Defense claims judge had inappropriate convo with blogger?

[butwhatif?]

No, I think he is blinded by fame. Calling a defendant a liar is not an honorable thing to do. Its the same as saying , this liar over here is innocent until proven guilty. I disagree that it was ethical. I believe it was unethical. I have never heard a Judge do something like this. At any rate, none of it really matters because I do not believe he will step down. I can't believe the Judge is the one going to make this decision. I think it should be someone above him. Who's watching big brother here? If he does not step down, there will prolly be grounds for appeal in the future. Kc deserves a fair trial, we all deserve a fair trial in this country. Kc can not get a fair trial with this Judge. IMO

BBM- No matter how fair her trial is, no matter what Judge presides, if there is a conviction , there will be an appeal.

I do hear what you're saying NTS, but this is just another defense tactic/strategy. It's not about JS at all.

As usual it's all about KC and her defense who don't want a conviction, and who will do anything to stall, delay, and to prevent hearing that word "Guilty" from any jury. (and I do believe there will be more than one).

JMO

 

[RR0004]

Makes you wonder...since some discovery is supposed to be released soon.

Well...I'm sure the State will save the best for last...are we even at the "mid-point" so to speak? Now, if that's the case....that they are trying to divert attention by going after the judge...wow, this could be good (or bad if you're Casey!).

 

[mitzi]

But...if they have released the information to the State...then it would be fair game?

I don't think the defense releases everything to the state...according to AZlawyer:

The defense does have to disclose documents they want to use as exhibits at trial

 

[Reagan]

TorisMom: Great post and thanks for bringing us back on track! Perfect signature as well :thumb:

The remarkable thing is that almost all of the compliments I've heard or read about Judge S. have come from defense attorneys. I think that's very uncommon and shows his impartiality to me at least.

I really hope he stays on this case. Out of all the trials I've followed, he is definitely one of my favorites. I do have to admit though that sometimes I've wanted to shake Judge S. because he's way too patient with the defense. I guess he has to be though due to the seriousness and gravity of the situation.
He has showed nothing but professionalism and integrity throughout this entire circus. Even though the defense files erroneous and frivolous motion after motion, Judge S still gives careful consideration to everything presented before him that I've seen.

 

[RR0004]

I don't think the defense releases everything to the state...according to AZlawyer:

The defense does have to disclose documents they want to use as exhibits at trial

...only that which they intend on using at trial...the rest they can flush!

ETA: actually...I think the majority of it will be toilet tissue.

 

[Dignity4Victims]

I totally disagree with this post. And calling my stuff bull crap is not very nice. It is not bull crap. She said to them that was her way of getting them out there to look at the tape. This thread is not about Kc lies, its about Judge S. unethical behavior. He is biased and not fair at all. He very seldom sided with the defense. If he denies this motion, people will keep watch on him with all future motion decisions. He has not given the defense ample opportunity to make reasonable request at all. There may be a real perp out there . No kidding. IMO

Um, have you forgotten that it was you who brought the subject up of Casey's lies? Yet now when you are confronted with them, you turn tail and quickly want to change the subject.

You made the accusation that Judge Strickland was out of line in making his comment that "Casey and the truth are strangers." Well guess what? It has to do with Casey's lies!

"Stranger to the truth" = a liar, Casey Anthony. See how that works?

There is no real perp "out there"; she's locked up tight behind bars where she belongs, where she will remain for the rest of her life.

 

[RR0004]

Marinade Dave's satirical comment 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?

You're right, this whole thing is absurd.

 

[Reagan]

Egads! You guys had a whole page and a half of discussion while I tried to type that out lol.
Now I've gotta catch up again.

 

[nancy botwin]

This is an outstanding, easy-to-comprehend explanation!

The thank-you button just wasn't enough for this one. :clap:

Now, that being said, I know you have already voiced your opinion that JS will not step down, but is that opinion solely based on the legal finding that it is not sufficient, or, do you feel that knowing the personality/character of JS, he may just go ahead and step down anyway, to suffice the Defense and save the waters from being further muddied down the road, as in, every ruling he makes, the Defense raising a, "See, I told you he was partial!"

I guess my question is, which one do you feel JS will stand for, what is legally in-sufficient, (meaning he would say, "screw you" and remain), or be the "nice guy" and bow out anyway?

Thank you -- I'm glad that made some sense. The funny (and often confusing) thing about legal standards is that they tend to pivot upon the concept of what is "reasonable" and, IMO, thereby transform the subjective into the "objective." So, often there's no clear answer and no real predictability. This reality makes your question very apt. What will Judge Strickland do and why will he do it? I don't know.

I don't think he'll recuse himself because I don't think anything alleged in the motion rises to the level where one could reasonably believe they will not get a fair and impartial trial. Marinade Dave isn't connected to any party; no disrespect to Marinade Dave, but in the grand scheme of things he's not extremely significant and he has no real ability to impact Casey Anthony's fate; and, the exchanges between MD and Judge Strickland seem like a congenial exchange between an enthusiastic blogger and a judge he admires. I've seen judges have their clerks babysit a victim's precocious child while court was in session. I've seen judges kick defendants' families out of court because their kids are being rowdy, their cellphones are ringing, etc. In the grand scheme of things, this Marinade Dave interaction is very tangential, IMO.

