Defense claims judge had inappropriate convo with blogger?

[Macushla]

The reason I posted the info and link to his blog was to offer some support to the theories that:

The interview was heavily edited.
There was another perspective to consider.
The defense may utilize legal but morally unethical tactics.

That said.......I am not supporting MD's blog entry as fact, nor am I citing him as a media reference. BUT.....as MD is a party that has been referenced in the defense motion, I think it only fair to point out that..... It appears to be a standard practice of the defense investigative team, to interview, video, record, and transcribe their personal interviews with people without any formal "swearing in" or final transcript approval by the interviewees.

Is it illegal to attach an edited transcript as part of a motion? No it is not. But I have to wonder........why go through the trouble of an interview and the expense of transcription and video.....if it can't be VALIDATED? snipped

Ok, I will discuss these items: Yes, the interview was very heavily edited and I did not appreciate that at all. Having said that, how many times during other interviews have we heard/read about intertivews being stopped and then restarted when something not relevant to the interview at hand is talked about? Probably not quite the same, but close.

Both jail house buddies of KC were interviewed first without it being sworn or recorded and those interviews were summarized in the reports - and I have never heard of an interviewee being allowed to approve a transcript. I know I had to do an interview once years and years ago, and I wasn't allowed to approve the transcript - it was typed up and that was that.

SOTS I actually agree with what you are trying to say, the defense is known for underhanded, low down and flat out nasty tactics - this is probably par for the course for them. I also agree that the whole interview should have been attached as an exhibit, not just some parts.

I will say I don't think the defense PI's are allowed to take sworn testimony from someone like LE or the STATE do. I think that has to be done by an attorney - these are just field interviews and I don't think the same rules apply in a field interview as they would in a deposition.

 

[LambChop]

Well, PI's do what they have to do to get information, including asking questions that lead to a specific answer. It's what they do. The responsibility for the end result lies with the attorneys. For the truth we would need the whole tape. JMO

 

[AZlawyer]

LambChop, it appears that, in Florida, the judge is not allowed to question or deny the facts alleged in the first motion to disqualify filed by a party:

Fla. Rule of Jud. Admin. 2.330(f)

The judge
against whom an initial motion to disqualify under
subdivision (d)(1) is directed shall determine only the
legal sufficiency of the motion and shall not pass on
the truth of the facts alleged. If the motion is legally
sufficient, the judge shall immediately enter an order
granting disqualification and proceed no further in the
action. If any motion is legally insufficient, an order
denying the motion shall immediately be entered. No
other reason for denial shall be stated, and an order of
denial shall not take issue with the motion.

:banghead:

So basically if he denies the order it can be determined that he finds no truth in the allegations; if he steps down JS as good as admits he feels he acted improperly. Let's hope he does the right thing. JMO

ETA: Do you think, as an attorney, that this will "tick off" a lot of the legal community? If JB had something substantial I could see it. But this is just "cry baby" stuff. Really is this the best the defense can do? Chasing ex-wives of RK, TES searchers and bloggers when we still have not seen a composite of Zani the Nanny.

bbm

No, my point was that he has to grant the order if it is "legally sufficient," even if the facts alleged are completely false. It looks like, in Florida, you get one chance to do a motion to disqualify without proving your facts--and even if the judge knows perfectly well they are not true. After that, any additional motions to disqualify are more carefully scrutinized.

 

[Macushla]

bbm

No, my point was that he has to grant the order if it is "legally sufficient," even if the facts alleged are completely false. It looks like, in Florida, you get one chance to do a motion to disqualify without proving your facts--and even if the judge knows perfectly well they are not true. After that, any additional motions to disqualify are more carefully scrutinized.

As a lay person, it makes no sense to me that whether or not the allegations are true has no bearing in the initial motion :banghead: But since that is what the regs say, so be it. Is the motion legally sufficent in your opinion and that of the other legal people here or is that what we are debating?

 

[mitzi]

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.

The defense team seems to have a compulsion to have PIs interview people and then putting it out in a motion for public purposes....and interviewing without putting anyone under oath or serving any subpeonas....ala Jill Kerley. Definitely another MEDIA PLOY here.

 

[LambChop]

I could be wrong but I took from JS's statement to KC, at the time her child was reported missing (and that would be missing, not dead), that the judge was trying to convey to her that all the lies she told in her statement to LE were not helping her get her child back. If judges can and do ask a defendant if they understand what they are being charged with and other similar statements I don't think JS was out of line. Also JS insisted KC be present for all the hearings and JB produced a statement from KC asking to be excused. JS was watching out for her rights at that time, not so her attorney. It was this very judge that put power for her defense back in her hands so that JB would not have all the control. KC has a right to know what is going on in her case and not to have to hear it second hand. That does not sound like a judge that does not care about her having a fair trial.

