2010.07.15 Defense motion to protect phone call of Robin Lunceford

[OneLostGrl]

I think it was a prize in a gumball machine.

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

Anthony attorney Jose Baez has filed a second motion to block the release of a phone conversation he had with a state prison inmate. Prosecutors had planned to release the call. Judge Belvin Perry has a copy of the call between Baez and inmate Robin Lunceford, who alleges that two inmates created false information about Anthony.

WESH-Ch. 2’s Bob Kealing explained that Baez “in this motion, tells Judge Belvin Perry that this inmate provided him information about more potential witnesses. And he wants time to check out what she has to say.” Perry is deciding whether to have a hearing on the call issue and has asked the prosecution to respond, Kealing added.

more
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/en...inmate-supplied-more-potential-witnesses.html

 

[nums24]

Anthony attorney Jose Baez has filed a second motion to block the release of a phone conversation he had with a state prison inmate. Prosecutors had planned to release the call. Judge Belvin Perry has a copy of the call between Baez and inmate Robin Lunceford, who alleges that two inmates created false information about Anthony.

WESH-Ch. 2’s Bob Kealing explained that Baez “in this motion, tells Judge Belvin Perry that this inmate provided him information about more potential witnesses. And he wants time to check out what she has to say.” Perry is deciding whether to have a hearing on the call issue and has asked the prosecution to respond, Kealing added.

more
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/en...inmate-supplied-more-potential-witnesses.html

Bob Kealing makes a good point about the investigator not being sent out to investigate this in May. Baez has had more than adequate time to investigate the "potential witnesses". I hope HHJP denies the motion for protective order, I am eagerly awaiting the State's response.

Here is a link to the WESH report from yesterday:
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vmcw2NIrKM[/ame]

 

[Purple Iris]

Right next to the U. Of Bikini Bottom.


Something like that. He was 3rd from last


:cow

Makes a Momma proud......and it only took him 8yrs to pass his bar exam and be accepted.

 

[RainyGirl]

St Thomas University School of Law (Miami) . I can't put my hands on the record at the moment but IIRC he graduated 151st out of a class of 153... :innocent:

Didn't it take him at least 8 years to meet all FLA Bar requirements???
Ouch! I still believe he will eventually be disbarred. Jose has no ethics, morals, work ethic, respect for the court, etc.
Q: What color is his parachute?
A: Slimy Used Car Salesman

JMO......

 

[faefrost]

According to JB .... an EX-inmate (friend of Inmate Robin L.) called JB first to set up the 3 way/forwarded call. Then Inmate Robin L. called JB, from prison, and the call was routed/forwarded through the EX-inmate friend on the outside, to JB's after hours secretary, who routed the call to JB's cell phone.

I guess the potential "new witnesses" are fellow Inmates who will say that Maya D and Robin L conspired together to make up lies about Inmate Anthony?

I don't see LDB in a mad dash hurry to get to Lowell Prison to interview/depose ANY Inmates.
I imagine LDB does not appreciate JB using HER as an excuse to delay releasing the audio tapes.

Hmmm? I wonder, would the simple fact that it was a multi party call, bounced and forwarded 2 times with at least 4 distinct points to it eliminate any expectations of privacy in the call, and therefore essentially kill JB's arguments? Much as a third party would eliminate any Attorney client privilege? I mean isn't one of JB's arguments that this is protected work product? But doesn't the presence of that non employee third party for the conversations eliminate that? Granted the answering service can reasonably be considered an extension of JB's privilege, but the ex-inmate sure as hell cannot. So either way if the call was forwarded to JB via the ex-inmate, then while the ex-inmate would be the one receiving the message about recording, JB would be entering knowingly entering into a party call situation and would have no expectations of privacy, or JB or his service received the call directly, and thereby either he or his duly appointed agent (the answering service secretary) did receive the warning, negating any expectation of privilege or privacy.

Does this make any sense? I am not sure exactly how those Florida laws governing recordings work. But I would assume that they only kick in when their is a base assumption of privacy to begin with? I can't see how a criminal attorney could ever reasonably have that assumption when they are knowingly receiving a party call from a non client inmate of a state prison. They know the source is the prison. They know the rules of the prison. Heck there are documented filings and arguments before the court by JB concerning jail privacy and recordings, so one could assume that he would or should be an expert on such matters.

Am I reading this wrong, or can those Florida recording laws be applied in a differing manner?

 

[Steely Dan]

The bottom line, as I see it, is this;

JB knows that all calls from prison are recorded. His argument that it could have been an illegal call to circumvent the recording process just makes him look worse by appearing to be complicit in the crime.

It's not work product, he's not her lawyer. 'Nuff said.

If he's using her for investigative purposes then, it's my understanding, the prosecution has every right to see/hear all correspondence with a person bringing forth new evidence.

JB is screwed. Especially if there is anything that will get him disbarred on the call. :loser:

I'm very sure that eventually this call will be released to the media and I can't wait for that to happen!!

 

[ThinkTank]

Hmmm? I wonder, would the simple fact that it was a multi party call, bounced and forwarded 2 times with at least 4 distinct points to it eliminate any expectations of privacy in the call, and therefore essentially kill JB's arguments? Much as a third party would eliminate any Attorney client privilege? I mean isn't one of JB's arguments that this is protected work product? But doesn't the presence of that non employee third party for the conversations eliminate that? Granted the answering service can reasonably be considered an extension of JB's privilege, but the ex-inmate sure as hell cannot. So either way if the call was forwarded to JB via the ex-inmate, then while the ex-inmate would be the one receiving the message about recording, JB would be entering knowingly entering into a party call situation and would have no expectations of privacy, or JB or his service received the call directly, and thereby either he or his duly appointed agent (the answering service secretary) did receive the warning, negating any expectation of privilege or privacy.

Does this make any sense? I am not sure exactly how those Florida laws governing recordings work. But I would assume that they only kick in when their is a base assumption of privacy to begin with? I can't see how a criminal attorney could ever reasonably have that assumption when they are knowingly receiving a party call from a non client inmate of a state prison. They know the source is the prison. They know the rules of the prison. Heck there are documented filings and arguments before the court by JB concerning jail privacy and recordings, so one could assume that he would or should be an expert on such matters.

Am I reading this wrong, or can those Florida recording laws be applied in a differing manner?

http://blog.richardhornsby.com/2010/07/this-call-is-being-recorded/
Is This Call Being Recorded?
excerpts:
"The discoverability of Work Product information is addressed in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(g)(1) (Titled Work Product), which states: “Disclosure shall not be required of legal research or of records, correspondence, reports, or memoranda to the extent that they contain the opinions, theories, or conclusions of the prosecuting or defense attorney or members of their legal staffs.”
Arguably, a taped conversation between Jose Baez and Robin Lunceford could constitute “record or correspondence.” But to understand if the Work Product “privilege” applies to Jose Baez’s conversation with Robin Lunceford, it is important to understand the policy reasons behind protecting Work Product of lawyers.
The article states that ”the primary policy objective of the work-product doctrine is to preserve the effective assistance of attorneys and others employed to help prepare a case for trial. By maintaining the privacy of communications between client, attorney, and others employed in preparing for litigation—especially privacy in the development of legal theories, opinions, and strategies-the doctrine fosters the effectiveness of legal assistance upon which our adversarial system of justice depends.”
However, the article goes on to point out that “voluntary disclosure of privileged matter to a third party generally waives the privilege.”
What this means is that communications between the client, attorney, and others employed in preparing for litigation are privileged as Work Product, however the privilege does not apply to communications with people not employed in preparing for litigation – i.e. Robin Lunceford or maybe even an after-hours answering service?
So it seems clear that the Work Product argument advanced by Jose Baez was simply a shot in the dark with no legal basis."

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

According to JB .... an EX-inmate (friend of Inmate Robin L.) called JB first to set up the 3 way/forwarded call. Then Inmate Robin L. called JB, from prison, and the call was routed/forwarded through the EX-inmate friend on the outside, to JB's after hours secretary, who routed the call to JB's cell phone.

I guess the potential "new witnesses" are fellow Inmates who will say that Maya D and Robin L conspired together to make up lies about Inmate Anthony?

I don't see LDB in a mad dash hurry to get to Lowell Prison to interview/depose ANY Inmates.
I imagine LDB does not appreciate JB using HER as an excuse to delay releasing the audio tapes.

BBM..
the only problem with that is that ICA confirmed all in her own handwritting. What she told RA was also put in letters. What MD witnessed matched ICA's actions when Caylee's remains were found. She hyperventilated, allegedly told MD they found the blanket and that Caylees' remains were in a black garbage bag, this was never told to the public, at the time Caylee's remains were found. I don't believe it was made up or that there is a conspiracy surrounding ICA...JMHO

I don't feel the SA's will even need to use these felons as witnessess. I believe JB is very worried about things he may have stated to RL. What if he is conspiring with RL to say things he feels will cause reasonable doubt?

