Defense claims judge had inappropriate convo with blogger?

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
The World According said:
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
__________________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!
Click to expand...

I had posted this on page 7 but thanks for reposting it.
 
So it appears the real question is not whether or not it is okay for the judge to read a blog on the case over which he presides, it has more to do with whether the motioning party can establish good reason to believe that it prevents their client from getting a fair trial:

In Aberdeen Prop. Owners Assoc. Inc. v. Bristol Lakes Homeowners Assoc. Inc. (4D08-4467), the Fourth DCA reversed the circuit court and ordered the circuit court judge disqualify himself due to the defendants reasonable fear that it could not receive a fair trial. It is not necessarily relevant whether the Judge could in fact provide the party with a fair trial. In this case, the trial judge had a personal situation somewhat related to the issue before the court and, therefore, the party had a reasonable fear it would not receive a fair trial. The Fourth DCA held:
Rule 2.330(f) requires a judge to enter a n order granting disqualification if the motion to disqualify is "legally sufficient." The motion is legally sufficient if it shows the party’s well-grounded fear that the party will not receive a fair trial. See Enter. Leasing Co. v. Jones, 789 So. 2d 964, 968 (Fla. 2001); Livingston v. State, 441 So. 2d 1083, 1087 (Fla. 1983). It is not a question of what the judge feels, but the feeling in the mind of the party seeking to disqualify and the basis for that feeling. See Goines v. State, 708 So. 2d 656, 659 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (“[T]he facts underlying the well-grounded fear must be judged from the perspective of the moving party.”), disagreed with on other grounds by Thompson v. State, 949 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007), quashed, 990 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 2008); Wargo v. Wargo, 669 So. 2d 1123, 1124 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Of course, the party seeking disqualification has the burden of showing that the party has a well-grounded fear of not receiving a fair trial. See Adkins v. Winkler, 592 So. 2d 357 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).
 
Question... Until this is ruled on does the clock stop ticking so to speak? In other words, can Judge Strickland continue to rule on other motions and matters in this case or does everything come to a halt as a result of this?
 
ZsaZsa said:
He actually posts the point of view from both sides, but I wouldn't call him pro-defense...:confused:

When you report the facts of this case, it might seem to a lot of people that you are pro-Prosecution, but KC is so obviously guilty, how could you not be?
JS can read all the opinions on the Web if he wishes, I don't see a problem with that ... someone posted here yesterday that WS members just want to 'get a rope' for her.. If JS saw that comment he might read further, to find that there are opinions that are far more extreme with those that want leniency for her..

Is it against any ethical code of behavior for a Judge to read publications/watch TV/ read blogs about current cases?
Click to expand...

I could rephrase ZsaZsa if you like - IMO and with apologies - I believe he is very supportive of George and Cindy.
 
The World According said:
POST OF THE YEAR, 'cuz she really did say that!!!!!
Sleuther I think you could write the authoritative book on the World According to Andrea. You sure have her number!!!!
Click to expand...

I don't think it's that I have her number as much as it is that she has put her number out there for all to see via her lectures, interviews, and articles. One just has to be looking at the whole picture to identify the "soundbites".

Now serving # 31.......is there a # 31????
 
Astraea said:
Paragraph 6 in the MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY TRIAL JUDGE.

"Judge Strickland has made off the record comments to both the prosecution and Miss Anthony's defense lawyers that he (the judge) would like to wait until after his re election is over to set the trial date in Miss Anthony's case." This does not surprise me either.
Click to expand...

Nor does it surprise me. A judge who is charged with the responsibility of this trial should not be distracted by anything, especially his future employment. I think it is quite an honorable stand. If he doesn't get reelected, then the new (or another?) judge would try the case.

But maybe I'm not understanding something here. Would JS still have to see the trial through to the end, even if he were not reelected?
 
The World According said:
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. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ae5J_ObjkTw

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!!!!
Click to expand...


I fear you are right. sigh
 
AZlawyer said:
Themis, I'm glad you disagree with me, because I want to be wrong. :)
Click to expand...

