2009.12.16 Motions denied!

[rhornsby]

Does that mean that the Anthony's can visit Casey and not have it released or is that a separate motion?

It means I need a drink....

 

[Angel Who Cares]

:laugh: :laugh:

It means I need a drink....

Here's a few for you RH!!! :drink: :martini: :toast: :toastred::40__s:

A few for myself as well! :drink: :martini: :toast: :toastred::40__s:

:angel:

 

[RR0004]

Yup, it was the state's motion for a protective order. We saw LDB argue it and so did all the reporters, who should be a little more careful.

Did the reporters argue for the release? Do we really know that there was a "lie" somewhere involved with this?

 

[logicalgirl]

No, the recording itself was illegal and we just have JJ's behavior - taking it to the OSPD as evidence there was something not right with the statement. Whoops thought I was on the motions thread and can't seem to delete this.

 

[RR0004]

No, the recording itself was illegal and we just have JJ's behavior - taking it to the OSPD as evidence there was something not right with the statement. Whoops thought I was on the motions thread and can't seem to delete this.

Now, if only JJ had said...Do you mind if I record our interview? Chances are the "interview" would never have happened. But, why did I get the distinct impression from the Baez camp that JJ could verify the remains site was searched and it was NOT under water?
Sorry...I'm a little confused.

 

[LadyL]

I suspect at times, that JS already knows how he plans to rule, but wants to take the time to reference case law as a backup. Additionally, if he rules lightning fast it could appear that he did not actually take time to consider the motions. BTW...he has one of the highest ratings for a Judge in Orange County based on his fairness, knowledge of case law, and ethics.

then I'm especially glad he's presiding over this particular trial

where do we see the ratings btw?

 

[azwriter]

I suspect at times, that JS already knows how he plans to rule, but wants to take the time to reference case law as a backup. Additionally, if he rules lightning fast it could appear that he did not actually take time to consider the motions. BTW...he has one of the highest ratings for a Judge in Orange County based on his fairness, knowledge of case law, and ethics.

sleutheronside, you are so right. I think at the time of the hearing, the judge listened to the defense and had to pinch himself from yelling out "Are you kidding?" The judge knows the law. That's he got to be Your Honor. He also must appear to be fair and taking a reasonable amount of time to reach his decision. I can not believe the defense expected to win any of its motions.
These two rulings certainly answered a couple of my Christmas wishes.
jmo

 

[amethyst221]

Did the reporters argue for the release? Do we really know that there was a "lie" somewhere involved with this?

Not that I'm aware. I don't think anyone really argued that the recording of the phone conversation should be released, though JB suggested he wanted to hear it and wouldn't push for LDB to be prosecuted if she released it. I was just noting that the media can't get right which party filed the motion.

As to the lie part, no idea. JJ and the investigator know what is on the tape, what was asked and how it was answered during the interview, and whether or not there was anything improper. JJ apparently took the tape to the state with some complaint, and must have related to someone what happened. That is what LDB knows, because she didn't actually listen to the tape once she knew how it came to be recorded.

 

[amethyst221]

Now, if only JJ had said...Do you mind if I record our interview? Chances are the "interview" would never have happened. But, why did I get the distinct impression from the Baez camp that JJ could verify the remains site was searched and it was NOT under water?
Sorry...I'm a little confused.

I'm wondering the same things. Is whatever was supposedly said during the interview by JJ considered favorable to their case by the defense, and are they relying on it? If they claim this, and later JJ doesn't testify accordingly, but says the opposite, for example, or that he never even searched there, or whatever, then the issue could come up again (as Judge S seemed to anticipate at the hearing). No one will be able to use the recording of the interview to prove they are correct, or use it for impeachment purposes. Not sure I even know exactly what JJ's complaint or issue about the interview was.

 

[logicalgirl]

UPDATED: Judge Denies 2 Casey Anthony Defense Motions
Posted: 2:13 pm EST December 16, 2009
Updated: 4:52 pm EST December 16, 2009
<snipped>
This time, Judge Stan Strickland denied defense motions without any kind of explanation. He refused to drop nine of the charges Casey faces for stealing and cashing her best friend's checks and refused to order the destruction of jail videos, which are public records.

&#8220;The less merit a judge finds in a motion, the more likely a judge is just going to deny it without explanation,&#8221; WFTV legal expert Bill Sheaffer said.

&#8220;It's not his job as a trial judge and he's not gonna do it,&#8221; Sheaffer said.

The judge has yet to rule on the death penalty and whether the Anthonys can visit without jail cameras.

Article:
http://www.wftv.com/news/21984104/detail.html

:angel:

Isn't the video protection request for lawyer visits only? This is so confusing once the media gets involved. I had it all straight in my mind per RH and now it seems to have changed again.

 

[Riley1833]

It means I need a drink....

I am a bit dense I suppose. But can someone tell me what this response means? I do not see that Judge Strickland has ruled as to whether the Anthony's visit to Casey (if any happen) will or will not be released under the Sunshine Law. And I do not understand Mr. Hornsby's response to the question. TIA

 

[logicalgirl]

Did the reporters argue for the release? Do we really know that there was a "lie" somewhere involved with this?

It would be a felony for anyone to listen to the recording because it was an illegal recording according to LBK at the hearing.

 

[The World According]

I'm wondering the same things. Is whatever was supposedly said during the interview by JJ considered favorable to their case by the defense, and are they relying on it? If they claim this, and later JJ doesn't testify accordingly, but says the opposite, for example, or that he never even searched there, or whatever, then the issue could come up again (as Judge S seemed to anticipate at the hearing). No one will be able to use the recording of the interview to prove they are correct, or use it for impeachment purposes. Not sure I even know exactly what JJ's complaint or issue about the interview was.

