Defense claims judge had inappropriate convo with blogger?

[Astraea]

Where is the difference? They use different forms of media to report on topics of public interest. Neither of them are hiding anything, it was in open court with lots of people around. JS paid him a compliment.

The difference, in my opinion, is right there in the post you quoted.

 

[denjet]

OK, this one has to make you laugh:

"a reasonable person could conclude from Judge Strickland's conduct that he has been attempting to court a friendly voice in the blogosphere and to secure positive commentary of his handling of this controversial case. Second, Mr Knechel's subsequent glowing treatment of Judge Strickland following the judge's solicitatio of his good will could reasonably raise an inference that Judge Strickland has an interest in maintaining his standing in Mr. Knechnel's, and by extension, the public's eyes."

Seriously ??? :crazy:

 

[ecs5298]

Well...let's think about this for a minute. If it's wrong for a judge to talk to someone who has blogged about the KC case then I guess any judge who has spoken to Mr. Horsby would have to recuse himself from the case. Wouldn't that be about everyone in the 9th Circuit Court?

This accusation is ridiculous and is a sign of a desperate defense team grasping at straws. Judges are not sequestered jurors. They read, watch TV, read the newspapers, have friends, they might even go out an party every once in a while. Basically, they do things that normal people do......except KC!

 

[sleutherontheside]

OK.........as far as the comment regarding JS waiting until his reelection is over........



"Someone asked me Andrea, what's the first thing you do when you get a new DP case?.. I said, file a motion to continue in an uneven year. I don't want to play any part in a judges retention election."

Link can be found here[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4690809&postcount=83"]http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4690809&postcount=83[/ame]

 

[AZlawyer]

I read the motion but don't have time to read the cited authorities. But my impression is that it is likely to be granted. JS either showed an appearance of impropriety (IMO no actual impropriety occurred, but an appearance is sufficient), or else the only way to prove he did nothing wrong would be for him to testify about his communications with MD, which is not going to happen (or for MD to recant, which is even less likely to happen). No one at that court is going to want to fight the battle to keep JS on the case, knowing that whoever is the judge is likely to have to deny lots of defense motions and rule against the defense on lots of evidentiary issues. If JS stays on as the judge, every one of those rulings will be listed as further evidence of how his "bias" affected the case. ("OMG, he denied 97% of our (crappy) motions! He's so biased!")

I agree that it is normally a risky strategy to move for recusal of a judge, because (1) if your motion is denied, the judge gets pissed, and (2) you could end up with an even worse judge. But that's only if you think you have a chance of winning the case. Here, the defense must be extremely concerned about a conviction, despite the public bravado. I personally believe that the defense in this case WANTS this motion to be denied. Then they will file stacks of silly motions, which will all be denied. Then, on appeal, they can say, "He was biased to begin with, and then after we asked him to recuse himself, he just LOST it and ruled against us on EVERYTHING." But if the motion is granted, the defense can go out to the media and parade this as a Big Win. Lose=win, win=win.

 

[The World According]

I like, trust and respect Judge Strickland so it pains me to say this. I do not normally go to his site, indeed I had never heard of him until the day the judge told the bailiff, this is off the record, but see that guy over there in the second row ask him to come up for a second, or something to that effect. Then one of the mainstream papers made mention of it, iirc, and then had a link to Dave's sight.
When I saw what Dave had posted my heart sunk to the bottom of my stomach because I knew then Judge Strickland would have to step down over it.

It is the appearance of impropriety, certainly not that I believe there was any, in an abundance of caution ......Judge Strickland will step aside, imo.


I agree that as usual Baez better be careful what he wishes for, because, any of the other judges on that court are going to play hardball with Baez until he too is forced to leave the case, which I believe he will (over the 70K Todd put in Casey's trust account, over the negotiating media deals and or possibly over the bringing to and from the jail letters.

I noticed Cheney notarized Casey's signature with a notary stamp that expired in 09. Clearly Cheny prepared this document, not Jose.
Today is a setback, but remain calm...the next judge may suffer no fools and get this trial on track. Judge Strickland will be fine as he continues on his path trying other cases, like he always has.

Remain calm. LOL!!
At the end of the hearing, turn it up you'll hear the judge ask the bailiff to bring Dave up. [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ae5J_ObjkTw[/ame]

I sure do hope to be wrong on this!!!! If Baez prevails he will strut around in a manner that would rival John Travolta in Saturday night fever. It will be short lived, if he does, because the next judge may ask first thing...sir where is your proof the body was moved there after your client was jailed that Todd claimed you have, and where is your witness list that was due February 1, 2010?