Me too - I disagree - I think he'll stay. How can anyone prove what they discussed? Could have been vegetables, could have been sauce.

Next!
 
strawberry said:
OK, at MD's site he has an index to his Caylee blogs. However I tried to find the one about meeting the judge which would have been right around 10/16/10. However, the index mysteriously skips from 10/14 to 10/22.

http://marinadedave.wordpress.com/caylee-marie-anthony-posts/

Sooo I did some googling and found it. As someone said, it's quite bragalicious :(

http://marinadedave.wordpress.com/2009/10/19/it-was-my-honor-your-pleasure/
Click to expand...

strawberry, that was me. In case you were looking for it, I deleted the post because I realized after re-reading it that it was...er, well not very nice or tactful while referring to another site. Out of respect for the mods and TOS.

Sorry if I confused you. :)
 
I know I had a rough week and I'm tired and very grumpy.

But people! Mull and discuss, mull and discuss! There are some very very bright minds here.

It feels like Chicken Little entered the House and is running around.
Why is it that just because Baez et al finally decided to bust a move most posters are acting like the sky has fallen in. What ever happened to stay the course?

Me? I'm picking up my marbles and getting off for the weekend. I hope when I get back all these folded cards aren't still sitting on the table.
 
If JS has to step down I hope they get the meanest, most nasty tempered judge in the court system. Someone that will reign in JB and make him stop all his carp. Nothing would make me happier than to see him held in contempt and have to play by the rules.
 
beach2yall said:
strawberry, that was me. In case you were looking for it, I deleted the post because I realized after re-reading it that it was...er, well not very nice or tactful while referring to another site. Out of respect for the mods and TOS.

Sorry if I confused you. :)
Click to expand...

That's so funny, I deleted my post about not liking the MD article about the meeting...for the same reasons! I think this is just striking a nerve. I HEART Stan Strickland. You didn't confuse me, I was just too lazy to look for it.:blushing:
 
MD MOMMY said:
The incident in court was MONTHS ago but MD was just interviewed 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.
Click to expand...

And how does that interview prove Casey is innocent?

Dave isn't one of the real players. Doesn't know the Nanny or any of the players until well after Casey was arrested. There is no reason the state should approve funding for this.
 
So, will Strickland hear the motion of replacing himself, or will another judge? Also didn't Melich get kind of in trouble because he blogged on something (topix?) while he was out with a broken leg? HE didn't get thrown off the case...
 
Astraea said:
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
Click to expand...

I don't like what you are saying but I know it is true. In my federal workplace I had the sad experience of seeing a lowly auditor lose his job because his lifestyle gave the appearance that he could have been compromised. There are positions, in this life, that require even more than morality; they require the perception of unquestionable morality to be maintained. Obviously, this is an unattainable goal. Who among us. . . . ?

Nevertheless, Cheney has found a chink in the armor. I just pray, regardless of perceived morality, that our next judge will be as fair as JS has been.
 
elementary said:
IMO, the judge should not be reading any blogs. At the very least he should not be acknowledging it. What am I missing here when it comes to justice and judge neutrality? Seriously, how stupid is that?
Click to expand...

Isn't it the same thing as watching the news? I don't see a problem with it.
 
FWIW I think this is all a storm in a teacup. The Defense don't really want to get rid of him, he has been very lenient with them so far, and has a great reputation for fairness- what they want is for the motion to get denied and then they can whine every time he denies anything, every time he over rules an objection - "See how biased he is'..
Timewasting is the main objective here.

Casey is guilty so it won't matter in the long run anyway, who presides over this case. It's the Jury that will fry her..
 
The strategy seems to be: when the indefensible has no defense, disqualify the judge. If that doesn't work, what are they going to do next - disqualify the jury?

One other thing - funny how this occurred while the Haleigh Cummings case was on the front page. Guess JB couldn't take being ignored.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 62 more.
Total: 1,964 (members: 63, guests: 1,901)

Online statistics

Members online
63
Guests online
1,901
Total visitors
1,964
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
601,106
Messages
18,118,530
Members
230,995
Latest member
truelove
Back
Top