Also this motion is coming from a defense team which has consistently done stupid things for stupid reasons, so the deference which might ordinarily be afforded to this type of motion is lacking. I also think Judge Strickland stepping down would have scary implications. If a party wants to judge shop or derail the proceedings, all the party has to do is dig up something they can pretend is dirt and then make some allegations, file a motion and then *poof* the judge is gone. Are defense attorneys going to stake out judges' children's facebook accounts, waiting for some 14 year old to say "my dad says when this dumb case is over, we're all going to Hawaii. It's so stupid, we were supposed to leave yesterday!" (Oh no! The judge resents having to preside over defendant's case. Just last week, the defense filed 8 motions, clearly this frustrated his family vacation plans and he'll do anything to dispose of defendant's case! He probably told his daughter the defendant was stupid and dumb! etc.)

I know nothing about Judge Strickland's personality or character, other than my opinion that he seems exceedingly fair and good natured. That's a good question though, and someone with firsthand experience of JS could likely share some insight. Judges can and do respond very differently to this kind of motion-- some just automatically grant it. And one of the frustrating things about the rule is that the judges can't talk about why they granted or overruled the motion-- so you never know what their decision calculus was.

 

[nancy botwin]

This is an outstanding, easy-to-comprehend explanation!

The thank-you button just wasn't enough for this one. :clap:

Now, that being said, I know you have already voiced your opinion that JS will not step down, but is that opinion solely based on the legal finding that it is not sufficient, or, do you feel that knowing the personality/character of JS, he may just go ahead and step down anyway, to suffice the Defense and save the waters from being further muddied down the road, as in, every ruling he makes, the Defense raising a, "See, I told you he was partial!"

I guess my question is, which one do you feel JS will stand for, what is legally in-sufficient, (meaning he would say, "screw you" and remain), or be the "nice guy" and bow out anyway?

Also, I don't know if I directly answered your question. Answer: I don't know. I think he'll rule based on his interpretation of the motion's legal sufficiency. He's a judge and apparently a good one-- it's his job to depersonalize things and be fair and just. But it's possible his perception of fairness and justice would be to recuse himself, I suppose.

Two different perspectives from the bench:

9th Circuit Judge Bob LeBlanc: “Honestly, the few times I have been asked to disqualify myself, I did so without a second thought. If any party feels even a slight notion of impartiality, who am I to challenge that?” he wrote. “Of course, the first time it happened I was insulted . . . but I got over it fairly quickly.”

14th Circuit Judge James Fensom said he’s seen abuse of the recusal rule, both as a practicing lawyer and on the bench. “If a judge had an attitude of, ‘Well, if they don’t want me on the case, I’ll be off,’ then the current rule is an invitation for the motion to disqualify the trial judge. In short, this results in judge shopping,” he said.

 

[Dignity4Victims]

Also, I don't know if I directly answered your question. Answer: I don't know. I think he'll rule based on his interpretation of the motion's legal sufficiency. He's a judge and apparently a good one-- it's his job to depersonalize things and be fair and just. But it's possible his perception of fairness and justice would be to recuse himself, I suppose.

Two different perspectives from the bench:

9th Circuit Judge Bob LeBlanc: “Honestly, the few times I have been asked to disqualify myself, I did so without a second thought. If any party feels even a slight notion of impartiality, who am I to challenge that?” he wrote. “Of course, the first time it happened I was insulted . . . but I got over it fairly quickly.”

14th Circuit Judge James Fensom said he’s seen abuse of the recusal rule, both as a practicing lawyer and on the bench. “If a judge had an attitude of, ‘Well, if they don’t want me on the case, I’ll be off,’ then the current rule is an invitation for the motion to disqualify the trial judge. In short, this results in judge shopping,” he said.

You answered more than you give yourself credit for, so thank you. The 2 bolded lines were exactly my point, and it isn't your fault you're not a mind-reader.

 

[RR0004]

Um, have you forgotten that it was you who brought the subject up of Casey's lies? Yet now when you are confronted with them, you turn tail and quickly want to change the subject.

You made the accusation that Judge Strickland was out of line in making his comment that "Casey and the truth are strangers." Well guess what? It has to do with Casey's lies!

"Stranger to the truth" = a liar, Casey Anthony. See how that works?

There is no real perp "out there"; she's locked up tight behind bars where she belongs, where she will remain for the rest of her life.

Probably forgotten...

It's kinda like a hit and run...damage done...no accountability.

 

[RR0004]

You really do have to wonder, why now? I think it's just beacuse-they can. Do they honestly believe that MD could sway JS one way or another? Puleeez!! This does not bode well for their image.

