2009.04.10 Defense Motion for Additional Phone Records

[Brattigirle]

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.

Today is my daughter's 21'st Birthday. (the 26th)

 

[Sdavidson11]

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!!!

As soon as I read this I heard Ozzy's laugh hahahahaha Crazy train. This case is so frustrating.

 

[nums24]

Today is my daughter's 21'st Birthday. (the 26th)

:woohoo: Awesome! Happy Birthday to your daughter! :HappyBday:

 

[nums24]

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.

I was thinking the same thing. I'm thinking the defense originally tried to pin something on TL because of the gas can theft. But why go after his records after Caylee was found? I think HHJP will grant this motion to quash.

 

[faefrost]

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????

Well yes, and with HHJS gone the defense could have had a second bite of the apple on any prior rulings that went against them. But wouldn't they have to file a motion with the new judge requesting that the ruling be changed? They can't just issue subpoena's for materials specifically blocked to them by the first judges order and then go and argue for them later. HHJS's order remains fully in force until or unless HHJP changes it.

Can there be any real repercussions for the defense for doing this? Exactly how many times are they allowed to step outside the lines of law policy and procedure?

 

[ThinkTank]

I was thinking the same thing. I'm thinking the defense originally tried to pin something on TL because of the gas can theft. But why go after his records after Caylee was found? I think HHJP will grant this motion to quash.

JB said in the Aug 21, 2009 Hearing that he wanted the records after Caylee was found (and Judge S agreed, and gave them a week after Caylee was found up to Dec. 18th) because Tony had worked with LE and taken them to places associated with KC and Caylee, and also Tony had worn a wire for his meeting with Lee. JB questioned if Tony had been to the "site"....

 

[The World According]

Despite all the side show stunts, make no mistake about it, the defense is gunning for Tony and Jesse, still. God bless these two. It is vile what Casey is willing to do to innocent young men without blinking. You get Jesse and Tony on the stand, and the jury is going to despise this girl. The video of Casey and Tony arm in arm at the Blockbuster video store is going to seal her fate, since this is the very day Caylee was last seen alive. I once advised Jesse to just remain private, take the stand, tell the truth and get on with his life. I have since changed my mind. If he should ever wish to make a civil suit against mom, pop and Casey for defamation, I am in and I am in big. Google his and Tony's name and just see how they have been harmed.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUFJWfWFTXU[/ame]

Junk science or any other claim aside, Tony will be very compelling for the jury. Tony, keep your head up son! By the way, standing ovation for these two young men contacting the police, offering and indeed taking polygraphs, offering their cell phone, opening up their apartments for police to inspect, giving statements, several of them, willingly, even going from location to location trying to help the police, and in Tony's case wearing a wire!!! They showed more integrity and courage and basic morals than their young age would normally command. I'll write a check myself if they need help!!!!

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-FM1uH-4wU[/ame]

 

[strawberry]

Oh how I would love to see a hearing on this I and I wish TL would be there in person. I know he wasn't last time but one can wish.

 

[strawberry]

How does one get a subpoena anyway? Does it have to be signed by a judge? If so, who signed the latest one for phone records? Or can any lawyer issue one for anything?

 

[ThinkTank]

Tony's lawyer was on TruTV and said that Tony got notice from AT&T that there was a subpoena for his phone records from Jan 09 to the present - Tony called his lawyer - the lawyer called JB, and JB said someone in his office made a clerical mistake ....

So, JB SIGNED the subpoena -- he is responsible (not someone in his office). IMO

 

[beach]

Tony's lawyer was on TruTV and said that Tony got notice from AT&T that there was a subpoena for his phone records from Jan 09 to the present - Tony called his lawyer - the lawyer called JB, and JB said someone in his office made a clerical mistake ....

So, JB SIGNED the subpoena -- he is responsible (not someone in his office). IMO

BBM

I swear I was thinking about this last night - what JB's response was going to be. I KNEW this was going to be the excuse!!!


Of course JB is ultimately responsible for this. Oh well, throw the legal assistant under another bus while you're at it, I guess. He doesn't accept responsibility for anything and it irks me no end.

 

[ThinkTank]

Originally Posted by ThinkTank
Tony's lawyer was on TruTV and said that Tony got notice from AT&T that there was a subpoena for his phone records from Jan 09 to the present - Tony called his lawyer - the lawyer called JB, and JB said someone in his office made a clerical mistake ....

So, JB SIGNED the subpoena -- he is responsible (not someone in his office). IMO

BBM

I swear I was thinking about this last night - what JB's response was going to be. I KNEW this was going to be the excuse!!!

Of course JB is ultimately responsible for this. Oh well, throw the legal assistant under another bus while you're at it, I guess. He doesn't accept responsibility for anything and it irks me no end.

And ... why didn't JB file something with the court to withdraw his "faulty" subpoena, instead of making Tony's lawyer file a motion to Quash JB's request for the wrong phone records?

