Defense claims judge had inappropriate convo with blogger?

[Just Jayla]

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.

....Short answer: Yes, they will essentially disqualify the jury when they appeal...and they will try to disqualify the judge, disqualify evidence, KC will even try to disqualify her own attorneys before she finally meets her end.

 

[ZsaZsa]

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.

Sorry, I disagree. There was nothing hidden about the conversation they had.
He can enquire after the health of a blogger if he wishes - where is the impropriety in that?

If Nancy Grace came into his courtroom he might comment that he watches/likes innocent her show and compliment her on a particular story she had focused on. There is no impropriety in that either, just a compliment to someone whose interests are the same. Because NG announces KC's guilt and CA's obnoxiousness on every show does not mean that he can't watch the show- would that make him biased?

 

[ZsaZsa]

....Short answer: Yes, they will essentially disqualify the jury when they appeal...and they will try to disqualify the judge, disqualify evidence, KC will even try to disqualify her own attorneys before she finally meets her end.

Timewasters R Us. :innocent:

 

[ZsaZsa]

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.

Can you imagine Judge Judy with this case? :dance:
She would put Mr Baez firmly in his place. Mr Mason's phony good ole boy routine would fall very flat..

 

[Just Jayla]

If statute and precedent holds true, the defense will have to lay out exactly why this communication prevents her from getting a fair trial-However, based on the reactions of the attorneys on this thread tonight, I am thinking Judge S. won't put up much of a fight...while I think it's total crap, the upshot to Judge S. bowing out gracefully would be that he does not allow this group of vultures to pick him apart.
Make no bones, if these attorneys have to pick Caylee apart by saying she drove KC to irrational, depressive behavior, they will do it. Asking Judge S. to recuse himself will be one of the least offensive things they will do over the next couple of years.
Fortunately, there is a Judge that will never be recused, a Judge that holds Caylee in His arms and comforts her. The ways of men are not His way, and His justice is swift.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

mason seems to be an even bigger bonehead then baez.

how does he not know the notary expired?

Given his bizarre demeanor, I wouldn't be surprised if he expected the court to just take his word sans notary- a wink and a smile, and an "I'm a good ole boy, we don't need to mess with these formalities."

 

[denjet]

Can you imagine Judge Judy with this case? :dance:
She would put Mr Baez firmly in his place. Mr Mason's phony good ole boy routine would fall very flat..

LOL "Mr Baez, don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining!"
"Mr Baez, one more stupid statement and you'll be removed from my courtroom"
Case closed!

 

[Horace Finklestein]

If statute and precedent holds true, the defense will have to lay out exactly why this communication prevents her from getting a fair trial-However, based on the reactions of the attorneys on this thread tonight, I am thinking Judge S. won't put up much of a fight...while I think it's total crap, the upshot to Judge S. bowing out gracefully would be that he does not allow this group of vultures to pick him apart.
Make no bones, if these attorneys have to pick Caylee apart by saying she drove KC to irrational, depressive behavior, they will do it. Asking Judge S. to recuse himself will be one of the least offensive things they will do over the next couple of years.
Fortunately, there is a Judge that will never be recused, a Judge that holds Caylee in His arms and comforts her. The ways of men are not His way, and His justice is swift.

Yes we are in for quite a haul I'm afraid. Hard to believe we're not even close to the actual trial.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

But he got personal with a blogger blogging on the Caylee case, is that not so?

Why does it matter? What conclusions can be drawn from his conversation? I don't think Judge S. is going to do anything inappropriate.

 

[legalmania]

Hope this hasn't been posted yet, here are the F.S. that describes under what conditions a judge can be disqualified. Start with 38.10

http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/in...htm&StatuteYear=2009&Title=->2009->Chapter 38

 

[nancy botwin]

So, will Strickland hear the motion of replacing himself, or will another judge?

Judge Strickland will rule on the motion himself. He will either grant the motion and immediately remove himself, or issue an order denying the motion-- he can't give a rationale or explanation about whether things alleged in the motion are true, false, or otherwise comment on his ruling. He has to rule in 30 days but I'm assuming he'll rule very quickly.

 

[Aedrys]

You know, I should be surprised. But all I can do is shake my head.

Way to go Baez. Bite the hand that feeds you! Alienate the one person who's bent over backwards to be fair! And honestly, I've read Marinade's blog. I think he's more in admiration of Judge Strickland than vice versa.

Pathetic. And AZlawyer, I so hope you're wrong...the last thing we need is to lose Judge Strickland!!!!

My weekend is ruined with this motion! It's like just when I think the defense can't possibly do anything to make me angrier, they find something to do that does. *sigh*

 

[Aedrys]

You know, I just realized Judge Strickland is one of the people the defense hasn't taken a real shot at yet. So it makes sense that they made this motion. After this, there will be no one left untainted by this defense.

Seriously though, why on earth would you do this to such a fair judge? I've gritted my teeth at times at how fair he's been. This seems so totally ludicrous to do when Judge Strickland was about the last person that was giving the defense any sort of leeway. They must really want Casey convicted to p*** off the last hope of leniency they had.

I am totally baffled at this. I think the defense has run out of appendages to shoot at this point. With this motion, they're shooting themselves in the head!

 

[absolut_alexis]

Strickland is not the chief judge of that court. I suspect the chief might sit him down and say, "OK, maybe this isn't fair, but you did overstep your bounds somewhat, and it's not worth creating appeal issues. Let's assign this one to someone else."

Yes, but it could also work out that the chief judge could say, "Look, your rulings have been consistent before you met this blogger and after you met him, this blogger isn't a party to the case, so this looks like judge shopping to me."

