Defense claims judge had inappropriate convo with blogger?

[beach]

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.

Thank you so much for that insight.

Although, it sounds like the worst of all scenarios. Already working on appellate strategies. Before they turn over the first iota of discovery.

grrrrrr!

 

[Dignity4Victims]

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.

I agree with you, except I blame Dave more than Judge Strickland because of how Dave was bragging it all up on his blog. Had JS and Dave had their little conversation, it could have been investigated and done with, no harm done. But because Dave wanted to make such an issue of it on the blog, it appeared to a lot of people to be more than a simple "thank you for impartially blogging". Daves headlines of, "Casey must die!" didn't help, even though the actual article he wrote was only announcing the State had put the DP on.

Sometimes, when you "know things" and have spoken to certain people, it's best to keep a tight lid on it if you really want justice for Caylee!

 

[Themis]

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

I know you do AZ.
At first blush it seems big, but when adding the decades of experience factor -- it's really not. There was no discussion of merits or anything. JS knows what he can and cannot do. They won't do anything "out of an abundance of caution" when the case is already underway. The motion will be decided and that's that. Defense can try to appeal at an appropriate time. Otherwise where do you draw the line -- the Judge smiled at defense today? The Judge was cross with the Prosecution? They won't hesitate to rule on the motion and move on. This kind of thing is big for selling newspapers but like most news today -- it is knee jerk, surface level analysis and doesn't get into any history of other cases where Judges have been removed during a contested jury trial for judicial conduct of simply being pleasant to a member of the public. If anyone out there wants to show AZ and me that case we will read it. A real investigative reporting article would have had far more depth on the subject than just finding the motion in the court files and speculating.

 

[Muzikman]

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

I don't think that is quite correct - a gag order wouldn't have stopped discovery from being publicly released under Sunshine Laws.

It WOULD have stopped the Defense, and the Anthony Family, from talking to the media. And that's why they contested it. It was asked for by the Prosecution.

The Anthony's were still looking for a "Live Caylee" and wanted that to continue, and the Defense? Well, Baez wanted his 15 minutes.

That's my understanding, anyway.

 

[wonders]

How long ago did this happen? It seems to me it was a while ago. So why did the defense wait until after KC was declaired indigent to file this? IDK but talk about "appearance of impropriety" appears to me JB et-al are improper.

Buuutttt. If JS steps down ya better be careful what you wish for JB!

 

[beach]

i don't think that is quite correct - a gag order wouldn't have stopped discovery from being publicly released under sunshine laws.

it would have stopped the defense, and the anthony family, from talking to the media. And that's why they contested it. it was asked for by the prosecution.

The anthony's were still looking for a "live caylee" and wanted that to continue, and the defense? Well, baez wanted his 15 minutes.

That's my understanding, anyway.

bbm

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

[wonders]

I don't think that is quite correct - a gag order wouldn't have stopped discovery from being publicly released under Sunshine Laws.

It WOULD have stopped the Defense, and the Anthony Family, from talking to the media. And that's why they contested it. It was asked for by the Prosecution.

The Anthony's were still looking for a "Live Caylee" and wanted that to continue, and the Defense? Well, Baez wanted his 15 minutes.

That's my understanding, anyway.

BBM

Dang that has been the longest 15 minutes I've ever waited through and it's not over yet.

 

[Muzikman]

I know you do AZ.
At first blush it seems big, but when adding the decades of experience factor -- it's really not. There was no discussion of merits or anything. JS knows what he can and cannot do. They won't do anything "out of an abundance of caution" when the case is already underway. The motion will be decided and that's that. Defense can try to appeal at an appropriate time. Otherwise where do you draw the line -- the Judge smiled at defense today? The Judge was cross with the Prosecution? They won't hesitate to rule on the motion and move on. This kind of thing is big for selling newspapers but like most news today -- it is knee jerk, surface level analysis and doesn't get into any history of other cases where Judges have been removed during a contested jury trial for judicial conduct of simply being pleasant to a member of the public. If anyone out there wants to show AZ and me that case we will read it. A real investigative reporting article would have had far more depth on the subject than just finding the motion in the court files and speculating.

Thanks for your analysis, Themis, REALLY appreciate it. Makes me feel a little better. :dance:

According to the motion, this will have to be ruled on very quickly? Would the Head circuit judge make any comments as to it's merit or non-merit?

The local media is making a big deal out of it, which I think was the INTENT of the defense. It was filed at 4:48 PM on Friday, 10 minutes before the Clerk's office closed for the weekend.

And I'd be willing to wager that SOMEONE tipped off media that there was going to be something interesting at the Clerk's office, last minute.

Reading the motion, to this layman's mind, it is mostly fluff and no substance. Two very short conversations with a blogger.

So, in other words, just as the defense has done in the past: MEDIA PLOY.