O/T I like Mrs. Drane-Burdick, she stays calm, but she knows her stuff and she blows the defense out of the water!!! Often!!!!

 

[Astraea]

Supposing he made friends with a reporter- pick a name, there are several there every day - most people make friends in their workplace after all- and that person is a Crime reporter, so of course comments on the Anthony case, often not favorably, but since the facts about KC are overwhelmingly negative, it would be ridiculous or biased not to -is he not supposed to make a get well call when that reporter is taken ill for fear of accusations of unethical behavior from the Defense? Is he not permitted to pay that reporter a compliment when he reads published articles that demonstrate her skills?

BBM I happen to feel that this is a matter of personal opinion. I also think that if the media could sell positive, that no one would hear or have heard anything "bad" about Casey Anthony. I for one do not think that the "facts" that we have been released in document dumps are overwhelmingly negative. I think bloggers and other media types who make their living off sensationalism (like MD/NG/JVM et al.), take the facts and spin them as overwhelmingly negative. Ratings are very important, as is voter opinion come election time.

Regardless how one feels about Casey, blogs, media, etc... it is the judges job to remain fair and impartial. He must also appear to be remaining fair and impartial as far I am concerned. In this case it certainly does not appear so. I understand JS is but a human, but this IS a death penalty case and sadly, he of all people involved should know better. This case is just never ending craziness!! JMO

 

[Themis]

Judicial conduct is governed by a Code of Judicial Conduct and the rules are called canons. Here are the Florida Judicial Canons. http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/ethics/index.shtml

It is not unethical to talk to people, to have friends, to express social courtesies even by calling someone. Judge Strickland is not going to be the trier of fact in this case -- that will be the jury. Judge Strickland's key role as presiding judge is to maintain order in his court and proceed with the trial of this matter. He doesn't have to be neutral as long as his decisions have considered everything he is supposed to consider.

Think about it. What happens in a bench trial (tried before a Judge alone) and there is inadmissible evidence presented but not admitted into evidence. We expect that Judge to ignore that evidence when making the decision. Judges can real newspapers, watch television and generally be part of the community.

The old mantra of "appearance of impropriety" is often misused for a yardstick for the speaker's concerns rather than a standard of judicial conduct. What might be improper in the eyes of a super sensitive observer is not improper for the majority of us. Part of the standards involve what do other Judges do.

Just because the defense writes and files a motion doesn't mean it has any merit at all. Makes them look busy.

 

[darnudes]

Thanks AZlawyer, you make this much easier to understand. It's a big old hot mess all the way around, no doubt.

 

[beach]

Well yes... at which point he will promptly assign a true "hanging judge" to the case. While Floridas laws and judicial policies may weight towards erring on the side of caution with claims of impartiality, NO Head of a Court will allow an attorney to use this as a strategy in this manner and gain a benefit from it. This is Career and Case suicide for the defense in the state of Florida. JS has been extremely fair and cautious with their antics. If he is not recused, I am betting he will be nowhere near as lenient after this, and if he is replaced I am betting whoever comes next will bury the defense and add a second judge to the bar complaints against JB.

I just can't see where this is a winning defense move on any level? Can any of the lawyers around here point out what I am missing? Is their some trick to the Florida Judicial rotations that gives them some idea of who they will get next that they would think that is to their advantage?

The only thing I can possibly think of is CM is trying to force a clean slate with a judge that has not been subject to JB's antics for the past year+. But that strategy assumes JB is going bye bye at the same time as JS.

BBM

Excellent insight....great post.

In re. the bolded portion - I think that is exactly Cheney Mason's strategy. If he can rid himself of JS, I guarantee it won't take half the effort to rid himself of Baez. I've thought Baez was history since the moment Cheney Mason filed his appearance. He isn't about to play second fiddle to such a buffoon.

 

[sleutherontheside]

bbm
Looks like there could be a lot of "cyber" motions coming ... shouldn't those issues be handled in cyber-court?
One thing the defense HAS been consistent on from day 1 is crying about the media and KC never being able to get a fair trial .. you know because she's unpopular and all ... GMAB

There certainly may be "cyber motions"....but let's remember two very important things..........

JB argued AGAINST a gag order which would have limited the cyber world to commenting on discovery and hearings.

Additionally.......Florida Sunshine State laws put it all out there for everyone to see. Without the "discovery" and "doc dumps" the conversations would likely have stemmed long ago.

IMO...those two issues would have to be addressed before attempting to effect change in the operation of the WWW.

