We knew the Jill Kerley, et al stuff was never going to see the light of the courtroom, and thus the release to the media of the heavily edited, UNSWORN, videotaped interview. I will be glad when the judge strikes it and that is all the attention it deserves, imo.
I think Cheney asked for more time to review with Baez what in the world. He seems to know nothing of the matter, that is our first clue the defense knows that ship wont sail.
Cheney better let go of the decaf and go straight to the Red Bull on the 15th. Mark is going to mop the floor with them! There will be little energy left to worry over the 911 calls. Did you notice that Ashton said to Linda " Even Casey's comments?", he seemed surprised that Mason was planning to argue even Casey's remarks on the 911 tape cannot come in. We've been saying that all along, it is Casey's state of mind that is interesting there.
I cannot believe it was November when the defense pulled this, and still has not provided a witness list. This is from then:
"Motion to Take Deposition to Perpetuate Testimony of Jill Kerley
http://www.wftv.com/pdf/22313192/detail.html
What do you think of this? They are saying that Ms. Kerley is ill and can not or will not travel to testify at the trial, so they want to take her deposition now and have that introduced at trial.
The defense admits they have no evidence against Mr. Kronk, only a theory that he should have been investigated. They could say the same about Joy, or mom or pop or anyone and then bring in someone from their distant past to find similarities somehow to the crime. I hope the judge does not even entertain this motion.
.
When the defense argued their motion to dismiss, Mrs. Drane Burdick argued that the defense counsel stating facts in a motion does not meet the legal requirement in Florida, so why are they doing the same thing here? I am not a lawyer but it seems to defy common sense that they keep repeating the same errors. Do they think that by simply alleging that a witness is unavailable the trial court must grant the motion to perpetuate testimony? Even without a law library , one can google the rule they cite and see that prior to perpetuating the testimony of a witness, the moving party must demonstrate that the witness is unavailable:
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(j)(6) requires more than a perfunctory attempt. While the question of how far a party must go to satisfy the requirements of the rule will be susceptible to different answers depending on the circumstances of each case, the party offering the deposition must show it has exercised due diligence.
I am thinking, at a minimum they should attach sworn statements from her doctors setting out that to travel to Florida would endanger her health, or she is terminal and not expected to live until the trial date....something...., anything rather than just the lawyer stating it. Help me out guys...what am I not getting? Are there parts of the document missing? If anyone has them could you please post them for me? Did the judge rule on the defense motion in limine? Thanks in advance!
reference:
Pope v. State, 441 So. 2d 1073, 1076 (Fla. 1983).
See McMillon v. State, 552 So. 2d 1183 (4th DCA 1989)
Hernandeez v. State, 608 So. 2d 916 (3dr DCA 1992)
the Uniform Act To Secure the Attendance of Witnesses From Without a State in Criminal Proceedings
Arizona v. Ratzlaff, 552 P.2d 461 (1976)
www.wesh.com/download/2009/1120/21678734.pdf The Motion in Liminie
I am not asking to be a smart Alec. I honestly do not understand. If Kronk had been convicted for any crimes she alleges, that would be one thing, but just to go on the word of ex wife...I do not see it. If she were allowed to testify, wouldn't the state insist they had the right to cross examine her and if so..... could they ask her if she had ever been convicted of a felony and was it for a crime of dishonesty? Even if, for an abundance of caution, the judge allows it, the good taxpayers of the jury are not fools....this wont pass the laugh test. In fact, they may get wholly offended that the defense is insulting their intelligence once they start trying to make them forget the colorful ZFG story, blame this on Kronk and disparage good, good people of TES, Jesse, Amy, Ricardo ,at al. Then the defense will have no credibility and even when their experts take the stand about the forensics...the jury will despise these folks so that they cannot believe anything coming from that side." Wow that was my post from six months ago, SIX MONTHS and still the defense is stalling!!!!!!
Thanks to Sleutherontheside , we know that the defense does much of this for appeal reasons later. Here is one of Andrea's articles on the matter.
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4719574&postcount=157"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Searchers and the Motion Regarding TES[/ame]
This is IMO a typical action taken to protect you in the appeals process.
So thankful the judge is proactive and brings these matters up. Love him.
All I gotta say, is Baez better let Mason argue the whole hearing, especially the TES records if they have a chance in hades of getting a ruling in their favor.