 

[beach]

Well yes, and with HHJS gone the defense could have had a second bite of the apple on any prior rulings that went against them. But wouldn't they have to file a motion with the new judge requesting that the ruling be changed? They can't just issue subpoena's for materials specifically blocked to them by the first judges order and then go and argue for them later. HHJS's order remains fully in force until or unless HHJP changes it.

Can there be any real repercussions for the defense for doing this? Exactly how many times are they allowed to step outside the lines of law policy and procedure?

bbm

1. Yes, he could have included this when he was filing his Motions to Reconsider.

2. Probably no repercussions since he is using the 'clerical error' excuse.

3. Heck if I know. Apparently many times. There is always some lame excuse.

 

[strawberry]

So is it possible they were hoping noone would notice and they would get the records? And if caught say oops it was a mistake? I mean what would cause the new subpoena to be drawn up to begin with? I've reworked old letters at work to write new ones and forgotten to change something, say the date but there was a reason I was writing the new letter, kwim?

 

[beach]

Originally Posted by ThinkTank
Tony's lawyer was on TruTV and said that Tony got notice from AT&T that there was a subpoena for his phone records from Jan 09 to the present - Tony called his lawyer - the lawyer called JB, and JB said someone in his office made a clerical mistake ....

So, JB SIGNED the subpoena -- he is responsible (not someone in his office). IMO



And ... why didn't JB file something with the court to withdraw his "faulty" subpoena, instead of making Tony's lawyer file a motion to Quash JB's request for the wrong phone records?

Honestly, I'm don't know that you CAN withdraw a subpoena once it has been served. I've never done anything this stupid (issuing a subpoena defying a judge's order) and don't know anyone else who has, so I am not sure. Once it has been served, all I know that can be done is what Mr. Jay did - file a motion to quash it.

 

[ThinkTank]

So is it possible they were hoping noone would notice and they would get the records? And if caught say oops it was a mistake? I mean what would cause the new subpoena to be drawn up to begin with? I've reworked old letters at work to write new ones and forgotten to change something, say the date but there was a reason I was writing the new letter, kwim?

Exactly!
Judge S. told the Defense the dates on Tony's records they could have back on August 21, 2009 ... a YEAR ago! Are we to believe that JB is just now getting around to issuing a subpoena for THOSE records??? Why was a subpoena issued at all at this time???

 

[strawberry]

Exactly!
Judge S. told the Defense the dates on Tony's records they could have back on August 21, 2009 ... a YEAR ago! Are we to believe that JB is just now getting around to issuing a subpoena for THOSE records??? Why was a subpoena issued at all at this time???

Good questions, I wonder if he ever did issue the first one?

 

[beach]

So is it possible they were hoping noone would notice and they would get the records? And if caught say oops it was a mistake? I mean what would cause the new subpoena to be drawn up to begin with? I've reworked old letters at work to write new ones and forgotten to change something, say the date but there was a reason I was writing the new letter, kwim?

bbm

1. In re: the bold - that is exactly what they were trying to do, in my admittedly biased opinion.

2. They were caught and that is exactly what they said - clerical error.

3 & 4. Someone was ordered to draw it up, imo. I would love to see the original subpoena(s) to see if they had to edit anything.

 

[beach]

Exactly!
Judge S. told the Defense the dates on Tony's records they could have back on August 21, 2009 ... a YEAR ago! Are we to believe that JB is just now getting around to issuing a subpoena for THOSE records??? Why was a subpoena issued at all at this time???

Judge Strickland gave TL 30 days after the hearing to turn over the records that he ordered to be turned over (6/01/08 - 12/18/08). So, by Sept. 21, 2009 I feel sure Mr. Jay and TL complied and Baez had the phone records that Judge Strickland had ordered.

There would have been no reason for another subpoena. They were ordered to turn them over.

Is there any doubt in ANYONE'S mind that if those records had not been turned over, Baez would have been screaming from the rooftops long before now?

 

[ThinkTank]

Originally Posted by ThinkTank
Exactly!
Judge S. told the Defense the dates on Tony's records they could have back on August 21, 2009 ... a YEAR ago! Are we to believe that JB is just now getting around to issuing a subpoena for THOSE records??? Why was a subpoena issued at all at this time???

Judge Strickland gave TL 30 days after the hearing to turn over the records that he ordered to be turned over (6/01/08 - 12/18/08). So, by Sept. 21, 2009 I feel sure Mr. Jay and TL complied and Baez had the phone records that Judge Strickland had ordered.

There would have been no reason for another subpoena. They were ordered to turn them over.

Is there any doubt in ANYONE'S mind that if those records had not been turned over, Baez would have been screaming from the rooftops long before now?

So, actually, there is no way this could be defined as a "clerical error" .... someone higher up than a secretarial assistant had to give the command to issue a subpoena in the first place ... a subpoena that was not necessary ... a subpoena that had wrong dates on it ....