The defense may use comments on the WWW to support their position, but IMO they would be chasing their own tail. As I suspect a good number of them are probably on the WWW as we post. Of course.....that's JMO.

 

[darnudes]

BBM

Excellent insight....great post.

In re. the bolded portion - I think that is exactly Cheney Mason's strategy. If he can rid himself of JS, I guarantee it won't take half the effort to rid himself of Baez. I've thought Baez was history since the moment Cheney Mason filed his appearance. He isn't about to play second fiddle to such a buffon.

I agree with you but you are forgetting one important little princess in all of this.

Will Casey allow Baez to go?

 

[Themis]

I've been working in a culture with the "appearance of impropriety" standard for decades. It is not as much of a problem as most people of the public think it is. Defense has an opportunity to challenge a Judge when the case starts. If they miss that opportunity it becomes very very hard to recuse a Judge after motions have been made and ruled on that are against the defense. Appellate courts generally will leave the Judge on the bench for the remainder of the trial unless it is something significant that clearly jeopardizes the trial. I don't see it here.

 

[Themis]

I don't see this as a big mess. It is more like a tempest in a teapot.

 

[beach]

And a visit over to the Andrea tapes and lectures thread will show that she has stated and been recorded as stating that when the Judge is in an election year she pushes to delay. I'll go find her quote. I wonder if the defense was in actuality rephrasing AL's own comments.

I remember that vividly.

 

[Gypsy Road]

Thank you so much AZLawyer and Themis for your professional input!

 

[beach]

I agree with you but you are forgetting one important little princess in all of this.

Will Casey allow Baez to go?

Very good point. However, after all he has done, she may not have a choice. The FL Bar might be making that decision.

 

[AZlawyer]

Judicial conduct is governed by a Code of Judicial Conduct and the rules are called canons. Here are the Florida Judicial Canons. http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/ethics/index.shtml

It is not unethical to talk to people, to have friends, to express social courtesies even by calling someone. Judge Strickland is not going to be the trier of fact in this case -- that will be the jury. Judge Strickland's key role as presiding judge is to maintain order in his court and proceed with the trial of this matter. He doesn't have to be neutral as long as his decisions have considered everything he is supposed to consider.

Think about it. What happens in a bench trial (tried before a Judge alone) and there is inadmissible evidence presented but not admitted into evidence. We expect that Judge to ignore that evidence when making the decision. Judges can real newspapers, watch television and generally be part of the community.

The old mantra of "appearance of impropriety" is often misused for a yardstick for the speaker's concerns rather than a standard of judicial conduct. What might be improper in the eyes of a super sensitive observer is not improper for the majority of us. Part of the standards involve what do other Judges do.

Just because the defense writes and files a motion doesn't mean it has any merit at all. Makes them look busy.

Themis, I'm glad you disagree with me, because I want to be wrong.

 

[jon_burrows]

I hate to say this, but JS may have made an error. No way do I think he did something wrong - but even the 'appearance of doing wrong' could be an issue. Honestly, I don't think he should have called Dave up to the bench after the hearing, I don't think he should have chatted with him about his blog, and he sure as heck should not have called him, if he did, in February.

This is a major new issue and, again I hate saying this, but the defense has a point this time. I guess it all boils down to did Dave 'embellish' anything about the calls and what was said.

Not good, in my opinion, not good at all.

You posted my thoughts exactly. I guess we'll have to wait and see if they appoint a new judge. I hope there is nothing going on behind the scenes to try and get a buddy of CM's to take over as judge. He has been practicing law long enough to have developed good relationships with quite a few judges. It's my impression that CM likes to play the good ol' boy network.

I completely trust and admire Beth Carus (sp?). If she says it's a 10, I believe her...it is a big deal.

IMO

 

[denjet]

There certainly may be "cyber motions"....but let's remember two very important things..........

JB argued AGAINST a gag order which would have limited the cyber world to commenting on discovery and hearings.

Additionally.......Florida Sunshine State laws put it all out there for everyone to see. Without the "discovery" and "doc dumps" the conversations would likely have stemmed long ago.

IMO...those two issues would have to be addressed before attempting to effect change in the operation of the WWW.

The defense may use comments on the WWW to support their position, but IMO they would be chasing their own tail. As I suspect a good number of them are probably on the WWW as we post. Of course.....that's JMO.

Well put as always AZ! Good point, the defense could have prevented the public from seeing the discovery in this case and now is screaming because they HAVE seen it and have formed opinions ... ugghh
It gets back to who created AND continues to perpetuate this media circus?
The State? The Judge? ........ or Team Casey