2010.12.20 Hearing

[sumbunny]

perhaps they have some new "vent talkers" that keep casey awake all night

 

[RR0004]

At the last hearing, JA said that one of the defense witnesses (Dr Michael Freeman, epidemiologist?)was going to charge the state $575.00/hour to do a deposition. Does that mean he is being paid by the defense and is not pro bono?

I think in both cases the State is paying.

 

[sumbunny]

I have always believed that Cindy really hates KC - and that the clothes she brings her to ware in court is just another little passive-aggressive way that Cindy has found to punish her.

As to Sun's query about Shepard vs Maxwell:
Samuel Shepard successfully appealed his conviction by alleging that the trial judge failed to protect him from the massive, widespread, and prejudicial publicity that attended his prosecution.

BBM, that might have worked if Baez didn't argue against a gag order in the first place.

Baez and the craziness that surrounds this case wasn't started by the prosecution..it was the defense, and the defenses family that created the mess.

I hope HHJP does the right thing

 

[Reagan]

There's a current case going on right now where the state is paying for makeup to cover up his swastika tats. Take a gander at this dude:

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_6c58ec68-0144-11e0-9753-00127992bc8b.html

The judge approved hiring a cosmetologist at $125 a day to cover John Ditullio's self-acquired tattoos.



Mel

Snipped
You have got to be kidding me!! It would not cost $125 a day to cover up his ugly prison tats. What's wrong with $7 concealer and a long sleeved collar shirt? I've had to use concealer on much more brighter coloured tattoos for job interviews etc and it worked just fine.
The rights these inmates are getting is becoming freakin' ridiculous.

 

[BChand]

You're such a nice person to offer to iron ICA shirts I just think mama bear should get off her rear and realize that ICA needs to be presentable in court. doesn't baez ever talk to her about that. Is Cindy just ticked off and can't be bothered? Remember the suits that Peterson and Westerfield wore? Nice, but they still ended up on death row.

There's a current case going on right now where the state is paying for makeup to cover up his swastika tats. Take a gander at this dude:

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_6c58ec68-0144-11e0-9753-00127992bc8b.html

The judge approved hiring a cosmetologist at $125 a day to cover John Ditullio's self-acquired tattoos.

No comparison really to ICA, but if the state pays for this guy, does Florida want to fork over some dosh for ICA's wardrobe?

MOO

Mel

Ha! The makeup didn't work. The jury found him guilty. (I had to go look that one up.)

http://www./neo-nazi-john-ditullio-guilty-of-murdering-17-year-old-gay-florida-teen-20101216/

 

[sumbunny]

After today’s court hearing, when asked directly if Dr. Lee will appear at trial, Baez said, “I have no reason to think otherwise. However, you know with any luck maybe we will have a judgment of acquittal and we won’t have to put on any case at all.

WTF does that mean?

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/en...s-leaving-case-over-money.html/comment-page-1


How will she have an acquittal without a trial?

 

[Kathy1964]

Is it important to depose Dr Lee in person? Why would he require travel to Florida for the prosecutions deposition?

I had thought that the prosecution had a hard time getting any kind of answer as to when they can depose him. I hadn't realized it was all to do with his travel arrangements to be deposed. OR, is Mr Lee holding his deposition hostage until he gets paid for PRIOR travel arrangements for the defense.Is that legal?

Since when does traveling to florida cost the taxpayers $8,000.00, for one trip? (and apparently half price)

I think that is exactly what it is-JBs request for payment for experts travel (in July, I think) was turned down by JP and the JAC because the request for payment was not itemized, or something like that. I find it hard to believe that HL would hold out on the state's deposition to try and muscle the JAC into paying him. That would certainly further damage his not-so-stellar reputation, wouldn't it?
Maybe, at trial, the prosecution could ask him "Sir, is it true that you refused to speak with the State because you had not been paid $8,000 for previous travel and expenses?"

 

[TinaD]

After today’s court hearing, when asked directly if Dr. Lee will appear at trial, Baez said, “I have no reason to think otherwise. However, you know with any luck maybe we will have a judgment of acquittal and we won’t have to put on any case at all.

WTF does that mean?

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/en...s-leaving-case-over-money.html/comment-page-1


How will she have an acquittal without a trial?

What a bizarre thing to say! How on earth could she be acquitted without putting up a defence? He's lost the plot!

 

[BChand]

After today’s court hearing, when asked directly if Dr. Lee will appear at trial, Baez said, “I have no reason to think otherwise. However, you know with any luck maybe we will have a judgment of acquittal and we won’t have to put on any case at all.

WTF does that mean?

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/en...s-leaving-case-over-money.html/comment-page-1


How will she have an acquittal without a trial?

I think he is confusing the penalty phase of the trial with the actual trial? That's the only way that sentence could make any sense.

 

[BChand]

Geesh! Does Cindy think she needs protection in JP's courtroom?

I was wondering if HE didn't have anything better to do.

 

[cecybeans]

After today’s court hearing, when asked directly if Dr. Lee will appear at trial, Baez said, “I have no reason to think otherwise. However, you know with any luck maybe we will have a judgment of acquittal and we won’t have to put on any case at all.

WTF does that mean?

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/en...s-leaving-case-over-money.html/comment-page-1


How will she have an acquittal without a trial?

I think that's Baez-speak for a plea. Just sayin'.

He always acts about deadlines like a high school senior looks at homework assignments the last week of school. As if he knows it's pretty immaterial. He may be The Last Opportunist Standing at the very end of it all. But let's face it, he's already been paid handsomely in both Casey's money and all the free publicity he and her family have used to ratchet up interest. It slays me when they complain about the prejudicial nature of the media when they were the ones jumping up and down trying to book themselves on national TV shows constantly.

 

[BChand]

Glad you stopped in. The issue is that he wants payment for last July right? Casey wasn't indigent then so shouldn't JAC be out of this one and Jose needs to pay him?

Or do I have this wrong?

n/m - Looks liked she was declared indigent back in March.

Time flies doesn't it?

 

[beach]

After today’s court hearing, when asked directly if Dr. Lee will appear at trial, Baez said, “I have no reason to think otherwise. However, you know with any luck maybe we will have a judgment of acquittal and we won’t have to put on any case at all.

WTF does that mean?

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/en...s-leaving-case-over-money.html/comment-page-1


How will she have an acquittal without a trial?

After the prosecution presents their case-in-chief and rests, the defense can make a motion for acquittal to Judge Perry. IOW, the defense would never have to present their case because HHJP would have to find there isn't sufficient evidence to warrant a conviction.

Ain't ever gonna happen. Only in Baez's wildest dreams would that motion be granted. (They will make the motion but it will be denied faster than you can blink! lol)

 

[watcher9]

Did I hear Mrs. Finnell correctly, at about the five minute mark?
Did she say certain aspects of the victim could have a bearing on penalty?


Good grief, please for the love of God, don't tell me they are going to say Caylee somehow died of natural causes. What could she possibly be talking about?
That child did not tape up her own mouth and little nose and walk herself into those woods, climb into a bag and die.

This reminds me of one of the evidence photos from Casey's room that depicted a parenting book, with page marked about holding the line with a toddler during their temper tantrum. I remember feeling somehow ill reading that, for some reason, and I am no Ginny Lucas.

What was apparent to me now that I was able to watch the entire presentation by Mrs. Finnell is that she is concerned that these would be witnesses are so extremely reluctant that they will try to avoid subpoenas, they will MAKE THEMSELVES unavailable. What part of that is not clear? They will be hostile, at best, if they are MADE to come. It does not sound good for Casey. Indeed if the names are released and someone puts a mic and a news camera in their face, so angered that they were listed after being very clear they had nothing good to say, they may just say something the defense will regret being on the five o clock news. That is the pattern with the defense, they do not know when to stop. Jose and Cheney could not or would not accept no for an answer when the relatives told Mrs. Barrett no, so now here comes the defense same old song and dance, different person knocking on their doors again. Wow. Not wise. They never seem to think of what is the worst possible outcome if we do x y or z. Never.

Is that way you understood what Mrs. Finnell was saying, that some of them would be surprised and shocked to learn they are listed? Judge Perry even seemed surprised by this strategy in the last hearing Mrs. Finnell brought this up at, almost as if to raise his eyebrow to say , like a scolding parent to the child, stop that ever lasting whining before I come over there and give you something real to cry about. They would have been better off having Andrea regail her stories of how some on death row have done some good, ministering to others, or finding some small redeeming measure so therefore convincing them that Casey too possibly, one day, could do something of some redemtion in prison. That would resignate with folks better than calling a clearly reluctant witness. What in the world? God bless these jurors, in advance!

