. That seems more than unfair, imo. It's blatantly wrong and sets a horrible precedent that I remain very concerned others may follow. That recent case in CA, baby Emma, may have been patterned after the money train in this one. I've read others feel the Haleigh tragedy was likewise planned. Your reasoning for an opposing opinion is of great interest to me. Again, TIA. :)
 
Chezhire said:
...because it's a great post in its entirety.

Thanks for the local insight, Lin.
Obviously, the majority of FL residents feel the way you feel, else the laws wouldn't be written in the manner that they are written.
Click to expand...

As a Chezire-fan, this is high praise indeed! Especially since I failed to mention the defense's staunch opposition to the state's motion for a gag order in my post. ;)

That remains the single biggest obstacle to obtaining a COV, imo.

PS: All fixed now; added gag order to the post. :)
 
If granted, I'd like to see KC's COV sent up to Jacksonville. I'd also like KC or JB to be made to spell out *why* they specify Miami as opposed to the other COV options in FL. I don't think it should matter where they want to get a COV, it should only matter if the judge will grant one. If they want to call their shot, then do tell us why before its approved.
 
lin said:
As a Chezire-fan, this is high praise indeed! Especially since I failed to mention the defense's staunch opposition to the state's motion for a gag order in my post. ;)

That remains the single biggest obstacle to obtaining a COV, imo.

PS: All fixed now; added gag order to the post. :)
Click to expand...
Aww, shucks. ;)

Seriously though, Casey does have a right to a fair trial by impartial jurors, so if her own defense attorney has compromised same, the motion could be granted BUT I'd expect action of some fashion (either voluntarily or involuntarily - I've been posting a bit on the Judge Strickland and FL bar threads....) re: JBaez removed from the case. I just don't see the COV motion being granted and JBaez remaining on the case, since he's been doing his own grandstanding...while the SA says nothing, files for a gag order, continues to say nothing, etc.
 
"Roman Holiday"? Hmmmmmm! Ain't that more classy than "CIRCUS"?
 
I have a question and I'm hoping I can properly word this...

Does the county (meaning the people of the county) have any rights about trying a case where it's occurred? What I'm getting at is that all of the people of Orange county are wronged by what happened to little Caylee. Do they have any rights to hear the case where it occurred and where the damage (psychological mostly) was done to the community itself?

I hope I worded that properly.
 
Paintr said:
And if any of these three things happen, I will be checking my white birch trees to see if oranges are growing on them. Of course, I'll be carrying an umbrella cause pigs will be flying overhead. :)
Click to expand...
LOL. You and me both.

If Judge Strickland hadn't already filed a complaint against JBaez I'd be on the fence re: how he will look at this recent COV filing, but ya know, it's pretty clear that JBaez is already riding this horse by the seat of his pants as far as Judge S is concerned and I doubt Judge S is going to give JBaez any more benefit of the doubt...but I could be wrong. I can almost see the written opposition memorandum that the SA will be filing...it's going to be interesting to see if SA attaches transcripts or actual video clips via a DVD to their opposition...I know I'd be attaching a DVD with the transcripts, 'cause seeing is always better...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 112 more.
Total: 2,576 (members: 113, guests: 2,463)

Online statistics

Members online
113
Guests online
2,463
Total visitors
2,576
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
601,306
Messages
18,122,425
Members
230,996
Latest member
unnamedTV
Back
Top