Two very famous attorneys from Orlando have spoken publicly about the defense and agree this was a big mistake on defense's part which will not benefit their client. If I were a defense attorney right now I'd be embarrassed for my profession whether or not I was a fan of JS. JMO

 

[noor]

I LOVE IT This is a must read. I love you Dave. I was never a fan of his blog but I will read from now on. Let's give the man a hand. :Jumpie::Jumpie::Jumpie::Jumpie: He tells it like it is.

You really might want to re-think that.

JMO.

 

[noor]

That's nonsense. Strickland has been overly fair and generous with the defense. I think the defense has a lot to lose by doing this because the next judge may be a bit stricter. It seems more likely that a judge would be more strict than less strict imo. It saddens me to see Judge Strickland painted as unfair, it's just silly to think that imo.

I agree.
He made the comment about KC and the truth being strangers in the very beginning, he HAD to set a bond.
He gave a long speech, reasoning why he had to set a high bond.

 

[LambChop]

When you give a deposition and the transcriber sends the attorney a copy there is an errata sheet where you can make your corrections. You should always read your statement before you sign the copy to be sent to the court.

 

[sleutherontheside]

I could be wrong but I took from JS's statement to KC, at the time her child was reported missing (and that would be missing, not dead), that the judge was trying to convey to her that all the lies she told in her statement to LE were not helping her get her child back. If judges can and do ask a defendant if they understand what they are being charged with and other similar statements I don't think JS was out of line. Also JS insisted KC be present for all the hearings and JB produced a statement from KC asking to be excused. JS was watching out for her rights at that time, not so her attorney. It was this very judge that put power for her defense back in her hands so that JB would not have all the control. KC has a right to know what is going on in her case and not to have to hear it second hand. That does not sound like a judge that does not care about her having a fair trial.

Two very famous attorneys from Orlando have spoken publicly about the defense and agree this was a big mistake on defense's part which will not benefit their client. If I were a defense attorney right now I'd be embarrassed for my profession whether or not I was a fan of JS. JMO

Whereas JS has been chastised for the statement...."The truth and Miss Anthony are strangers"........let's remember that in that first 24 hours after the 911 call she led them to Universal Studios where she admitted to LE that she was lying about having a job, gave them addresses that did not pan out, and offered names of people that did not exist in the context that she gave them.

JS did not make a comment based on his opinion....it was based on facts.

 

[denjet]

I think your points are valid indeed. Of particular note is the break immediately following MD comments about another blog with a scientific POV. IMO...it is relevant. Perhaps the defense is saving that one for another motion.

Oh, I so hope it's not the case ... I knew exactly where he was going with that and my jaw dropped when I read it ... first thing I thought is don't tell me they are going to use blogs and forums as evidence to prove KC will never get a fair trial ... it seems to be the tip of the iceberg and they started with the blogger who said Hello to the Judge ...

Shouldn't they concentrate these efforts on juror selection? It just makes me think they've come full circle and are once again trying to get the charges dropped based on media exposure and, of course, Casey being "unpopular" ...

I hope the judge and the prosecution stay on top of this form of derailment and keep this case moving forward to trial, but with where the defense is coming from this latest stunt, it's going to be a battle all the way ...

 

[The World According]

Now that the lawyers have pointed out this would open up the defense to be able to request matters already ruled on by Judge Strickland to be heard again by the second judge I want to change my opinion. For that reason, which I trust is not lost on JS, I think he will say as is often in this case...the motion doesn't even come close to the legal requirements to have him removed. I have been thinking about this today and about the time the defense tried to have the prosecutors thrown off the case. The defense has filed motions in this case that site many, many media outlets, giving quotes and attachments from every media site, print, news, cable, blogs....you name it, so they have invited the judge to review all of the coverage and public opinion when they were requesting a change of venue, for example.

The judge mentioned once in court that he happened to catch some of NG and Greta, et al discussing the case and he made some reference to the effect of well isn't the cat already out of the bag...

So, him saying hello to Dave in the courtroom cannot be any more egregious than him running into a reporter from that community in the line at the grocery, local bank or diner. The defense is making a big deal about the judge phoning Dave to wish him well in the hospital. I imagine if you live and work in the same city for years you know everyone and everyone knows you. Naturally you can be warm to them. That is wholly different than the judge opining on his rulings or telegraphing how he is inclined to rule on upcoming matters with a reporter or blogger.

I sure do wish Dave could have just thanked the judge and carried on rather than being so star struck that he had to gush and over inflate the small exchange. A little discretion goes a long way. Dave aside.....
now that I understand the let's erase the board and start all over again effect this would have I hope and pray the judge just says NO!
If the defense were to be allowed to have everything heard again, the trial would definitely be three years away. I think Judge Strickland should be judged by his record, which is beyond reproach and he should be afforded the benefit of the doubt.

The defense has, and will continue to request things they have no real expectation of prevailing on, just to lay a record for the eventual appeal. I so want Monday to come and go with a simple Motion Denied response.

 

[LambChop]

You really might want to re-think that.

JMO.

