Defense claims judge had inappropriate convo with blogger?

[GhstTrkn]

Personally, I would like to see this investigated (ducking as I'm typing to miss all the things that are going to be thrown at me LOL). Reason being...I like JS but I want to see KC's conviction stick(and I believe that she will be convicted). IF there was any wrong doing on JS's part (and I honestly don't believe there is any) then I would like to see him removed (ducking even more). I don't want even a slim chance...once convicted...that KC's conviction might be overturned because of some wrong doing of a judge. AGAIN, I don't believe there was any wrong doing...but just in case I would like to see it investigated. I do believe this is JB's way to get back at JS...that being said, if it's investigated and they find nothing wrong on JS's part then JB is going to look more like a fool than he already does (is that possible?). Does what I'm saying make sense to anyone...I'm tired and I don't know if I said it the way I meant to LOL. Please don't throw to hard...I bruise easily

 

[21merc7]

Wow, I just found out about this. Honestly, I have been wondering would this would happen. Maybe Judge S wouldn't mind getting out of this trial, but KC could get a much less impartial and balanced Judge. I see nothing wrong with Judge S's conduct, there is nothing wrong with it, this was just one of many steps/stunts expected in a loosing battle. It happens all of the time, and, if you remember any of the publicized cases it has happened in, it worked to the client's detriment.

Next, KC tries to fire all attorneys mid-trial.

 

[static]

Thanks...it IS soooooooo unfair, but in the end, as long as their is a trial and there is a judge sitting on the bench ruling by the letter of the law, as judges tend to do? KC will get what is coming to her. It will be heartbreaking if Judge Strickland does not get to see it to its finish...but if that will keep that monster from gaining a new trial on appeal? Then let it be...:banghead:

I just have developed a new and entirely more noxious hatred for the defense team of KC Anthony...they are despicable in every way and my only comfort is in knowing what goes around does indeed come around and theirs is coming for them as surely as the sun rises each morning...

It wasn't as if the judge and dave were sharing licorice. This is just too much.

 

[ZsaZsa]

I suppose it's only a coincidence that this motion was filed on the same day that Kathi Belich's interview with Maya Derkovic, who actually heard KC admit to using Chloroform was to be shown?
The good thing about this defense team is that they kinda warn us when some really big news is coming- they file a motion.... and we hold our breath wondering when the real news will arrive!

 

[ZsaZsa]

I'm not going to lie-- I hope you're wrong too
I don't know-- I guess I'm out of the loop with the whole Marinade Dave thing-- that said, I think it'll be a steep slippery slope if judges are forbidden from talking with people who avidly blog, twitter, facebook, etc about high profile issues because everyone seems to avidly blog, tweet or FB about something. Maybe the legal culture is particularly rigid in FL, I don't know. Where is the esteemed Richard Hornsby...?

I'm of the opinion that the Marinade Dave affair is tantamount to Judge Strickland saying "great hair cut" to Kathy Belich -- or shaking his head and saying "lots to think about, I know what I'll be doing all weekend. Have a good one!" to an attorney who shares an elevator with him at the end of the day.

Richard Hornsby stated that the Defense will look back on this as the worst possible move they could have made.
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/

I think so too. I think they are going to have to live with Judge Strickland for a long time yet...

 

[Numbers]

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.

I'm going to dig out my black arm bands, my black dress and pumps, and my black veil. I think we're going to be looking at the death of many, many trees before the defense is done filing "reconsideration" motions. I want to be appropriately attired for my mourning.

 

[beach]

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.

I agree and would add that even JS denies the motion, the defense wants it on the official record for future appellate review.

 

[zoey]

I'm not going to lie-- I hope you're wrong too
I don't know-- I guess I'm out of the loop with the whole Marinade Dave thing-- that said, I think it'll be a steep slippery slope if judges are forbidden from talking with people who avidly blog, twitter, facebook, etc about high profile issues because everyone seems to avidly blog, tweet or FB about something. Maybe the legal culture is particularly rigid in FL, I don't know. Where is the esteemed Richard Hornsby...?