Here is my best guess, after reading the State of Florida's Motion for protective order regarding recording of interview of Joe Jordan. I was unable to copy and paste it here for some reason.

Corp. Edwards received a phone call from Joe regarding a interview with defense investigator that he (Joe) recorded

Corp Edwards alerted Ms. Drane Burdick who then interviewed Joe
(she did not listen to the tape)

Apparently the information he divulged in her interview differs from the info on the tape
reason unkown.. the document does not detail, perhaps upon further reflection or checking his notes he realized he was mistaken...unclear on this... or LE/Mrs. Drane-Burdick simply proved to him how his account could be considered perjury as it directly conflicts with the other accounts of the very people he claimed were with him, perhaps they showed him sworn testimony or some proof of what the others said ....an oh really moment....I do not know.
The judge ruled indeed the recorded is to be sealed so he granted the State's request for the protective order
now Baez wants to hear it and possibly use it to impeach Joe at time of trial

Joe can be called as a witness by the state, ONLY THE RECORDING IS PROTECTED, not the statements he gave in his LE interview.

(This is my guess, I am not a lawyer and not a reporter and have no inside scoop, I am purely guessing. ) It appears to be quite a blow to the defense if they were thinking this guy was their star witness , and now he is not. When Todd stood in court and said we have witnesses that searched that area, and there was no body there and this proves her innocence, I think Joe was one of the main guys they were counting on. Rut row. Perhaps one of our lawyers can help us here. Why didn't the defense depose this guy, under oath, the right way? Then his testimony would be something they could use in court if he testifies different than in his depo, it would be memorialized legitimately. When are they ever going to get serious? I don't get it.

(my posts are my opinion only)
please see: Casey Anthony state protective order Joe Jordan dec 9, 09


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

I wonder if Kronk's exes also recorded their interviews. LOL! For Caylee... today was a good day, we are getting closer to justice! We are getting closer to the TRUTH!!! Please Dominick....tell the truth!!!!

 

[Gnatcatcher]

This was the one Linda Burdick didn't read because she said it would be a felony and then JB made that stupid crack that he wouldn't have her charged with a felony. But it was definitely the Jordan one where he said the defense wanted him to agree to a lie and he wasn't willing to do it so he went to the OCSD with the recording to turn it in with a statement. It was Jordan who made the recording and that was the illegal part.

BBM respectfully.

The actual comment he made was that he promised he wouldn't charge her with "13" felonies, followed by a snide smirk and a giggle.

 

[sleutherontheside]

then I'm especially glad he's presiding over this particular trial

where do we see the ratings btw?

Here is the link. Should have included it before.
http://www.cfacdl.org/Content/Documents/Document.ashx?DocId=19214

 

[zippitydoda]

Zippity Doo Dah
Zippity Ay
My oh my
What a wonderful day!
:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:​

why thank you Momtective....:dance:

 

[Tulessa]

Zippity Doo Dah
Zippity Ay
My oh my
What a wonderful day!
:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:​

Sings along!

 

[amethyst221]

Here is my best guess, after reading the State of Florida's Motion for protective order regarding recording of interview of Joe Jordan. I was unable to copy and paste it here for some reason.

Corp. Edwards received a phone call from Joe regarding a interview with defense investigator that he (Joe) recorded

Corp Edwards alerted Ms. Drane Burdick who then interviewed Joe
(she did not listen to the tape)

Apparently the information he divulged in her interview differs from the info on the tape
reason unkown.. the document does not detail, perhaps upon further reflection or checking his notes he realized he was mistaken...unclear on this... or LE/Mrs. Drane-Burdick simply proved to him how his account could be considered perjury as it directly conflicts with the other accounts of the very people he claimed were with him, perhaps they showed him sworn testimony or some proof of what the others said ....an oh really moment....I do not know.
The judge ruled indeed the recorded is to be sealed so he granted the State's request for the protective order
now Baez wants to hear it and possibly use it to impeach Joe at time of trial

Joe can be called as a witness by the state, ONLY THE RECORDING IS PROTECTED, not the statements he gave in his LE interview.

(This is my guess, I am not a lawyer and not a reporter and have no inside scoop, I am purely guessing. ) It appears to be quite a blow to the defense if they were thinking this guy was their star witness , and now he is not. When Todd stood in court and said we have witnesses that searched that area, and there was no body there and this proves her innocence, I think Joe was one of the main guys they were counting on. Rut row. Perhaps one of our lawyers can help us here. Why didn't the defense depose this guy, under oath, the right way? Then his testimony would be something they could use in court if he testifies different than in his depo, it would be memorialized legitimately. When are they ever going to get serious? I don't get it.

(my posts are my opinion only)
please see: Casey Anthony state protective order Joe Jordan dec 9, 09


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIIPzcGz_iA

I wonder if Kronk's exes also recorded their interviews. LOL! For Caylee... today was a good day, we are getting closer to justice! We are getting closer to the TRUTH!!! Please Dominick....tell the truth!!!!

That's pretty much my thinking, too. Well, they still have JW to back them up. :innocent:

 

[Themis]

The recording cannot be released -- without further order of the court. In other words, they could make a motion to release it to use for some purpose for which there is no other evidence, like to impeach someone. On the other hand, Judge Strickland did expressly state in the order that it was recorded illegally, so maybe even use for impeachment will not be allowed.

 

[Themis]

Apparently the attorneys arguing the motions did not ask for special findings? These are bare orders without findings and opinions expressed prior to the orders.