Defense claims judge had inappropriate convo with blogger?

[Dignity4Victims]

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.

How so? Whether he said "hello", or "great blog, nice to see someone impartial", both reflect a sense of being neutral, which is what the position of a Judge is all about. At no time has it been reported that Judge Strickland gave MD any indication of anything sinister, which would be evil, going on between them.

Then what do you believe was said, and why do you not believe it was pertaining to MD's blog written in fairness? Just curious.

I agree, but I don't believe in the least that the thorn in the Defense's side has anything to do with MD. The issue of Judge Strickland's comment, "Ms. Anthony and the truth are strangers" has been raised time and again on this board, and I fully believe that this is exactly what has the Defense all in an uproar. They can't raise a motion about that now due to the time lapse, therefore, this is their "backdoor" way of having the Judge removed for his comment. Dishonest, but also very expected by the Defense. [/B]

 

[AZlawyer]

[/B][/COLOR]

How so? Whether he said "hello", or "great blog, nice to see someone impartial", both reflect a sense of being neutral, which is what the position of a Judge is all about. At no time has it been reported that Judge Strickland gave MD any indication of anything sinister, which would be evil, going on between them.

Then what do you believe was said, and why do you not believe it was pertaining to MD's blog written in fairness? Just curious.

I agree, but I don't believe in the least that the thorn in the Defense's side has anything to do with MD. The issue of Judge Strickland's comment, "Ms. Anthony and the truth are strangers" has been raised time and again on this board, and I fully believe that this is exactly what has the Defense all in an uproar. They can't raise a motion about that now due to the time lapse, therefore, this is their "backdoor" way of having the Judge removed for his comment. Dishonest, but also very expected by the Defense. [/B]

I agree--absolutely nothing evil, sinister, etc. was going on. However, saying that someone else's reporting is "fair" or "impartial" shows what the judge's impression of "fair" or "impartial" is. For example, if Mr. X says, "There is no possible explanation for the duct tape other than intentional suffocation," and you say, "That's a very fair and impartial comment," then your response shows something about your opinion on the evidence as well.

I have no idea what was said. And it doesn't matter what was actually said, because the judge can't consider what was actually said when making a decision on this motion. I just personally doubt that JS actually said MD's blog was the best, the most fair, etc., for the very reason that I think those comments show an appearance of impropriety and I think JS would be too professional to engage in such conduct.

I agree that the defense wishes they could have disqualified JS for his comment "Ms. Anthony and the truth are strangers." But judges are not supposed to show neutrality when they are explaining their rulings--rulings are obviously in favor of one side or another. So there's nothing wrong with the judge explaining that one reason he ruled as he did is that KC had provided no truthful information about her daughter's whereabouts.

 

[beach]

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.

All I understand is that if JS recuses himself, the defense can file a request for reconsideration of specific motions previously filed and denied by JS.

...and I think to put it on record for appellate reasons.

I think it was a stupid, risky and dirty tactic and I hope it backfires in a big way. Whether JS denies it or they get a hard a$$, no nonsense replacement. Just please, no Ito.

 

[ZsaZsa]

[/B][/COLOR]

How so? Whether he said "hello", or "great blog, nice to see someone impartial", both reflect a sense of being neutral, which is what the position of a Judge is all about. At no time has it been reported that Judge Strickland gave MD any indication of anything sinister, which would be evil, going on between them.

Then what do you believe was said, and why do you not believe it was pertaining to MD's blog written in fairness? Just curious.

I agree, but I don't believe in the least that the thorn in the Defense's side has anything to do with MD. The issue of Judge Strickland's comment, "Ms. Anthony and the truth are strangers" has been raised time and again on this board, and I fully believe that this is exactly what has the Defense all in an uproar. They can't raise a motion about that now due to the time lapse, therefore, this is their "backdoor" way of having the Judge removed for his comment. Dishonest, but also very expected by the Defense. [/B]

To me he's just exchanging pleasantries - he recognized Dave and made small talk,which, being the gracious man he appears to be, included a compliment. Dave was feeling very flattered that JS recognized him and had seen his blog. He even composed some doggerel about it, he was a bit starstruck I think.
Here it is :-
It's Monday night and aren't we proud
That Judge S whispered Oh so loud
It's that man Dave I want to see
So Bailiff, please bring him to me
At that, surprised, our Dave did pause
To chastise me he has no cause
There must be something else amiss
The next few moments simply bliss
The good Judge said then 'I'm impressed'
And Dave was thinking 'I feel blessed'
What had transpired is no surprise
Our Dave's a hero in our Judge's eyes

As you can see, our Dave is given to using a little hyperbole.

