2009.04.10 Defense Motion for Additional Phone Records

[ThinkTank]

Notes on Aug 21, 2009 Hearing:

Judge had defense redo the subpoenas
Mr. Jay filed motion to stop subpoena
Judge says they narrowed the scope of subpoena already
Baez – motion was heard, Lazarro had notice to address on State’s witness list, findings were made, Baez made amended motion – narrowed it some

Attorney Jay: Did not know about their amended motion – somebody told him
amended request is narrowed to June 2008 – Jan 2009

Sept 13th – Jan 2009 – still has privacy rights – not meet balancing test Court must go into – still very broad request – not just phone calls, text msgs .....
Why tracking his location after July 15th are important, or his internet usage
They can’t narrow it because they don’t have any facts to show materiality – just throwing everything against the wall

Baez: this issue heard ad nauseum
timeframes that defense look at based on things turned over in discovery – State submitted tape recorded meeting of Tony being C.I. with Lee – he voluntarily did that – numerous incidence post July 15th where Tony met with LE and took them to areas associated with KC – Tony’s involvement did not end on July 15th

Judge – Sept 13 – Jan ? severed relationship, why relevant

Baez – remains not found until December – cell phone pings – was Tony at location post Dec 13th date? Tony is a material witness – will offer testimony against KC

Attorney Jay: they don’t have to establish why they are looking for it – but have to establish what is making it material after Sept. 15th – no nexus
constitutional right to privacy – no matter of FL sunshine laws

Judge S: timeframes – Caylee discovered Dec. 11th – agreement June 1st – July 15th grant that for phone calls only – internet not sure – come back later and ask for more
submit them to Court and Judge will review them

7/23 – 9/12 – disagree with Mr. Jay – he cooperate with LE – he waived any privilege – it is material – working with LE – hard to show exculpatory yet

one week gap between 7/15 and 7/23 – no need to exclude that time period – it is included – all relevant
after Sept 13th – best argument – defense says somebody else involved and carried child there – consider that – allow phone records from Sept 12th – Dec 11th and week beyond to Dec 18

Judge: June 1st – Dec 18th 2008 – Tony records submit to Court – served on AT&T – order to be done within 30 days

 

[nums24]

Does anyone know where to find a copy of the defense's ORIGINAL subpoena duces tecum? I recall the hearing that Mr. Jay references and the dates being narrowed to a specific time frame. What I find totally ODD, is that Mr. Jay states in paragraph 1, that the subpoena was for TL's phone records from Jan. 1 2009 - the present. That is requesting records that are AFTER Caylee's remains were discovered.

Maybe this is a new subpoena duces tecum the defense tried to slip past Mr. Jay? :waitasec:

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/5404484...-team-wants-cell-records-motion-13-April-2009

 

[ThinkTank]

Some of these could be subpoena for the TES records.... not sure which ones are subpoena for Tony L phone records, unless it has his name beside the entry?

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4889857"]LE Links AND Orange County Jail Info AND Updated Charges Info - NO DISCUSSION! - Page 3 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

06/12/2009---Order---ORDER FOR SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM

06/12/2009---Motion---MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM

06/12/2009---Notice of Appearance---NOTICE OF APPEARANCE FILED WILLIAM R. JAY (ANTHONY LAZZARO)

06/19/2009---Motion---MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM (COPY RCVD F/JUDGE)

06/19/2009---Correspondence---CORRESPONDENCE FILED BETWEEN JA & LEGAL ASSISTANT RE: ORDER TO STAY ORDER FOR SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM

06/19/2009---Order---ORDER TO STAY ON ORDER FOR SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM FOR ANTHONY LAZZARO THE COURT ORDERS THE FOLLOWING: THE COURT SHALL STAY IT'S ORDER FOR SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM FOR ANTHONY LAZZARO UNTIL AFTER A HEARING CAN BE HEARD & AN ORDER ENTERED ON MR. LAZZARO'S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM.

08/18/2009---Motion---AMENDED MOTION FOR APPLICATION FOR SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM

08/20/2009---Motion---AMENDED MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM

08/21/2009---In Open Court---IN OPEN COURT HEARING

08/21/2009---Order---ORDER DEFENDANTS MOTION TO CERTIFY TIM MILLER AS A MATERIAL WITNESS COURT RESERVED RULING, MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND TO BAR PRIVLEDGED TESTIMONY, COURT RESERVED RULING, MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM (ANTHONY LAZARRO) COURT GRANTS RECORDS FROM PHONE CALSS FROM 6/1/08 - 12/18/08 TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE COURT WITHIN 30DAYS FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW.

08/21/2009---Hearing-(9:30 AM)---M/QUASH SUBPOENA D/T AS TO ATTY ANTHONY LAZZARO

 

[beach]

Okay, I admit I am thoroughly confused.

Great notes, ThinkTank! I hear Baez is needing a good legal assistant. lol

nums, thanks! That is the motion for application for subpoena duces tecum, instead of the actual subpoenas that Baez should have issued AFTER JS ruled on his motion. The actual subpoenas would have the dates. I'm not sure we've ever seen those.

I can see why Mr. Jay wasn't aware of the defense's amended motion because he wasn't listed on the notice of service. :banghead:

I'm really very confused. lol I'm probably making this much more complex than it is. I just can't recall this stuff and I don't understand the need for the motion to quash since he has already turned over what was ordered.

 

[nums24]

Okay, I admit I am thoroughly confused.

Great notes, ThinkTank! I hear Baez is needing a good legal assistant. lol

nums, thanks! That is the motion for application for subpoena duces tecum, instead of the actual subpoenas that Baez should have issued AFTER JS ruled on his motion. The actual subpoenas would have the dates. I'm not sure we've ever seen those.

I can see why Mr. Jay wasn't aware of the defense's amended motion because he wasn't listed on the notice of service. :banghead:

I'm really very confused. lol I'm probably making this much more complex than it is. I just can't recall this stuff and I don't understand the need for the motion to quash since he has already turned over what was ordered.

Maybe this will help:

An earlier ruling in the case held that this time frame was "not permitted to be the subject of a subpoena," according to the motion. The timeframe permitted by the court ran from June 1, 2008 through Dec. 18, 2008, the filing states.

"Therefore, Anthony Lazzaro is requesting the court to enter an order quashing this subpoena," the motion states.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...ony-boyfriend-motion-20100826,0,3498582.story

 

[AZlawyer]

Okay, so by Sept. 21, 2009 we can assume that TL had complied with Judge Strickland's order and turned over the records from 6/01/08 - 12/18/08.

I don't understand the need for the motion to quash. Judge Strickland had already ruled on the original one.

Maybe the defense tried to slip another one past Mr. Jay and he's filing to have it quashed and make sure HHJP is aware of the original order issued by Strickland. :waitasec:

That's what I'm thinking--that this is a new subpoena, seeking the phone records that HHJS already said they couldn't have.

Surely if Tony L was the mastermind behind the international plot to kidnap and kill Caylee for nefarious but non-obvious reasons, he would have been in communication with his henchmen (hench-nannies?) before December 18, 2008. What are they looking for in the new records?

 

[Woe.be.gone]

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/5404484...-team-wants-cell-records-motion-13-April-2009

Where does it specify the dates of the records that are being requested?

 

[whiteangora]

That's what I'm thinking--that this is a new subpoena, seeking the phone records that HHJS already said they couldn't have.

Surely if Tony L was the mastermind behind the international plot to kidnap and kill Caylee for nefarious but non-obvious reasons, he would have been in communication with his henchmen (hench-nannies?) before December 18, 2008. What are they looking for in the new records?

I have no idea what they might be looking for, but, it's
looking like they didn't find what they were after with the
TES records if they're bugging TL again.

 

[nums24]

Where does it specify the dates of the records that are being requested?

It says any and all, Judge Strickland addressed the specific dates in his order. I can't get it for you now, I have to go to my daughter's 21st birthday dinner.

 

[beach]

That's what I'm thinking--that this is a new subpoena, seeking the phone records that HHJS already said they couldn't have.

Surely if Tony L was the mastermind behind the international plot to kidnap and kill Caylee for nefarious but non-obvious reasons, he would have been in communication with his henchmen (hench-nannies?) before December 18, 2008. What are they looking for in the new records?

