Defense claims judge had inappropriate convo with blogger?

[Dignity4Victims]

I think you are now starting to attribute statements to me that I certainly never posted.:waitasec:

No, but you did answer my question about your belief, unintentionally, but the answer was very clear.

 

[Astraea]

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.

Bumping for clarity in regards to my point about "appearance" in this situation we are discussing.

Sorry AZlawyer...I didnt want to just reword what you had written...hope thats ok.

 

[sleutherontheside]

Cases cited...

State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. vs Penland, 668 So. 2d 200, 204 (Fla. 4th Dist. Ct. App. 1995)

Novartis Pharms. Corp. vs Carnato, 840 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 4th Dist. Ct. App. 2003)

Coleman v State, 866 So. 2d 209.

Anyone....anyone.......?

 

[Astraea]

No, but you did answer my question about your belief, unintentionally, but the answer was very clear.

I do not believe in good/evil as your question indicated, therefore the answer could not have been very clear at all. You can also trust that there is nothing unintentional in my answers to you, or to anyone else in what I post here. I am sorry that you feel that way.

 

[strawberry]

hmmm, who would know 2 days before the court filing that this motion would be coming? The defense? :waitasec:

That's crossed my mind as well.

 

[strawberry]

...and to add if she gets a "beach trial"...I want one, too!

oxoxox

Just trying to lighten up the mood.

You beat me too it!! I think she wanted a beach trial...in Miami!

 

[strawberry]

Guess I should have read the post you linked ... I thought it was someone with inside info ... now I get it ... :blushing:

Actually...maybe you were right the first time.

 

[AZlawyer]

The hearing was not over by any means. No one had been dismissed from the room. Casey had not left the court when JS stopped to ask the bailiff to bring MD up as you stated. This is just complete fallacy. I can handle a differing opinion....but facts on tape ....I just cant be bothered to dispute...it is there to see.

Doesn't matter if you wish to dispute or not, WS 'ers can watch the video and see Casey escorted through the exit by the CO. After she has left, GA and CA start to walk through the door. At that point you can see that MD has been stopped at the doorway. Sorry it doesn't agree withe the story you are trying to promote here, that he interrupted the proceedings to talk to Dave, but it did not happen that way. I was watching that day and I have watched the video several times to ensure accuracy.

The hearing was not over (but was winding down) when the judge asked the bailiff to bring MD up, but it was over by the time the bailiff actually brought him up.

Can someone tell me why it matters whether the hearing was over or not?

 

[butterfly1978]

Is there a history with Judge Perry and Mason? Maybe Mason wanted "a good ole boy" as judge.
Will other judges "remember" Baez actions in this case and maybe somehow give Baez a hard time with future cases? Not that Baez would be able to specifically pin point details of how he is being retaliated aganist. I would not want to go to a defense lawyer knowing how he aggrevated judges and maybe grudges are held.

I laughed when I saw that Perry Mason, LOL

 

[strawberry]

I can't help but wonder if KC's own words will again come back to bite her. She praised JS in her letters yet claims she is fearful she can't get a fair trial. She has contradicted her position IN WRITING. Don't think it will go unnoticed.
.

RSBM Does anyone know exactly where in the letters she praised JS? I'd like to reread those words but can't stomach the thought of rereading the whole slew. TIA

 

[AZlawyer]

So because he said more than "hello", which was to compliment MD on his blog specifically using the word, "fairness", that's somehow to you more evil than a simple "hello"??

Really? You're serious?

IMO there's nothing "evil" about it, but it sure shows a greater appearance of impropriety to opine as to the fairness of a blogger's posts than to say "hello" to a blogger.

As I've mentioned before, I personally doubt that JS actually made the "fairness" comment at all, but he won't be able to consider whether the allegation is true or false in deciding the motion.

One thing that just occurred to me today is that JS could deny the motion as "legally insufficient" based on the fact that the only allegation that would justify disqualification (the supposed comment about "fairness" etc.) happened six months ago and was presumably known to the defense six months ago (because MD sure wasn't keeping quiet about it). The only thing that happened recently (within the time limit for a motion to disqualify) is that the defense learned that the judge called MD in the hospital and therefore, perhaps, was reading MD's blog--which IMO is not even an appearance of impropriety.

 

[sleutherontheside]

Perry / Mason

Secrets allegedly being withheld from the defense.

Alleged judicial improprieties

Alleged Invisible Nanny's

Jailhouse memoirs


My question...... will this "straight to DVD" / "movie of the week" be released on a Tuesday which is standard practice....or on a Friday at 4:58 PM?

 

[Aedrys]

IMO there's nothing "evil" about it, but it sure shows a greater appearance of impropriety to opine as to the fairness of a blogger's posts than to say "hello" to a blogger.

As I've mentioned before, I personally doubt that JS actually made the "fairness" comment at all, but he won't be able to consider whether the allegation is true or false in deciding the motion.