I'm of the opinion that the Marinade Dave affair is tantamount to Judge Strickland saying "great hair cut" to Kathy Belich -- or shaking his head and saying "lots to think about, I know what I'll be doing all weekend. Have a good one!" to an attorney who shares an elevator with him at the end of the day.

knowing how much jb "loves" kathi that one would totally totally push him over the edge.....

bbm

 

[zoey]

I agree and would add that even JS denies the motion, the defense wants it on the official record for future appellate review.

think they are still trying to get those records from texas equasearch and all that other stuff that they have failed to investigate themselves--I do question how much this "investigation" cost Flordia taxpayers since they are on the hook for it now.....:twocents:

 

[Macushla]

Here is my theory as to why this motion was filed!

CM has taken over this case and is working towards a plea bargain of some kind. The State is taking a hard line (and so they should) and offering LWOP or some very long prison terms. CM files this motion as his way of saying "OK, you want to play hard ball, look at what I can do here. I have a million other motions up my sleeve that will drag this case out for the next 10 years! Now let's talk some realistic possible plea bargains!" I honestly think this is CM's way of trying to get the State to agree to some sort of plea bargain in the range of 15 - 25 years. Wil it work? I have no idea.

 

[songline]

This turn of events will probably put another pause in the case (almost certainly)....
And George and Cindy Are laughing themselves silly.
They pray daily for another snag that will keep the case in DOUBT.

The longer the case will take the more certain it is that Casey will walk with time served...JMHO

GRRRRR :banghead:

 

[beach]

Here is my theory as to why this motion was filed!

CM has taken over this case and is working towards a plea bargain of some kind. The State is taking a hard line (and so they should) and offering LWOP or some very long prison terms. CM files this motion as his way of saying "OK, you want to play hard ball, look at what I can do here. I have a million other motions up my sleeve that will drag this case out for the next 10 years! Now let's talk some realistic possible plea bargains!" I honestly think this is CM's way of trying to get the State to agree to some sort of plea bargain in the range of 15 - 25 years. Wil it work? I have no idea.

You make a good point, Macushla. Assuming that is Mason's strategy, he would be well advised to check his ego, because IF (and that is a BIG IF), the SA would even agree to putting another plea bargain on the table, I think the best they would offer is LWOP. They have included the charge of
Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child. I think they feel VERY confident they could get a guilty verdict on that charge. Richard Hornsby stated in a response on his blog, ..."even if she adopts the Accidental Theory she will still be guilty of committing Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child and is looking at thirty years in prison."

 

[spqr]

I don't believe Strickland said that about waiting until after the elections. I would have to see and hear him say it. He is not stupid and would never, ever say such a stupid thing. Any links anyone?

Hey toetag,

Just for clarification...I wasn't saying that JS did in fact say that, I was just responding to another post. I don't think he said it either.

 

[doogiesgirl]

I personally would NOT want the judge in my case reading blogs and commenting on it openly to the public. There is also an enormous difference as far as I am concerned between reading/watching the news and sleuthing the internet. Sure JS can watch Belich and run into her and tell her he likes her reporting, but Belich is not likely going to go on air and tell her news audience that this occurred. I personally think he should just remove himself.

We are actually in transition mode right now. Newspapers are literally going out of business due to the internet. Heck...I know I haven't read a newspaper in years and I get a majority of my news from the internet...not even TV anymore. MY own B-I-L worked for the Wash. Post for over 25 years and last fall was made to retire or be fired. Newspapers are on their way out my friend.

If you watch that proceeding...the judge emptied the courtroom and then spoke to MD. It's not on tape b/c the bailiffs emptied the courtroom. JSS asked one of them to let MD stay as he wanted to speak to him. (dardunes has it posted on this thread somewhere)

MY point is ......the internet is the NEW NEWSPAPER...so would this be a problem if JSS had spoken to a newspaper reporter? I somehow think not.

Call their bluff Judge, they are going to appeal one way or another so stay, I implore you JSS!

JMHO

 

[Astraea]

We are actually in transition mode right now. Newspapers are literally going out of business due to the internet. Heck...I know I haven't read a newspaper in years and I get a majority of my news from the internet...not even TV anymore. MY own B-I-L worked for the Wash. Post for over 25 years and last fall was made to retire or be fired. Newspapers are on their way out my friend.