 

[sleutherontheside]

BBM

Dang that has been the longest 15 minutes I've ever waited through and it's not over yet.

That's because you have entered an alternate space time continuum. Time also tends to be skewed when you fall down a rabbit hole.

 

[shelbar53]

Baez is standing on the court house corner handing out pitchforks and torches to the angry mob of 3. In this day and age of INFORMATION....one has the rights to puruse them. Technolgy is all over the place. The people that wear the robes have a higher than average inteligence and is very capable of discerning what they read. Actually I want my judges well read and "in the Loop", they are making decision and they should be well informed. They are respectable men and will not stoop to letting gossip impact on decisions. Somebody, throw a bucket of water on the angry mob to douse their torches.

 

[sleutherontheside]

Defense media ploy....................

Why wouldn't they do something that may actually paint them in a positive light? Oh wait......that isn't their concern is it?

 

[MD MOMMY]

How long ago did this happen? It seems to me it was a while ago. So why did the defense wait until after KC was declaired indigent to file this? IDK but talk about "appearance of impropriety" appears to me JB et-al are improper.

Buuutttt. If JS steps down ya better be careful what you wish for JB!

The incident in court was MONTHS ago but MD was just inteviewed by Det. Lyons last Sunday/Monday. This is when it came out as to what was said. They clearly interviewed MD in regards to his conversation with Judge S. I guess now that the state is footing the bill the defense can carry on interviewing. Funny how they interviewed MD pronto, they knew what they were doing IMO.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

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.

Sadly, I think I'm agreeing with you. Except I don't even find hope in the fact that Dave could be embellishing anything. If I knew JS was a frequent reader (and that he liked it), the last thing I'd do is misrepresent anything he said. . . But, no ~ then, really, the last thing I'd do is blog about it at all!

 

[The World According]

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]
__________________You know what is too funny? I cannot believe Baez wants to draw attention to this hearing and have folks revisit it.....Mrs. Drane-Burdick moped the floor with him at this hearing. It was brutal!!!! One does not put a big red mark on every flaw on a car they are trying to sell, right?

Good grief!

 

[Just Jayla]

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:

No offense to MD, but I don't think Judge S. needs Dave to handle his PR. I believe Judge S.'s character and career speaks for itself. I would even contend that a few bloggers out there are read in large part because they are linked to this site. Judge S. has yet to come to Websleuths to campaign.

 

[strawberry]

At the end of the hearing, turn it up you'll hear the judge ask the bailiff to bring Dave up. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ae5J_ObjkTw
__________________

TWA, could you pull up those old videos of JB saying how KC is 100% innocent an misunderstood, and that the truth will come out at trial? Cuz I'm thinking if that were the case he wouldn't need to worry about the judge. PS this is the hearing where KC is scribbling furiously...writing to Cookie perhaps?

 

[sleutherontheside]

Sadly, I think I'm agreeing with you. Except I don't even find hope in the fact that Dave could be embellishing anything. If I knew JS was a frequent reader (and that he liked it), the last thing I'd do is misrepresent anything he said. . . But, no ~ then, really, the last thing I'd do is blog about it at all!

BBM
I agree with that comment as apparently others did too. In fact.....MD had an entire blog entry that was dedicated to that subject where he said, in essence, it was a totally innocent exchange and that nothing improper took place. He also stated that he would feel terrible if his blog created an issue for JS.

That said.......his poem "memorializing" the event remains present. I am not dogging another blogger, but I think that in the absence of anything more concrete than a heavily edited transcript, that we can actually verify........we are putting too much weight on only one side of the story.

Additionally, I do have to ask why people would be so outraged at a change in presiding Judge. (I personally find him fair and ethical.) The weight of the case should fall on the shoulders of the SA and the defense team. JS is there to supervise the "playground" not to get in the sandbox.

 

[sleutherontheside]

TWA, could you pull up those old videos of JB saying how KC is 100% innocent an misunderstood, and that the truth will come out at trial? Cuz I'm thinking if that were the case he wouldn't need to worry about the judge. PS this is the hearing where KC is scribbling furiously...writing to Cookie perhaps?

BBM.....perhaps she was penning a reminder to ask for JB's interpretation of 100% or a reminder to look up the legal definition of innocent?

 

[The World According]

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:

Reading that makes me take their motion much more as a Baez goof. It would be like having Joy testify as a search expert after she explains to the jury how she started as an angry protester and then "switched sides"!
You just can't make this stuff up!!!

Do you remember when Baez tried to have the prosecutors thrown off the case too? That ship did not sail. I think they have admitted publicly that largely they file all of these motions to "make a record" for the eventual appeal.

 

[sleutherontheside]

In the infamous words of Andrea Lyon.....

"If you don't like it........file a motion."