JB must have known this call originating from a prison is recorded. He knows all calls are recorded which is why he stopped communication between ICA and her parents. He's not that sly, I'm waiting for another ethics violation to occur with JB, he's treading on thin ice and it's about ready to break! I don't believe he will be an attorney much longer. He may find himself being disbarred...JMHO

Justice for Caylee

 

[Horace Finklestein]

BBM..
the only problem with that is that ICA confirmed all in her own handwritting. What she told RA was also put in letters. What MD witnessed matched ICA's actions when Caylee's remains were found. She hyperventilated, allegedly told MD they found the blanket and that Caylees' remains were in a black garbage bag, this was never told to the public, at the time Caylee's remains were found. I don't believe it was made up or that there is a conspiracy surrounding ICA...JMHO

I don't feel the SA's will even need to use these felons as witnessess. I believe JB is very worried about things he may have stated to RL. What if he is conspiring with RL to say things he feels will cause reasonable doubt?

JB must have known this call originating from a prison is recorded. He knows all calls are recorded which is why he stopped communication between ICA and her parents. He's not that sly, I'm waiting for another ethics violation to occur with JB, he's treading on thin ice and it's about ready to break! I don't believe he will be an attorney much longer. He may find himself being disbarred...JMHO

Justice for Caylee

How many ethics violations do they get? lol He hasn't been officially called on any of them, and there are at least 3 verified law violations...Maybe the Florida Bar is on vacation with Geraldo?

 

[ThinkTank]

How many ethics violations do they get? lol He hasn't been officially called on any of them, and there are at least 3 verified law violations...Maybe the Florida Bar is on vacation with Geraldo?

I'm interested to know which (3) you are referring to?

The tally so far ..... (that we/the public know about)

BAR COMPLAINTS

1 - about his history posted on his website (false advertising) Sept 2008 - May 2009
go through diversion - ad classes - not serious reprimand
2 - Dominic Casey - not got paid, told not to call LE if found Caylee - filed April 2009
FL Bar said he broke no rules about pmt Sept 2009
3 - Judge Strickland - passed on a complaint about Baez about Dominic allegations
WFTV article says May 2009
4 - Shannon Stoy - how defense being paid - Bar said he broke no rules Sept 2009
filed complaint in Feb - 7 months to complete complaint
5 - Conway or Anthonys? - how defense is funded [KC wrote this in letter to Inmate]
6 - Tony Padilla filed complaint???? - fake contract? Aug 2009
7 - Diane Fanning book says complaint about Todd Black making derogatory comments about Prosecutors (Jan 2009) - also says complaint by Judge about DC not call LE if found Caylee
WFTV article says same thing about derogatory comments
8 - Jan 2009 - somebody read news about Baez touching Inmate - filed complaint

 

[RR0004]

I'm interested to know which (3) you are referring to?

The tally so far ..... (that we/the public know about)

BAR COMPLAINTS

1 - about his history posted on his website (false advertising) Sept 2008 - May 2009
go through diversion - ad classes - not serious reprimand
2 - Dominic Casey - not got paid, told not to call LE if found Caylee - filed April 2009
FL Bar said he broke no rules about pmt Sept 2009
3 - Judge Strickland - passed on a complaint about Baez about Dominic allegations
WFTV article says May 2009
4 - Shannon Stoy - how defense being paid - Bar said he broke no rules Sept 2009
filed complaint in Feb - 7 months to complete complaint
5 - Conway or Anthonys? - how defense is funded [KC wrote this in letter to Inmate]
6 - Tony Padilla filed complaint???? - fake contract? Aug 2009
7 - Diane Fanning book says complaint about Todd Black making derogatory comments about Prosecutors (Jan 2009) - also says complaint by Judge about DC not call LE if found Caylee
WFTV article says same thing about derogatory comments
8 - Jan 2009 - somebody read news about Baez touching Inmate - filed complaint

I think we also have Shannon S., et al., to thank for unmasking the mysterious Mr. Black.