 

[Dignity4Victims]

I agree--absolutely nothing evil, sinister, etc. was going on. However, saying that someone else's reporting is "fair" or "impartial" shows what the judge's impression of "fair" or "impartial" is. For example, if Mr. X says, "There is no possible explanation for the duct tape other than intentional suffocation," and you say, "That's a very fair and impartial comment," then your response shows something about your opinion on the evidence as well.

I have no idea what was said. And it doesn't matter what was actually said, because the judge can't consider what was actually said when making a decision on this motion. I just personally doubt that JS actually said MD's blog was the best, the most fair, etc., for the very reason that I think those comments show an appearance of impropriety and I think JS would be too professional to engage in such conduct.

I agree that the defense wishes they could have disqualified JS for his comment "Ms. Anthony and the truth are strangers." But judges are not supposed to show neutrality when they are explaining their rulings--rulings are obviously in favor of one side or another. So there's nothing wrong with the judge explaining that one reason he ruled as he did is that KC had provided no truthful information about her daughter's whereabouts.

I absolutely agree and this deserves repeating, because it's a shame not everyone understands this process.

 

[Astraea]

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.

This is not my post...this is a cut and paste of my post and changes the context of my statement enormously!!

For clarities sake, when I said case I meant the trial as a whole.

 

[LambChop]

The reason we do not hear the judge's decision right away in court is because he is giving the motion the attention it deserves while he is going over it in his chambers. He hears arguments from both sides and usually makes his decision after he has fully considered the motion and arguments.

Example: JB cites a case in court to support his motion. The judge would naturally do his homework check the case JB cited, give the motion the attention it deserves and makes his decision. JB does not have to do that the very second court is adjourned.

I really think our school systems need to go through mock trials in the upper grades so our youth understands how the legal system works. I worked in the legal department of an insurance company and we actually had mock trials for training purposes. It was fun and everyone had a chance to be a player. jmo

 

[nancy botwin]

--repsectfully snipped, bolded emphasis mine

THANK YOU so much! :blowkiss:

I spent over an hour last night typing a post that tried to express the importance of exactly this point and I could not come up with the right words. You stated it so eloquently and briefly. I am just gobsmacked by this (and I'm not even british! lol). It is just mind-boggling to me. It is SUCH A DANGEROUS slope I can't believe the possiblity exists in the first place. I am happy to know (from your post in the Verified Atty. thread) that the FL JEAC is revisiting this soon. I say attach a copy of Cheney Mason's motion and mark it "Exhibit A".

Thanks! And I agree! Disturbing implications aside, after watching the video posted below, I'm starting to reconsider my opinion that Judge Strickland will deny the motion.

I just watched the WESH video with R. Hornsby's comments, at the end of the video it is stated that they believe that Chief Judge Belvin Perry would probably take over:

http://www.wesh.com/video/23179601/index.html


Judge Perry's info can be found here:

http://www.ninthcircuit.org/judges/chief_judge/index.shtml

If Richard Hornsby thinks Judge Strickland will step down, I bet he's right. From what I've seen, RH has successfully and intelligently predicted the outcome of all the legal issues in this case.

 

[Astraea]

The reason we do not hear the judge's decision right away in court is because he is giving the motion the attention it deserves while he is going over it in his chambers. He hears arguments from both sides and usually makes his decision after he has fully considered the motion and arguments.

Example: JB cites a case in court to support his motion. The judge would naturally do his homework check the case JB cited, give the motion the attention it deserves and makes his decision. JB does not have to do that the very second court is adjourned.

I really think our school systems need to go through mock trials in the upper grades so our youth understands how the legal system works. I worked in the legal department of an insurance company and we actually had mock trials for training purposes. It was fun and everyone had a chance to be a player. jmo

I wholeheartedly agree, and yet mock trials throughout my law program still didnt prepare me for standing in court the first few times :sick:

ETA: And I STILL feel that way when in a "strange" court!

 

[LambChop]

I wholeheartedly agree, and yet mock trials throughout my law program still didnt prepare me for standing in court the first few times :sick:

ETA: And I STILL feel that way when in a "strange" court!

I can understand how any defense attorney would feel that way standing in court the first time.

 

[Cat13067]

I don't believe JS will be tossed from this case. What exactly is he being accused of by the defense? Talking to a man who runs a blog with many different topics. JS is not the jury, he presides over the trial. JS runs his courtroom by the letter of the law. If his statement about "the truth and Ms. Anthony are strangers" didn't get him kicked off the case. I don't think saying a few words to DM will cause him to be taken off the case. This has CM finger prints all over it. Attack the innocent again, and again.