They are going to have to demonstrate an actual bias with such a remote connection to the actual case, I think. As long as JS will makes independent decisions about this case, regardless of what Marinade Dave writes, he is fine.

 

[faefrost]

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...

Neither Det Melich, not JB is the presiding judge, who must maintain the presumption of impartiality. So JS has a much higher standard to maintain.

But by the same note, this does not mean we expect our judges to live an issolated and cloistered existance. The assumption of impropriety for reading a blog or commenting on a frequently seen court followers health is probably not an area where the Florida banch as a whole wishes to go. To do so opens up the questions of how far could that be taken as a reason of judicial impropriety. Judges are expected to be members of their comunity and to be informed members of said comunity.

Regardless I still can't see the upside of this to the defense, beyond laying the groundwork for an expected appeal. You don't try and force out a judge you are appearing before without good clear and compelling reasons. especially one that has be all observations treated you and your co council with a tremendous degree of patience and far more even handedness than your courtroom antics would traditionally warrant. And even then you approach it with extreme caution as it is far more likley to burn you and your clients for a long time.

 

[magic-cat]

Well, I love Judge Strickland, no denying THAT...lol...but having read this motion and all of their allegations it is my opinion that the Judge may have no alternative but to remove himself. Not because he is guilty of what has been accused, but because it could be viewed from the "movants" point of view as being thus, and therefore he must concede and remove himself. As much as I hate it, and as much as I LOVE His Honor, this sure doesn't look good at all...

 

[Just Jayla]

Yes we are in for quite a haul I'm afraid. Hard to believe we're not even close to the actual trial.

Jury selection alone is going to be hellacious.

We have skirted around an actually very important point though: why would the defense want to recuse a judge, especially this judge, at this stage in the game? Obviously, they can't get KC out of jail by recusing judges; and they are certainly gambling on getting a judge more sympathetic to them.

Is this retribution for the recent denial re: the TES records motion? Because MNJ made them look like law students and JS's denial added insult to injury?

Or is this CM being a hot shot, he thought he had a "gotcha" moment when his brilliant PI found information that has been around for months and months? Have to wonder if maybe CM does not know Judge S. that well, and would like to see if maybe he can land one of his closer friends on the bench.

Maybe simply a stall tactic to prolong the eventual demand by the state that they put up or shut up re: their witness list and proof of SODDI.

One thing I know this motion is not: It is not because they believe Judge S. will endanger KC's right to a fair trial. And from what I am reading, that is really the only reason that they should ask him to recuse himself-But when has KC's defense ever actually advocated law for her? JB can barely cite law, and AL expects judges to make law as they go along...you're telling me that Super Mason genuinely fears his client cannot get a fair trial because the judge said hi to MD? Bull.

 

[nums24]

I think this is just a smokescreen by the defense. The defense has filed so many legally deficient motions and feel that their being treated unfairly (IMHO).

I think the real reason for this motion is so they can re-argue some of the motions that have been denied. I think that's their real angle. I also think that may be part of "budget" motion.

This is part of Florida rule of judicial administration 2.330, section H:

(h) Prior Rulings. Prior factual or legal rulings by
a disqualified judge may be reconsidered and vacated
or amended by a successor judge based upon a motion
for reconsideration, which must be filed within 20
days of the order of disqualification, unless good cause
is shown for a delay in moving for reconsideration or
other grounds for reconsideration exist.

 

[Just Jayla]

You know, I just realized Judge Strickland is one of the people the defense hasn't taken a real shot at yet. So it makes sense that they made this motion. After this, there will be no one left untainted by this defense.
Seriously though, why on earth would you do this to such a fair judge? I've gritted my teeth at times at how fair he's been. This seems so totally ludicrous to do when Judge Strickland was about the last person that was giving the defense any sort of leeway. They must really want Casey convicted to p*** off the last hope of leniency they had.

I am totally baffled at this. I think the defense has run out of appendages to shoot at this point. With this motion, they're shooting themselves in the head!

BBM-Well, Caylee is still untainted. But they will make short work of that, too, if they must.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

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.

Sorry, I disagree. There was nothing hidden about the conversation they had.
He can enquire after the health of a blogger if he wishes - where is the impropriety in that?

If Nancy Grace came into his courtroom he might comment that he watches/likes innocent her show and compliment her on a particular story she had focused on. There is no impropriety in that either, just a compliment to someone whose interests are the same. Because NG announces KC's guilt and CA's obnoxiousness on every show does not mean that he can't watch the show- would that make him biased?

Thank you, ZZ, for this good question. And I totally agree with you; JS did absolutely nothing wrong as far as my opinion goes! I totally agree that he should do all these things you have proposed. He certainly should be interested enough in the case, IMO, to expose himself to every available piece of information about it. And he should be allowed to process that information. He should do these things!

Except to make a compliment. That confers an agreement on views. The defense team is running with this to try to insinuate that JS and Dave might share the same interests/views, specifically of this case. And they are trying to use that to say that JS has, before the trial, an inclination as to the guilt or innocence of the accused. I don't think he does. But I can understand that JS's comment and interest in Dave and his blog have given the defense an excuse to criticize.

It was terrible when we lost that auditor. The audit that was being conducted had absolutely nothing to do with his "perceived" lifestyle shortcomings but it was such a high-level, sensitive audit subject that it was decided to put him out rather than loose all the valuable info he had collected.

So, you are right. He did nothing wrong! But in certain walks of life you are required, not only to do nothing wrong, but to even never give anyone the impression that you could have done anything wrong. Ugly requirement, huh?

IMO, the two best players we have going for us are JS and TM. Let's see. They've already "done" JG, AH, RK, the searchers and now JS. We have to pray for TM because before this is all over I'm sure we'll know more about him than even his family knows.

I used to call it our system of justice; now I call it our legal system.