 

[beach]

Thanks.
At the end of the Hearing on the 15th, Judge P. specifically told JB to set it for a Hearing and to Notice the correctional institution.
My notes:
Judge reading motion - do we know this person taped it themselves or institution tape it?
Burdick - taped by state dept - call was generated there
Judge - set it down for a Hearing - notice the correctional institution - they member of executive branch - Mason's favorite branch
Judge - order you not to release it to anyone at this time

You are exactly correct. You took very good notes, ThinkTank.

I just watched the last video linked here. At the 9:55 mark, Judge Perry orders Baez to "set it down for a hearing and you need to notice the correctional institution, since they are a member of the executive branch, Mr. Mason's favorite branch of government".

So, YES, absolutely he should have included the prison on the Proof of Service. What I don't understand is, there are 2 attorneys and 2-3 paralegals/interns there for the defense - and NO ONE takes notes on what the Judge orders verbally??? (That is a responsibility of MY job. One of the things you really, really need to make sure you get right.) I'm supposed to believe that slipped by 5 people? Or am I supposed to believe that he intentionally did not notice the prison? :innocent:
Yeah, the pretense of ignorance is getting old, as is the lack of expeditiously complying with the Judge's orders.

I must say, I rewound and watched the expression on Judge Perry's face 3x when he discovered that it was the institution that had taped it. Priceless look on his face. lol

 

[LambChop]

JB's assistants were too busy talking with KC about getting matching ankle bracelets to match......... jmo

 

[Omachka]

You are exactly correct. You took very good notes, ThinkTank.

I just watched the last video linked here. At the 9:55 mark, Judge Perry orders Baez to "set it down for a hearing and you need to notice the correctional institution, since they are a member of the executive branch, Mr. Mason's favorite branch of government".

So, YES, absolutely he should have included the prison on the Proof of Service. What I don't understand is, there are 2 attorneys and 2-3 paralegals/interns there for the defense - and NO ONE takes notes on what the Judge orders verbally??? (That is a responsibility of MY job. One of the things you really, really need to make sure you get right.) I'm supposed to believe that slipped by 5 people? Or am I supposed to believe that he intentionally did not notice the prison? :innocent:
Yeah, the pretense of ignorance is getting old, as is the lack of expeditiously complying with the Judge's orders.

I must say, I rewound and watched the expression on Judge Perry's face 3x when he discovered that it was the institution that had taped it. Priceless look on his face. lol

ITA with everything you said in this post, Beach. I'm not sure what the attorneys think their function is supposed to be but I'm pretty sure those two paralegals or interns or whoever those gals were just thought they were there to be KC's BFFs during the break. :crazy: Maybe they all think KC is writing it all down for them.. or maybe she used up all their note paper so they couldn't write down all those little details the judge told them he wanted them to do at the end of the hearing. Would it be too much to hope that Judge Perry will deny the motion just because they didn't follow directions?

LambChop... I got interrupted writing this post so missed yours. We had the same thought about those assistants! Are we supposed to say bread and butter or something?

 

[ThinkTank]

It will be interesting to read LDB's filing regarding the Inmate Robin call to JB, to see if LDB included the prison in her Certificate of Service, so the prison will be noticed about this matter.

I wonder if JB is only obligated to send the prison a copy of the Notice of Hearing, when it gets set for Hearing?

It will be interesting to watch the Clerk's site to see if the prison files anything regarding this matter, asking the Judge to let them have a say at the Hearing. I would imagine the prison wants the tapes sealed if they are still in the process of an ongoing investigation into what Inmate Robin has done.

 

[Steely Dan]

It will be interesting to read LDB's filing regarding the Inmate Robin call to JB, to see if LDB included the prison in her Certificate of Service, so the prison will be noticed about this matter.

I wonder if JB is only obligated to send the prison a copy of the Notice of Hearing, when it gets set for Hearing?

It will be interesting to watch the Clerk's site to see if the prison files anything regarding this matter, asking the Judge to let them have a say at the Hearing. I would imagine the prison wants the tapes sealed if they are still in the process of an ongoing investigation into what Inmate Robin has done.

I think that cat's out of the bag now. I'm hoping they had finished up the taping portions of their investigations. I'm thinking that might be why it's taken a couple of months for this come out. JMO

 

[ThinkTank]

Originally Posted by ThinkTank
It will be interesting to read LDB's filing regarding the Inmate Robin call to JB, to see if LDB included the prison in her Certificate of Service, so the prison will be noticed about this matter.