I'm fine with it if the judge does not release the names to the public until she is ( if she is ) found guilty. The state has the names, and I trust these seasoned prosecutors, all day long. They will handle this, with ease.

You just can't make this stuff up!

I am thinking AF is talking about ICA and trying to portray her as the poor victim - not Caylee.

To AF and the team, it isn't even about Caylee at all!

:furious:

 

[ZsaZsa]

After the prosecution presents their case-in-chief and rests, the defense can make a motion for acquittal to Judge Perry. IOW, the defense would never have to present their case because HHJP would have to find there isn't sufficient evidence to warrant a conviction.

Ain't ever gonna happen. Only in Baez's wildest dreams would that motion be granted. (They will make the motion but it will be denied faster than you can blink! lol)

But doesn't the Grand Jury indictment mean that they found there is a case for ICA to answer to?

 

[beach]

But doesn't the Grand Jury indictent mean that they found there is a case for ICA to answer to?

The Grand Jury found there was sufficient evidence to charge her with the crimes and force her to stand trial. However, once the prosecution presents all of their evidence and rests, the defense can (in fact usually does, esp. in a capital case) motion the court for an acquittal. I'm sure it has happened somewhere at some time, but I have NEVER seen such a request granted.

IIRC, such a motion was made during the OJ trial, too. They are really very common; however almost never granted. Baez was just shooting off his mouth. He knows there isn't a chance that would EVER be granted.

 

[Dignity4Victims]

But doesn't the Grand Jury indictment mean that they found there is a case for ICA to answer to?

I understand where you're coming from, Z, but the GJ has served its purpose and is finished with this case. The GJ only indicts (or not), but holds nothing to further "answer to" - the GJ then "passes" Casey on down the judicial process after indictment.

The Defense is never required to present a case. Once the State presents and finishes their CiC, it is then the Defense's turn to present. The Defense, at that time, may state, "The Defense rests" - without ever uttering another word as part of their "presentation". What they are doing when this happens is, they're calling the State's (or Prosecution, if not State vs. ___) bluff. They're pseudo-saying to the State and the Jury, "You think your case is strong enough to stand on it's own, but we don't. Jury, the State's case is weak, you can't possibly convict my client on their presentation and I'm SO sure of this that I'm not even going to rebut."

Don't forget, Z, the Defense has to prove nothing. Burden is on the State/Prosecution, always.

 

[knt]

Did I hear Mrs. Finnell correctly, at about the five minute mark?
Did she say certain aspects of the victim could have a bearing on penalty?


Good grief, please for the love of God, don't tell me they are going to say Caylee somehow died of natural causes. What could she possibly be talking about?
That child did not tape up her own mouth and little nose and walk herself into those woods, climb into a bag and die.

]

I caught that. Sounded to me like she's going to hold the victim (Caylee) responsible in some
way. Too sick to be right, but that's how it hit me at the time. Like the drug dealer was shot but
he shouldn't have put himself in that situation in the first place. She seemed uncomfortable saying it. I can't imagine what she was referring to.

 

[Searchfortruth]

I admit, I only watched part of the hearing and read some of the posts here, on the subject. My feeling on Casey's, almost listless, behavior is that she doesn't like any reference to the "penalty phase", at all. I still have the feeling that she is banking on an acquittal (Jose used the "acquittal" word today and I believe he has used it in front of Casey, who knows how many times). Whatever Jose has said to Casey, by now she has to know that the penalty phase is going to happen. I believe it's a lawyers responsibility to prepare, his client, as much as possible...I have very strong doubts that Jose has done that.

On another note, it was refreshing to see the Judge smack Jose down again.

As monotone sounding as the female defense atty is, I'd rather hear her over Jose or Cheney any day of the week.

 

[Dignity4Victims]

The Grand Jury found there was sufficient evidence to charge her with the crimes and force her to stand trial. However, once the prosecution presents all of their evidence and rests, the defense can (in fact usually does, esp. in a capital case) motion the court for an acquittal. I'm sure it has happened somewhere at some time, but I have NEVER seen such a request granted.

IIRC, such a motion was made during the OJ trial, too. They are really very common; however almost never granted. Baez was just shooting off his mouth. He knows there isn't a chance that would EVER be granted.

Of course he won't, but I'm thinkin' Kathi Belich must have been within earshot of him which prompted him to say that. lol

Baez is all about grandstanding, hence why he fought against a gag order.