 

[nancy botwin]

You really do have to wonder, why now? I think it's just beacuse-they can. Do they honestly believe that MD could sway JS one way or another? Puleeez!! This does not bode well for their image.

I agree! The word choice in the motion was rich and seemed bent on insinuating some creepy bond exists between Marinade Dave and Judge Strickland. It's ridiculous and I feel badly for the Marinade Dave. Thank goodness the defense is busying themselves by interviewing him instead of deposing actual witnesses in the case.:dance:

 

[Dignity4Victims]

You really do have to wonder, why now? I think it's just beacuse-they can. Do they honestly believe that MD could sway JS one way or another? Puleeez!! This does not bode well for their image.

Casey is doing as she has done since the day Cindy found her hiding out at Tony's; she's tainting her own jury pool.

Furthermore, the repercussions of this will go far beyond just Casey and her "boys", and not in a good way.

 

[sumbunny]

This motion can't be coming from casey...according to her secret letters, she loves the judge because he cares about how great she looks in court

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

Makes you wonder (once again!) if this has been put out to masquerade some new info that's coming down the pike.

Makes you wonder...since some discovery is supposed to be released soon.

I feel it's due to the interview KBelich put out there with MD...

Originally Posted by notthatsmart
His comments were not based on facts at all. They were based on an interrogation that was based on a false date (june 9th) , false cameras accross the street, and detectives making things up. There whole premise is based on false hoods. He should have never fallen for it. He is a Judge, and should know better. He may be a good man, but he is not a good Judge to be partial to one side. I am sure he insisted Kc be at all hearings just to make sure the cameras were there. He is caught up in the 15 minutes of fame disease. I doubt he will man up and step down. IMO

False date???

It's more than just an incorrect date, NTS..her work at Universal, the Sawgrass apartment she allegedly left Caylee off at, the fact no one can find this alleged nanny ZFG, the no calling authorities for 31 days, partying while a child is allegedly missing, the human decomp event in her trunk, I can list more but I think you get the point!

He wanted Inmate Anthony at every hearing so she knows what's going on with her case and doesn't have a reason to appeal, has nothing to do with his 15 minutes of fame. Absurd! JS stands for justice, he doesn't need 15 minutes of fame..I just don't get you sometimes, you're thinking changes like the trees who sway with the breeze..JMHO

I would like to know what the defense sees as a casual relationship with a blogger. What is their evidence? Is it the one time he called DM to the bench at that one hearing? They did the same with YMelich as he was passing time here from his broken leg. They have no defense so they will nit pick on anything. I don't want to see JS step down for I feel he is fair and equitable and will be fair to Inmate Anthony as he was when he sentenced her on her fraud charges but I'd like to see him step away and Inmate Anthony gets another judge who will not be so tolerant to the defense's outlandish BS..and it comes back and bites them hard...she may get a judge who is pro DP when found guilty, it's bye-bye baby...I think Baez should pick his battles with more thought for he may be a loser all ways around...

Justice for Caylee

 

[zoey]

I agree! The word choice in the motion was rich and seemed bent on insinuating some creepy bond exists between Marinade Dave and Judge Strickland. It's ridiculous and I feel badly for the Marinade Dave. Thank goodness the defense is busying themselves by interviewing him instead of deposing actual witnesses in the case.:dance:

about that desposing actual witness thingy.....shouldn't they be doing that NOW--?? Isn't that what all that money is supposed to pay for????

Also on the off chance that they get what they want.....:furious:--do they get a pick who comes next???? What if the next guy doesn't like all these fun and games that they are doing? What if, WHAT IF HE MAKES THEM BE LAWYERS instead of trying/attempting on TV?? Cound the next one shut the defense up with gag orders? What about all those useless tv appearances jb does??

Also did the tv stations get the news the same time as the court? I do think at times jb files with the news prior to court.....

 

[LambChop]

Funny how defense did not seem to have a problem with JS as a judge for her Fraud trial. Liked him then. Accepted the terms as fair even though she was caught red-handed cashing and forging checks belonging to AH. He was good enough for her then. Did not seem to bother the judge knowing she was a habitual liar to give her a light sentence? So maybe there is something still being held back by SA's investigation that will not look too good for KC that we have yet to see so defense needs to muddy the waters.

I do think the judge was trying to make an impact on her about the bond and why it was so high initially. Who lies about their missing child and what would be the point? Therein lies the answer.

The worst part is if defense gets away with this, they'll all be doing it. JMO

 

[What'sThatClue]

Perhaps JB is on a little revenge kick with this motion, since JS filed a complaint against JB with the FL Bar just a couple weeks ago.

It's as if JB is grasping at straws here. An old comment made by JS, a comment to a blogger? Sheesh.

IMO, JS has been more than fair and patient with JB and his ridiculous motions.

Edited to add---so sorry, I was reading the last pages of the thread about the complaint and failed to notice that the first page was made on April 8, 2009 (not 2010). My fault.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=82620&highlight=baez+complaint