Thanks! I kept staring at the notes and docs thinking I was missing something obvious. lol


Have you ever?! lol Everything they file lately reeks of pure desperation looking for that some other dude. I really question this approach. I wouldn't want anyone to know I was THAT desperate.

 

[Intermezzo]

MM got this for us today!

08/26/2010 Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum - Lazzaro

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/51751151/08262010-Motion-to-Quash-Subpoena-Duces-Tecum---Lazzaro

It appears that the defense has trouble reading and/or following court orders. heh

MM

Welcome aboard the Casey Anthony Bus as it tours Orlando.
The bus is fueled, the driver's in place and the bus has hit the road again...next stop on the tour is a revisit to A.Lazzaro.
All aboard!!!

 

[Mrs G Norris]

Nice try I suppose, but what earthly reason could they have for requesting all of Tony's phone records from 'January 2009 to Present'? Unbelievable.

 

[strawberry]

Poor TL. He probably was finally breathing a little easier. This is ridiculous! The poor guy just wanted some nookie! Can you imagine your phone records being subpoenaed like this? What an invasion of someone's privacy!

 

[ks1]

At least JB is finally doing something or at least trying to make it look like he is doing something to come up with a defense for KC. Really, this is the first activity I've seen that actually makes a teensy weensy bit of sense for a defense attorney.

 

[faefrost]

I'm not sure if I would count issuing a subpoena demanding information that the judge had already specifically ruled you were not entitled to as "doing something". Actually I think it falls as sort of the exact polar opposite of that.

 

[Macushla]

to paraphrase Judge Perry's own words "Is JB trying to take a second bite of the apple?" Judge Strickland already ruled on this and gave a specific time frame. I guess JB thought if he just went ahead and asked for more records that would be ok because this case is 'special' don't ya know!

I wonder if we are going to see just about everything that Judge Strickland ruled against come up again at some point. What part of NO does JB not get????

 

[Numbers]

to paraphrase Judge Perry's own words "Is JB trying to take a second bite of the apple?" Judge Strickland already ruled on this and gave a specific time frame. I guess JB thought if he just went ahead and asked for more records that would be ok because this case is 'special' don't ya know!

I wonder if we are going to see just about everything that Judge Strickland ruled against come up again at some point. What part of NO does JB not get????

Judge Perry uttered those famous words, "Death is different."

To Baez, it sounded like "This is a free pass to do what you want."

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

to paraphrase Judge Perry's own words "Is JB trying to take a second bite of the apple?" Judge Strickland already ruled on this and gave a specific time frame. I guess JB thought if he just went ahead and asked for more records that would be ok because this case is 'special' don't ya know!

I wonder if we are going to see just about everything that Judge Strickland ruled against come up again at some point. What part of NO does JB not get????

Gosh, it seems like the defense is stuck on empty and only knows how to keep asking for the same things over and over, huh? They must be doing this because they have no new discovery with which to work . . . Poor honeys.

 

[countzero]

Gosh, it seems like the defense is stuck on empty and only knows how to keep asking for the same things over and over, huh? They must be doing this because they have no new discovery with which to work . . . Poor honeys.

Your post just hit me with this thought. The defense forensic experts examined the vehicle. We never heard boo from JB regarding this. Interpretation of silence .... Lee to JB, "give me tickey, car still stinky".

Then the fiasco JB creates about "the prison call tapes". Then the TES motion that included CAs email. And finally the new attorney visit to ICA who can dispute the autopsy report should she find anything. Did JB forget LKB is on the team?

Now JB wants HHJP to forget HHSSs previous ruling on TonyLs phone records. Oh and he has how many depos to get finished before the deadline ......

You're right on ... JB is working with a blank white story board, with pen in hand staring at it, head shaking .... nope that won't work. Nope neither that will work. Drat, that won't work. Let's try ..... nope won't work either. Opps, gotta get a motion out to distract the depo work I should have nearly finished. Nope, not gonna work. CM, use your best jokes during the status hearing next week.

 

[Brattigirle]

I have no idea what they might be looking for, but, it's
looking like they didn't find what they were after with the
TES records if they're bugging TL again.

Ok this might be way out there but could KC just want to see what Tony has been up to? Could it be KC just wants to show a few ppl that she can get the records?