2011.01.06 Baez Slapped with Formal Sanction

[Numbers]

Hi RR, ITA with your assessment of Perry's intention/message with the impositions of sanctions, but I kind of disagree with Hornsby's interpretation of the case law. Bear in mind I'm not a Florida attorney, so take my opinion for what it's worth....nothing. LOL

In the cases Hornsby cites as controlling:

Specifically, absent statutory authority, a trial court has no legal authority to require either a prosecutor or a defense attorney to pay “attorney fees” or “court costs” to the other side or to the court. See State v. Nelson, 27 So. 3d 758 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (“The trial court does not have inherent authority to assess costs against the State Attorney’s Office in criminal cases.”);

IMO, the KEY word in this case's rule is "inherent". To me, the word inherent in this context leaves the door open for special case-by-case circumstances. I interpret it as, "as a general rule, the courts can't just willy nilly assess costs in criminal cases (but, CAN assess costs if circumstances call for it). That's totally JMO, though.

The other case he cited (Williams), talks about how the court can't assess costs unless there's a specific statute allowing it. In this instance, there was statutory authority for Perry to impose sanctions. (statute being Florida rules of criminal discovery).

Up here, (canada), statute always trumps case law, and I'm sure it's the same in Florida. I'm not saying Hornsby is wrong, I'm just offering my two canadian pennies.

My interpretation is a bit different. I see that HHJP assessed a penalty on Baez, based on the time it took for JA to create, file and argue the motion for sanctions. JA will not get this money, so it's not his fees that are being assessed. It's a penalty. How they determined the amount for the penalty is moot.

:twocents:

 

[The World According]

:blowkiss:arty::welcome3:opcorn:

Trutv announced ICA is going to be at the hearing! Sanctions will come up, I just know it!

Friends, can one of you record the IS coverage for us, PLEASE? We don't get it here and I like to listen to the guest lawyers opine. TIA!!!!
Last time, thanks to News Junkie we had a record of the hearing that the news stations did not for some odd reason.

Cheers to all of you!!! Virtual happy hour hearing. For our friends in Australia, virtual donuts and coffee!

 

[Soju]

My interpretation is a bit different. I see that HHJP assessed a penalty on Baez, based on the time it took for JA to create, file and argue the motion for sanctions. JA will not get this money, so it's not his fees that are being assessed. It's a penalty. How they determined the amount for the penalty is moot.

:twocents:

BBM

Exactly. And the statute allows a penalty to be imposed. How Perry determined that penalty is the message he's sending to the defense.

 

[Spangle]

I'm totally confused and I guess this one will have to be spelled out for me.

I thought Baez was being sanctioned and ordered to pay a FINE in the AMOUNT of what it/he COST the state, VS the amount of $500 per day.

The fine would be like all OTHER fines. Yet it sounds like it is going directly to the SA. He even sent the check to them, instead of the courts, etc. Hornsby is making a big deal out if it. like Baez is paying a BILL, not a FINE.

IF that is the case, if Baez and all other Florida Lawyers afraid of that, then maybe the order should be rewritten to state he paid to pay $500 a day, until ALL the reports are turned over as ordered.

What am I missing?

 

[Macushla]

Friends, can one of you record the IS coverage for us, PLEASE? We don't get it here and I like to listen to the guest lawyers opine. TIA!!!!
Last time, thanks to News Junkie we had a record of the hearing that the news stations did not for some odd hearing.

Cheers to all of you!!! Virtual happy hour hearing. For our friends in Australia, virtual donuts and coffee!

Whether or not the stations post a video afterwards depends on whether or not KC is there, in my opinion. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that if she is there, a video is posted afterwards, if she is not, they live stream the hearing, but don't bother to upload it to their news sites afterwards.

 

[Spangle]

My interpretation is a bit different. I see that HHJP assessed a penalty on Baez, based on the time it took for JA to create, file and argue the motion for sanctions. JA will not get this money, so it's not his fees that are being assessed. It's a penalty. How they determined the amount for the penalty is moot.

:twocents:

That is the way I see it. IT is just the way HHJP came up with the amount. IT doesn't go back to JA. They have to eat the cost. And of the cost to add up the amount.

 

[Scamperoo]

I suppose that is possible.
I am leaning towards "they sent it to WESH on purpose." I wonder now if the letter was even filed with the court. I've seen too much of how these two attorneys work to believe they do anything in error.