One thing that just occurred to me today is that JS could deny the motion as "legally insufficient" based on the fact that the only allegation that would justify disqualification (the supposed comment about "fairness" etc.) happened six months ago and was presumably known to the defense six months ago (because MD sure wasn't keeping quiet about it). The only thing that happened recently (within the time limit for a motion to disqualify) is that the defense learned that the judge called MD in the hospital and therefore, perhaps, was reading MD's blog--which IMO is not even an appearance of impropriety.

I really hope that is the case, AZlawyer. I was wondering about that. I thought they only had a short time to bring this kind of motion, not six months after the fact. Geez, you'd think with Cheney onboard, legally insufficient motions wouldn't be written anymore. I guess not.

 

[LambChop]

The hearing was not over (but was winding down) when the judge asked the bailiff to bring MD up, but it was over by the time the bailiff actually brought him up.

Can someone tell me why it matters whether the hearing was over or not?

My guess AZlawyer is that some people are just more familiar with the court room than others. Judges are allowed to have a life. So are attorneys. This is not the trial, they're hearings. Now if she had a judge by the name of Judge John "Hang em High" Doe, then even I would be complaining. Evidently KC thinks she can change judges like she changed boyfriends. JMO

 

[Dear Prudence]

What I don't understand is why the defense would want Judge Strickland off this case. The Judge has been more than fair and patient with Baez. He has ruled in favor of the defense on plenty of motions, he has even told Baez on occasion when to cite more legal precedence to bolster his motions, he has always allowed Baez more time on deadlines when asked.

Is this a common motion in capital cases in order to delay? Is Mason just wanting to start fresh with a new judge since he is now taking over? Do they really have an issue with Judge Strickland or is this just some tactic?

 

[LambChop]

Perry / Mason

Secrets allegedly being withheld from the defense.

Alleged judicial improprieties

Alleged Invisible Nanny's

Jailhouse memoirs


My question...... will this "straight to DVD" / "movie of the week" be released on a Tuesday which is standard practice....or on a Friday at 4:58 PM?

Oh Goodie, sleutherontheside.....do we get to do another poll????

 

[sleutherontheside]

RSBM Does anyone know exactly where in the letters she praised JS? I'd like to reread those words but can't stomach the thought of rereading the whole slew. TIA

"his intention is to actually help my public image. Kudos to Judge Strickland"

pg 288 http://www.wftv.com/pdf/23069597/detail.html

 

[ZsaZsa]

The hearing was not over (but was winding down) when the judge asked the bailiff to bring MD up, but it was over by the time the bailiff actually brought him up.

Can someone tell me why it matters whether the hearing was over or not?

At one point he whispers to the Bailiff, but the proceedings were done.
He did not talk to him until Casey had left the court.
Here is the statement made by Aestrea post #592 of this thread.

"Maybe JS should have waited for the case to finish before extending his appreciation of MD's views as to how he is conducting his courtroom.
It allowed for the Inference and appearance of bias.

He was supposed to be making a decision on a motion and the foremost thing in his mind was a blogger in his courtroom".

The fact is that is simply not true- JS did not interrupt the proceedings to talk with him. In a short aside to the Bailiff he is heard whispering 'That guy in the second row' .

Once Casey has left the courtroom, the public start to walk towards the doors, the Attorneys are packing up and moving toward the doors, THEN the bailiff indicates to MD that the Judge wants a word with him.

Why would someone state that the Judge appeared in an unprofessional, biased way during a court case when he did not ? ( Thank God for video) Well if they have to state something as fact that is not true, exaggerate in order to malign him I would say that is not just a difference of opinion - maybe they have an Agenda.

 

[Dear Prudence]

Ummm, not that this matters to me in the least, but is he of a minority persuasion that may or may not have been slurred IN WRITING by Miss Anthony in her letters?? If it's gotta happen, then I want this guy just for that reason! Not that he wouldn't be fair but it would just be...karma

Yes, Belvin Perry Jr. was the first African American to be elected as a judge in Orlando without first being appointed. His father, Belvin Perry, was one of the first African American police officers in Orlando.

ETA:
Here's an interesting article on Perry Jr. (p. 4 -5) http://www.ninja9.org/publications/soundblock/Summer-1999.pdf

Here's an article on his father: http://www.cfnews13.com/Features/Bl...as_one_of_orlandos_first_black_policemen.html

 

[LambChop]

What I don't understand is why the defense would want Judge Strickland off this case. The Judge has been more than fair and patient with Baez. He has ruled in favor of the defense on plenty of motions, he has even told Baez on occasion when to cite more legal precedence to bolster his motions, he has always allowed Baez more time on deadlines when asked.

Is this a common motion in capital cases in order to delay? Is Mason just wanting to start fresh with a new judge since he is now taking over? Do they really have an issue with Judge Strickland or is this just some tactic?

You know, my guess is CM just does not care...he's planning on retiring and wanting to go out with a bang. Maybe write a book about his career with a chapter or two on this case.

What I see could happen is it backfiring big time. I see Nancy Grace running one of her special's about the judge and his career. How fair he has been to KC? It certainly would make a good story and you know there are a lot of people who would watch. Plus I do not see the other judges being very happy to take over a case under these circumstances, because I bet JS originally lost the toss.

Sounds like desperate times call for desperate measures. JMO