Nope. I think he said what he had to say and until I hear the whole tape I will think no less of him. And frankly, I do not see anything wrong with what I read on his blog. I do not think he was disrespectful to KC from what I read. Her child is dead and I have heard worse on here about her. So no, just another victum or should I say two to slip under de bus. Frankly if I lived in Orlando today I'd be afraid, very afraid I would be the next victum. Defense is going to need a bigger bus. JMO

 

[nancy botwin]

Dave wrote about the lunch in satire, not as truth.

He was being accused of siding with the Defense at that time, so he wrote that as a complete joke, nothing more.

thanks for letting me know, it wasn't evident to those who don't post over there, and the person who posted next took it seriously ... in light of the recent motion, it's NOT funny and he should remove it ...

Marinade Dave's [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5077522&postcount=353"]satirical comment[/ame] about going to Waffle House with the defense attorneys perfectly demonstrates the problematic basis of the defense's motion. Judges shouldn't be forced to remove themselves based upon a blogger's subjective (or perhaps even farcical) retelling of experiences they purport to have shared with the judge. What if MD really had bumped into Jose Baez at Waffle House and JB had asked to borrow the syrup from MD's table? Should that exchange, in conjunction with MD's aforementioned comment, be construed to mean JB & Co. were "courting" rogue blogger Marinade Dave?

 

[denjet]

bbm

No, my point was that he has to grant the order if it is "legally sufficient," even if the facts alleged are completely false. It looks like, in Florida, you get one chance to do a motion to disqualify without proving your facts--and even if the judge knows perfectly well they are not true. After that, any additional motions to disqualify are more carefully scrutinized.

I would like to know what you think might be considered legally insufficient in this motion ... does that fact that only one person has been interviewed have any weight? or the fact that only a partial interview and partial snippets from blogs or even the fact the just titles and not content are quoted ...
Can you see any things that may question the legality of the motion ?
If you can answer, that is ... if I'm putting you on the spot, please just ignore ...

 

[LambChop]

Let's not forget that the State does not have to prove KC is a liar. She has done that herself. Just like the State really did not have to prove she wrote and cashed stolen checks as KC proved that herself on the videos. jmo

 

[sleutherontheside]

Sheesh.....did I kill the mojo?

 

[nancy botwin]

I would like to know what you think might be considered legally insufficient in this motion ... does that fact that only one person has been interviewed have any weight? or the fact that only a partial interview and partial snippets from blogs or even the fact the just titles and not content are quoted ...
Can you see any things that may question the legality of the motion ?
If you can answer, that is ... if I'm putting you on the spot, please just ignore ...

I know you directed your question to AZLawyer, but I'll sound in too.
As AZLawyer stated, Judge Strickland has to look at all the allegations in the motion as facts (JS called him at the hospital, summoned him to the bench, said MD's blog was "the best" etc. etc.) If the motion had alleged that JS had winked at MD and pulled a Casey Anthony voodoo doll out from under his robe, JS would have to accept that allegation was a fact too. That's how the rule operates.

The legal sufficiency is determined by contemplating whether the facts alleged were "reasonably sufficient" to cause a "reasonably prudent" party (in this case, Casey Anthony) to believe she won't receive a "fair and impartial" hearing/trial before that judge.

A subjective fear of bias is not legally sufficient. The judge's history of issuing adverse rulings against the moving party is not legally sufficient.

IMO the facts alleged in the motion aren't sufficient to withstand the reasonableness/objective fear test, whereas the winking/voodoo doll brandishing hypothetical would be legally sufficient, if that offers any clarity?

 

[denjet]

Ok, I'm still thinking here (which isn't always productive), but, for these accusations to be legally sufficient wouldn't the person of interest have to be someone involved in the case, like an inappropriate relationship with one of the prosecutors or witnesses? Or someone legitimately making a living as a reporter or a news station who the judge is feeding information in the form of opinions on the case?
It just seems that it would be so easy for someone to come forward, say an alleged mistress or friend and say that the judge spoke about how he already thinks KC is guilty and bam! He would HAVE to step down ...
What I don't understand is that it doesn't seem like the allegations have to even be proven ... just the appearance of bias ... so someone can make up anything and say the judge is biased ??

 

[nancy botwin]

Ok, I'm still thinking here (which isn't always productive), but, for these accusations to be legally sufficient wouldn't the person of interest have to be someone involved in the case, like an inappropriate relationship with one of the prosecutors or witnesses? Or someone legitimately making a living as a reporter or a news station who the judge is feeding information in the form of opinions on the case?
It just seems that it would be so easy for someone to come forward, say an alleged mistress or friend and say that the judge spoke about how he already thinks KC is guilty and bam! He would HAVE to step down ...
What I don't understand is that it doesn't seem like the allegations have to even be proven ... just the appearance of bias ... so someone can make up anything and say the judge is biased ??

These are very excellent points. That's why these motions shouldn't be filed so capriciously. I [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5078523&postcount=532"]posted[/ame] in another thread about how the FL Judicial Ethics Committee is actually contemplating issues like those you've posed and may change the rules for considering such motions in the future.