If you watch that proceeding...the judge emptied the courtroom and then spoke to MD. It's not on tape b/c the bailiffs emptied the courtroom. JSS asked one of them to let MD stay as he wanted to speak to him. (dardunes has it posted on this thread somewhere)

MY point is ......the internet is the NEW NEWSPAPER...so would this be a problem if JSS had spoken to a newspaper reporter? I somehow think not.

Call their bluff Judge, they are going to appeal one way or another so stay, I implore you JSS!

JMHO

I did watch the proceeding (three times now), and JS asked the bailiff to call MD up before the proceeding was even finished. It is on the tape and was heard over the microphone. As a matter of fact he seemed to find it more important to speak to MD then to finish up what he was doing at that time. IMO

I dont disagree about the internet. I was simply stating that I think the judge should know better then to allow the appearance of impropriety. The motion was well written and based in fact and precedent in my opinion.

I have nothing against JS, I just feel it was a little over the line, especially given the media interest in this case(which apparently he is well read up on).

 

[noor]

You know, we only have Marinada's word.
Who knows if it's even true.
He was not sworn in, heck he can tell any story he wants to.
Did the defense ask to see some evidence that the judge indeed call Dave after he came home from the hospital?

I bet ya not in a million years would Marinada think this little interview would show up in a motion filed in the court, to disqualify the judge, no less.

 

[legalmania]

I think Baez wants Strickland gone because he has ruled against so many of his motions. Baez has made a fool out of himself and getting rid of this judge is not going to stop that. As comedian Ron White said, "you can't fix stupid."

 

[denjet]

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.

So does this mean that IF Judge Strickland steps down that any motions he's ruled on since October '09 would be null and void ???
If so, that would that include the schedule agreed to by the state and the defense?
And would it also include the judge's rulings in favor of the defense like the indigent hearing?

 

[denjet]

There's been speculation as to which judge would step to take over the case should Strickland recuse himself (not that I think it will ever happen) ...
I guess the defense would take issue with Judge Belvin Perry Jr and Judge Byrd ?? Dave Knechel worked on Judge Byrd's re-election campaign doing some artwork for him. Dave also quoted Judge Byrd as saying "I'm gonna kick that little black boy's *advertiser censored*."

He wrote an article about it in March 2006:

Judge Belvin Perry, Jr. – little black boy
"After going over the plan of attack and some talk of his opponent, Judge Byrd was ready to leave, confident in the knowledge that we would deliver exactly what he needed. As he walked out of Mr. Stone's office, he proudly exclaimed,

"I'm gonna kick that little black boy's *advertiser censored*.""

"Mr. Stone was all excited. I was flabbergasted. I couldn't believe what I had just heard. I said nothing in return. As a matter of fact, I didn't respond at all. How could a sitting judge display blatant racism like that?"


Dave has posted comments on his blog February '09

"I’ve never met Judge Perry, so I can’t vouch for his integrity one way or the other. All I can say is that my opinion of Judge Byrd certainly faltered after his racist remark."

"How on earth did you find this one? Yes, it was a dilemma, but it all worked out in the end. It would have been difficult to give up my career based on principle alone, and that is what I put in the forefront of my mind. I had mouths to feed. Young women to date. It was a tough decision and I had to weigh my paycheck and my conscience to decide. I took into consideration that Byrd was a product of the South and by calling someone by a racial slur did not necessarily mean the guy was a flat out racist. I had to take a lot of different things into consideration."


And this is the blogger who's going to bring down Judge Strickland ?? I think not.

 

[AZlawyer]

I disagree with you completely. Strickland has not done anything improper, nor anything that would give the appearance of impropriety. He will not and should not recuse himself.

He also is not dumb enough to blindly rule against the defense. He has and will continue to bend over backwards to assure that Casey gets a fair and unbiased trial.

Toetag, I think you misunderstood my comment. I was not saying that JS would "blindly" rule against the defense. What I was saying is that he would rule against the defense a lot--because the defense tends to file motions that are without merit--and then the defense will try to present those perfectly fair rulings as "blindly" ruling against them.