I wonder if JB is only obligated to send the prison a copy of the Notice of Hearing, when it gets set for Hearing?

It will be interesting to watch the Clerk's site to see if the prison files anything regarding this matter, asking the Judge to let them have a say at the Hearing. I would imagine the prison wants the tapes sealed if they are still in the process of an ongoing investigation into what Inmate Robin has done.

I think that cat's out of the bag now. I'm hoping they had finished up the taping portions of their investigations. I'm thinking that might be why it's taken a couple of months for this come out. JMO

WFTV said the prison would not give them more info on this because of the ongoing investigation.

http://www.wftv.com/news/24288435/detail.html
July 16, 2010
excerpts:
"State corrections couldn't give WFTV details because of an ongoing criminal investigation."

 

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by ThinkTank
It will be interesting to read LDB's filing regarding the Inmate Robin call to JB, to see if LDB included the prison in her Certificate of Service, so the prison will be noticed about this matter.

I wonder if JB is only obligated to send the prison a copy of the Notice of Hearing, when it gets set for Hearing?

It will be interesting to watch the Clerk's site to see if the prison files anything regarding this matter, asking the Judge to let them have a say at the Hearing. I would imagine the prison wants the tapes sealed if they are still in the process of an ongoing investigation into what Inmate Robin has done.



WFTV said the prison would not give them more info on this because of the ongoing investigation.

http://www.wftv.com/news/24288435/detail.html
July 16, 2010
excerpts:
"State corrections couldn't give WFTV details because of an ongoing criminal investigation."

It's an ongoing investigation into Lunceford but unless the phone call specifically deals with something they are investigating right now I don't see why they wouldn't release it. If they are still recording her it's probably not much good because she knows she's being investigated. JMO

 

[The World According]

IMO, Yes, Mrs. Drane Burdick is very aware of the defense never giving notice to the parties they should regarding hearings. I recall they didn't even notice Tracey or Rob Dick , they didn't properly notice Tony Lazarro, they did not notice the media when they should have, and my very favorite...they did not notice The Orange County Sheriff's Department when they requested a hearing on the OCSD being excluded from the review of THEIR evidence that they would be required to testify they maintained the care, custody and control over when the trial gets here. What in the world?!!

So, yes she indeed will notice the prison assuming that she must; because, the defense cannot be trusted to.

Due to the fact that the prison let Mrs. Drane Burdick know about the tape, and them being keenly aware that she is obligated to release what she has to the defense and eventually to the public in discovery, we can assume that the prison understood that whatever ongoing investigation they have going was about to be no longer a secret.

Once again, Mr. Baez has a very poor understanding of the matter. Or, if we view this in the light most favorable to him, he has filed this motion as he has many others , with no real hope of prevailing, but merely to lay a record for the later appeal process. His reasons or understanding aside, the call will not be sealed. The judge told Mr. Baez in his "Bear in mind" discipline recently that the Judge has no control over what goes on at the Orange County Jail, that it is an entire different branch of government and therefore enjoys that sanctity. As Beach pointed out the look on Judge Perry's face when informed indeed it was the prison that recorded the call (as a matter of normal course of business) ...tells us this matter is well decided already.

Have you ever been pulled over and tried to explain to the officer that you honestly did not see the speed limit signs and were not aware that the speed limit had changed several miles back? Have you ever heard ignorance to the law is no excuse? Well that is the kind of discipline from the bench Mr. Baez is about to get. In the interim between the time he received the first phone call informing him that someone would be calling and the time he did receive the second call, even if he were confused about the nature of such matters, he could have looked it up.

Confused or not.....the judge will make no exception outside of the rules for Mr. Baez.

The Judge is not the state bar, who may listen to his intent argument. This judge is a play it by the book, no exceptions, we are following the laws, nothing more and certainly nothing less type of judge.

The only reason the court is even spending time entertaining the hearing is purely perfunctory. The judge knows that Mr. Baez has asked for the prosecutors to be removed from the case, asked for the prosecutors to be sanctioned, asked for a judge to removed, can and will look for anything to hold against the current judge, and certainly is in desperate , DESPERATE need for appeal issues. Indeed defense lawyer on this case, Cheney Mason, has already said publicly the outcome of a guilty verdict is nearly certain. So, Judge Perry will have the hearing, quote from Supreme Court decisions that are on point and lay a record.

For the law students studying this case, Judge Perry is the one to watch!!!!