ITA, to listen to CM one would get the impression that being partially deaf, old and forgetful coupled with JB who is young ( I use the term loosely here ) inexperienced and prone to mistakes, that they don't make one decent attorney between them.
I don't think anyone is buying that anymore, thank goodness they are exposed for the unscrupulous and conniving lawyers they are, to most of us anyway. JMO

 

[Oakley]

Turned my keyboard upside down! LOL :great:

/bɹo˙ʇxǝʇdıןɟ˙ʍʍʍ//:dʇʇɥ :sı ʇı ǝɔıu os ɯɐ ı ǝɔuıs 'ʎןןɐnʇɔɐ

I should be too embarrassed to admit this but, I actually cut and paste the url as is (upside down!) and it wasn't till I saw the "File Not Found" that I had an AHA! moment. Sorry to go O/T.

 

[Kentjbkent]

Hi RR, ITA with your assessment of Perry's intention/message with the impositions of sanctions, but I kind of disagree with Hornsby's interpretation of the case law. Bear in mind I'm not a Florida attorney, so take my opinion for what it's worth....nothing. LOL

In the cases Hornsby cites as controlling:

Specifically, absent statutory authority, a trial court has no legal authority to require either a prosecutor or a defense attorney to pay “attorney fees” or “court costs” to the other side or to the court. See State v. Nelson, 27 So. 3d 758 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (“The trial court does not have inherent authority to assess costs against the State Attorney’s Office in criminal cases.”);

IMO, the KEY word in this case's rule is "inherent". To me, the word inherent in this context leaves the door open for special case-by-case circumstances. I interpret it as, "as a general rule, the courts can't just willy nilly assess costs in criminal cases (but, CAN assess costs if circumstances call for it). That's totally JMO, though.

The other case he cited (Williams), talks about how the court can't assess costs unless there's a specific statute allowing it. In this instance, there was statutory authority for Perry to impose sanctions. (statute being Florida rules of criminal discovery).

Up here, (canada), statute always trumps case law, and I'm sure it's the same in Florida. I'm not saying Hornsby is wrong, I'm just offering my two canadian pennies.

And I think I will put my two American pennies :twocents: on HHJP (as opposed to RH) based on his intelligence, knowledge of the laws, rules, and statutes, as well as his well thought out rulings to prevent appealable issues.

GO HHJP!

:great: :rocker:

 

[A_News_Junkie]

:blowkiss:arty::welcome3:opcorn:

Friends, can one of you record the IS coverage for us, PLEASE? We don't get it here and I like to listen to the guest lawyers opine. TIA!!!!
Last time, thanks to News Junkie we had a record of the hearing that the news stations did not for some odd reason.

Cheers to all of you!!! Virtual happy hour hearing. For our friends in Australia, virtual donuts and coffee!

I have not recorded anything yet today but will record it and upload it and send it to you if it is not posted. However, TruTV will cut to junk programming at 3:00 even if the world is coming to an end.
So court being at 2 - we might not get full coverage on InSessions. Perhaps Muzikman or someone could record the live stream?

 

[Macushla]

A good friend of mine had some interesting thoughts about what else might be behind the plea to give JB a break and I thought I would share them. I wonder if the final results are also in on the Laura Buchannan investigation? To me, that would be another tipping point that would be pushing the Defense farther into the corner for a plea.

Also, if Baez is going to have to face another complaint of his own, based on the LB investigation, Bar will go heavier on him if there are
already sanctions recorded against him. That might be a different indicator of why Mason would like JA to go easy on JB. Not that I
think he deserves it in any way, but maybe CM is signaling, "this young, inexperienced lawyer is already going to get hammered, let's
not add to the pile."

 

[The World According]

Brilliant Mac!!! Now that makes sense!!!
I am curious about something, this hold out his arms, it wasn't me, approach that Cheney takes. Why and how does the person with the required experience on the death penalty qulaified team not get held accountable for each and everything the team does? If your buddy is a Florida defense attorney, can you ask that for me? What good does it do to require someone be dp qualified if they are not the one who is accountable, or even share in the responsibility of decisions and following rules?

Cheney is Eddie Haskell feigning shock that Wally got into trouble I said last night. If this weren't such a serious matter, it would seem like a SNL skit...how to play dumb and point to the other dude.

 

[QB.]

Has anyone else read RHornsby's recent blog post on the sanctions? http://blog.richardhornsby.com/2011/01/two-wrongs-dont-make-a-right/

He says that the judge never did find the defense in contempt and yet the motion filed by defense for reconsideration of the sanctions also has as part of its title 'Request to vacate finding of Contempt'.http://www.wftv.com/pdf/26455761/detail.html

I'm confused, did the judge find the defense in contempt or not?

 

[LCoastMom]

So much noise from the defense over relatively speaking, a small amount of money. What's the chance the check is no good and that JB does not have the funds to back it up?

At the bottom of MC's signature/information: One of the Attorneys for Defendant - was that line necessary - was it ever in question? One of the things in this case that makes one go hmmm

 

[Solace]

Has anyone else read RHornsby's recent blog post on the sanctions? http://blog.richardhornsby.com/2011/01/two-wrongs-dont-make-a-right/

He says that the judge never did find the defense in contempt and yet the motion filed by defense for reconsideration of the sanctions also has as part of its title 'Request to vacate finding of Contempt'.http://www.wftv.com/pdf/26455761/detail.html

I'm confused, did the judge find the defense in contempt or not?

He did not, but he said he hopes he does not have to do that in the future.

 

[The World According]

I was hoping another news source would have the check and letter, then I could see if there were any differences in headers or numbers, etc. However, it seems WESH is the only station to have received this. I'll keep looking.

Lancelot, you are right to be concerned. Mr. Ashton was upset in this gag order hearing, he let the judge know that a reporter asked him about Terry L.'s letter to him about taking the death penalty off the table, before even HE had seen it. IIRC We have busted the defense before giving documents to the media before they file them. Didn't they one time wind up making changes , then filing some documents so we wound up with the before and after documents? Let me find the examples.

[ame="http://websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5926697&postcount=53"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - 2010.12.22 Prosecutors Call for Sanctions Against the Defense[/ame]

http://www.wftv.com/video/18147900/index.html

 

[A_News_Junkie]

Has anyone else read RHornsby's recent blog post on the sanctions? http://blog.richardhornsby.com/2011/01/two-wrongs-dont-make-a-right/

He says that the judge never did find the defense in contempt and yet the motion filed by defense for reconsideration of the sanctions also has as part of its title 'Request to vacate finding of Contempt'.http://www.wftv.com/pdf/26455761/detail.html

I'm confused, did the judge find the defense in contempt or not?

He didn't find him in contempt - he did however find JB committed a willful violation!

http://www.ninthcircuit.org/news/Hi...s Motion for Sanctions - Motion to Compel.pdf

 

[Intermezzo]

So much noise from the defense over relatively speaking, a small amount of money. What's the chance the check is no good and that JB does not have the funds to back it up?

At the bottom of MC's signature/information: One of the Attorneys for Defendant - was that line necessary - was it ever in question? One of the things in this case that makes one go hmmm

bbm
The Defense has been using that line since LKB and Andrea Lyon.
The placement of the line and the wording has changed in this filing though

Mason's Motion for Reconsideration "One of the Attorneys for Defendant"
but it usually states "One of the Attorneys for Casey Marie Anthony"

Here's an earlier example Go to page 3, page 20

http://www.ninthcircuit.org/news/Hi...mpermissible Prosecutorial Motives 4-2010.pdf

 

[A_News_Junkie]

bbm
The Defense has been using that line since LKB and Andrea Lyon.
The placement of the line and the wording has changed in this filing though

Mason's Motion for Reconsideration "One of the Attorneys for Defendant"
but it usually states "One of the Attorneys for Casey Marie Anthony"

Here's an earlier example Go to page 3, page 20

http://www.ninthcircuit.org/news/Hi...mpermissible Prosecutorial Motives 4-2010.pdf

I think we should all start signing our posts:
"One of the bloggers (posters) for CAYLEE ANTHONY!"

Maybe that would bring the focus back where it belongs.

**************"One of the bloggers (posters) for CAYLEE ANTHONY!"

 

[Jomo]

Question: If indeed these documents were obtained by WESH after having been filed with the court, would there not be some sort of official looking stamp from the clerk somewhere...forthwith not withstanding? Sorry, had a CM moment.

And wouldn't it have been listed on the court docket as letter received?