Here's a transcript of part of what was said Saturday and Monday from a couple of videos I found.
Saturday, June 18, 2011
http://www.justin.tv/kq4ym/b/288336322?utm_campaign=archive_embed_click&utm_source=www-cdn.justin.tv
Tape starts -- Judge Perry addressing Jose Baez
JUDGE PERRY: . . . slip. This was not some sub-issue of a major issue. It was not inadvertent. The question is, is whether or not Ms Anthony should be punished as a result of this. The case law seems to indicate the following: contempt, an instruction to the jury concerning the violation that has occurred and let them use it in judging the credibility or the legalbility (?).
So what other opinions is this witness going to give that have not been disclosed in his report?
BAEZ: I will also . . .
JUDGE PERRY: Well, this is what I'm going to do. What other witnesses do you have available for the day?
BAEZ: We have Dr. Spitz as well.
JUDGE PERRY: This is what we're going to do. We're going to stop today at one o'clock. This witness is going to step down. You can take his deposition this afternoon, and he will testify one day next week, Monday.
I will entertain a possible instruction -- if the State wants to draft one -- about this violation, and I will decide whether or not I will do it. I will reserve the decision whether or not I should proceed to contempt proceedings at the conclusion of this trial.
BAEZ: I would request that the court also look at the answer filed by the defense where I clearly laid out that Dr. Rodriguez would be called also to rebut any issues raised by the prosecution in trial. This does fall under that category.
JUDGE PERRY: Mr. Baez, this is not my first radio . . . rodeo, rather.
And let me say this, sir. I've tried one or two cases as a lawyer. And there was a case that I tried called the case of The State of Florida vs Judy Bwan-ahano. (?) At the conclusion of the defense's opening statement and after the first ten questions that the defense asked in cross examination, I found myself in a boat without a paddle, because they raised an issue that you could not tell they were raising up until the time they asked certain questions. And at that noon recess, I asked my investigator to find certain things out, and by four o'clock that afternoon, my investigator had located about four or five additional expert witnesses. I talked to them that night. The next morning in court, I filed a supplemental discovery of those witnesses, and I set them all up for depositions the following evening, so the defense would have an opportunity to take those witness's depositions to determine what they would testify to, so the defendant would not be surprised.
All my order simply tried to do was to give both sides an opportunity to know what each expert would testify to so they could prepare, so we would not have no gotcha moments where someone would be caught unprepared.
So what we will do is, we will take a ten-minute recess. And, Dr. Rodriguez, be prepared to give a depostition this afternoon at one o'clock, and then we can ferret out all of this.
But let me say this: Lightning does not strike twice in the same place. Even though the case law says you can't be punished by exclusion the first time, if there are other opinions that you know that he is going to give, they need to be laid out, because I am not making any promises or warranties about what I will do if it happens a second time with this witness.
BAEZ: I would like to place the state on notice that we are going to take our own experts' depositions at the conclusioin of today. If they wish to present, they can be present. And [unintelligible] . . .
JUDGE PERRY: You don't have to take your own expert's deposition. I'm making him available for the State to take his deposition. It would be totally unfair to Ms Anthony to have this testimony excluded on this critical issue. But we will deal with the after-effects afterwards, and that's the remedy that I have chosen to give.
We will be in recess until five minutes to the hour.
End of Tape
Monday, June 20, 2011
http://insession.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/20/judge-in-casey-anthony-trial-tells-attorneys-%E2%80%9Cenough-is-enough%E2%80%9D/
Tape starts --
ASHTON: . . . so those are my requests at this point: is that Dr. Rodriguez not be (put?) to testify till I've had time to review and prepare for cross examination, because of the last minute nature, and that Mr. Eikenblume be ordered to appear.
I will be presenting the court with additional requests for sanctions to alleviate the prejudice.
BAEZ: I specifically noticed that Mr Ashton was intentionally omitting -- or may omit, I should say -- to prevent himself from taking these depositions. And I brought it up at a status hearing, and I warned the court that this may be an issue later on because the state is attempting to use this both as a sword and a shield.
We did not intentionally look at this order and say, "We're going to disobey it." Just the mere thought of that disturbs me greatly. And it disturbs me that anyone would either (a) make the accusation or (b) even assume it to be true. And I say that because I have labored on this cause daily, nightly. And it was made clear by the court to me that this court intended on issuing orders and enforcing them if need be. I think it is a severest due-process violation to try and limit our testimony, limit our presentation of case because a prosecuter decides on his own, without assistance or acknowledgement from the court, to omit his professional responsibility and to omit his duty to carry out and utilize those tools which are afforded to him under the rules of discovery and then attempt to use that as some form of sanction. It's not bad enough that he wants to omit these responsibilities in the effort to take a human life; he wants to go after her lawyer, too.
JUDGE PERRY: It has never been the intent by depositions to alleviate the responsibility, and that was not the intent of this court's order, to rely . . . say, "Well, you could either take their depositions or the report." The orders are quite clear to me.
This court does not make threats; this court simply applies the rules. Yes, there has been gamesmanship in this particular case, and it is quite evident that there is a friction between attorneys. That is something that I guess the Florida Bar will deal with. And at the conclusion of this trial, this court will deal with violations which may or may not have occurred. But it is not proper for the court to deal with it now. I have a sequestered jury who live under severe restrictions. and if y'all don't want to act professional, then I will work you real full days. Enough is enough. And both sides need to be forewarned that exclusion, even at the price of having to do it all over again -- which I don't think I'll have to do it all over again -- because of repeated violations, exclusion may be the proper remedy if it continues.
End of tape