 

[beach]

Actually, he is listed in discovery as he had sent a letter to JS. James L. MacIntyre or McIntyre.

My question about how much weight to give in re. his credibility may now be disregarded. That pretty much tells me all I need to know. :sigh:

 

[Astraea]

I can understand how any defense attorney would feel that way standing in court the first time.

I am not a defense attorney.

 

[Marina2]

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.

re: BBM

I wonder if this is a viable option for JS. I hope it is. Otherwise, I think JS has no choice but to recuse himself. In reading the motion and keeping in mind that everything has to be taken as fact I feel it is reasonable that a person would feel that the judge is biased.

I don't believe any of the allegations and I don't believe JS is biased but the courts have to consider the allegations as fact. (They didn't even put the question mark after "Guilty as Charged" Changes the whole meaning of that headline.)

If the above is not an option for JS and he doesn't recuse himself, the door is open for a big appellate issue. I think an appeal for a new trial based on this would be granted. I don't think JS would do anything to risk that happening. Unless JS can deny the motion based on it being legally insufficient due to the time lapse, I think he will recuse himself.

 

[sleutherontheside]

What are your thoughts about the language used in this motion? Several things stood out to me......

The motion refers to blog entries as "stories" not blog entries. The only reason that jumped out at me was because KC referred to her "story" in her affidavit.

The unparalleled access of the media.

This case is remarkable for the media attention it has attracted since Ms. Anthony’s initial arrest.

 

[LambChop]

I am not a defense attorney.

I did not say you were. I would imagine that many defense attorneys feel the same way.

 

[magic-cat]

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.

It doesn't even matter. What has been revealed thus far is this:
Marinade Dave is an Anthony lover
Marinade Dave is sympathetic to the defense of Casey Anthony
Marinade Dave gave his business card to Jose in a PRIOR hearing
Marinade Dave was sitting shoulder to shoulder with George Anthony and Brad Conway in the hearing where Judge Strickland called him to the bench to say hello.
Marinade Dave was INTERVIEWED by the press HOURS before this motion was ever even filed (about Judge Strickland!)
Marinade Dave wrote on his blog of NUMEROUS interviews by the defense.
Marinade Dave wrote on his blog that he did not REALLY see the motion until after the interviews.
Marinade Dave is chummy with Brad Conway
Marinade Daves INTERVIEWS were heavily edited so what was it that he said that they left out because it was not on subject?

In NO possible conception of the idea of BIAS is His Honor guilty of it in this case. He invited a member of the press who is/was and will be SYMPATHETIC to the defense up to tell him he thought his blog was FAIR...(The same blog in which he demonstrates repeatedly that he is a sympathizer with the defense of Casey Anthony).

The very IDEA that Judge Strickland is guilty of ANY impropriety is LUDICROUS considering all those FACTS...He was showing RESPECT for the defense in his compliment, not the other way around.:furious:

 

[magic-cat]

You just proved it yourself. He said more then "hello".

As far as interrupting the proceeding. JS did exactly this when he spoke to the bailiff and made his request. After he made his request he returned to the seemingly less important topic at hand, the motion.

He sure did say more than hello. Let's paraphrase what he actually did say shall we? He said, Hey Dave, I just wanted to let you know that I have run up on your blog during my online reading, and with everything that is out there that is so biased against the defense of KC Anthony, your blog was like a breath of spring air in that you are actually sympathetic to her plight and the plight of her family. I commend you for your fairness to the defense and all that that implies. Keep up the good work buddy!

There was absolutely ZERO bias here...what there WAS in fact, was a show of respect for a defense that does not deserve any respect at ALL... IMO of course.

 

[ZsaZsa]

This is not my post...this is a cut and paste of my post and changes the context of my statement enormously!!

For clarities sake, when I said case I meant the trial as a whole.

Well that is NOT what you said in your post #658.
" The HEARING was not over by any means".

For the sake of accuracy, when you are supporting a motion that tries to impugn the reputation of a fine Judge, it might be better if you stick to either Hearing or Case or Trial , as they are not interchangeable.
But since you are backtracking on what you said I will leave it at that.

 

[magic-cat]

There are different thresholds for different rules of law.

No threshold has been crossed in this case in this instance for certain. The judge was being respectful to one of the ONLY media persons out there who shows ANY sympathy for KC and company...This whole thing is one big huge gigantic farse! The defense are completely out of their minds and going off half-cocked here. Knowing ALL that has been put together about this since it came out? I am down on my knees praying that his honor tells them to go jump in a lake-MOTION DENIED! period, because THAT is the only JUST thing that can happen here. This is utterly without merit and a waste of the courts time and the taxpayers money!:furious: