Defense claims judge had inappropriate convo with blogger?

[sleutherontheside]

This is the link to the ACTUAL blog post that is in question here.
http://marinadedave.wordpress.com/2009/10/19/it-was-my-honor-your-pleasure/

Since it is implied in the motion that the subject discussed in this blog is part of the reason for the motion, I am hoping it is ok to provide the direct link to the exact blog post we are discussing. If not I am sure the mods will whisk it away...

Whisking is for egg whites dear Magic........

Tricia allowed us to link there for the purpose of this discussion. I just don't want her to be sorry because it was me that asked.

Don't throw me under the bus folks. :innocent:

 

[magic-cat]

“Needless to say, I do go on the Internet and read about this case.”

“I must say that you have the best Web site regarding this case. You investigate and you are very fair to everyone.”

“No, you are very good as a writer and you stick to facts. You are very fair and I’m impressed.”

These are the actual statements he attributes to the judge so I guess that settles if it was about the case or not...

 

[LambChop]

I think it's like: I have done nothing wrong but if you feel I have done something wrong then you have no confidence in my judgment so I would need to step down.

So KC's biggest problem is no one will put on the brakes. And here we go again. KC says, "I don't like judgie any more, get rid of him." Judge steps down and now the court system is enabling her. How many judges do you think we will go through before she is stopped? A new judge may run his court room by the book. Let's hope he/she brings their gavel. Where's Judge Judy when you need her? JMO

 

[cuppy199]

Didnt AZlawyer also say something about time limitations? :waitasec:

 

[LambChop]

Whisking is for egg whites dear Magic........

Tricia allowed us to link there for the purpose of this discussion. I just don't want her to be sorry because it was me that asked.

Don't throw me under the bus folks. :innocent:

Trust me sleutheronthside....there's no room.

 

[magic-cat]

Whisking is for egg whites dear Magic........

Tricia allowed us to link there for the purpose of this discussion. I just don't want her to be sorry because it was me that asked.

Don't throw me under the bus folks. :innocent:

If you get thrown under I will jack up that bus and pull you out! :angel:

 

[magic-cat]

Didnt AZlawyer also say something about time limitations? :waitasec:

Yes. This happened Ocober 16 2009.

 

[LambChop]

Did no one tell KC before she signed this document that the judge was the one who sealed the December 11th video tape? Oh, my. Would a new judge make this a whole new ballgame?????

 

[magic-cat]

But it all comes back to the point that AZlawyer explained (if I understood correctly). It does not even matter if what the defense team alleges is true or not. The Honorable Judge Strickland cannot take the merits of its truthfulness (or untruthfulness) into consideration. He can only consider that, if the defendant considers the allegations they made are a fact, does that belief fall within the rules of disqualification.

I don't believe he did anything wrong. But, apparently it doesn't even matter if he knows he did nothing wrong. . . It's beside the point. (Am I understanding this right, AZlawyer?)

I don't believe he will believe that she could believe that considering Dave seems to be a friend of the family and of the defense...or at least a sympathizer.

 

[TrialAddict]

Yes. This happened Ocober 16 2009.

6 months to the day

 

[cuppy199]

Yes. This happened Ocober 16 2009.

Exactly! My point is that wouldn't they have to file this before now and if there is a time limit which I believe to be the case there a day late and a dollar short.

 

[LambChop]

6 months to the day

If this were milk, it would be sour by now.

 

[LambChop]

Exactly! My point is that wouldn't they have to file this before now and if there is a time limit which I believe to be the case there a day late and a dollar short.

I believe it is 10 days. Their slow readers. jmo

 

[nancy botwin]

I think he is dead wrong and that Judge Strickland will not step down. I have done a complete about face since I first learned of this, and considering EVERYTHING in totality? The judge did not even do anything that HINTS of impropriety...unless offering a compliment to a defense sympathizer (one of the only ones out there I might add) is somehow an act of impropriety, and I just don't see that it is. I cannot believe all of this. I hope he files a MOTION DENIED first thing when the courthouse opens! He should, because this is ALL ridiculous in the extreme.:banghead:

You have done a complete about-face! I agree with your opinion of the motion and have posted up a bit of a storm about why I don't think Judge Strickland will step down. I still don't think he has to and I don't think he should. That said, I put a lot of weight in the opinion of a local attorney who has firsthand knowledge of Judge Strickland and the legal culture and climate in that jurisdiction. Perhaps RH has knowledge of how JS handled previous recusal motions etc. I don't know, but I'm assuming he had a solid basis for making the public prediction. And he's been right about all the other legal issues/outcomes-- I may have missed something somewhere, but I think he's batting 100%. The WESH video surprised me, because I hadn't expected that to be RH's position. Maybe he'll blog about it or something and illuminate his logic.

 

[beach]

But it all comes back to the point that AZlawyer explained (if I understood correctly). It does not even matter if what the defense team alleges is true or not. The Honorable Judge Strickland cannot take the merits of its truthfulness (or untruthfulness) into consideration. He can only consider that, if the defendant considers the allegations they made are a fact, does that belief fall within the rules of disqualification.

I don't believe he did anything wrong. But, apparently it doesn't even matter if he knows he did nothing wrong. . . It's beside the point. (Am I understanding this right, AZlawyer?)

That is exactly how I understood it too. nancy botwin posted here about it, also.

My response quoting her original post

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5079971&postcount=542"]http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5079971&postcount=542[/ame]


Her response here -

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5081103#post5081103"]http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5081103#post5081103[/ame]


THE way this Rule is written is a REAL problem. I am still dizzy trying to understand it.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

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.

Bumping for current discussion.

 

[spqr]

The law is what matters here, and AZLawyer very kindly posted in this thread in regards to what THAT law is. Regardless of the outcome of the motion, I do not find it to be frivolous in nature. It does not escape me that JS interrupted a proceeding to ask for MD to be brought up and he said an awful lot more then "hello" to MD.

They did not file the motion until they knew that JS called MD at home. They received this information and filed the motion within the time the law sets forth. I personally do not see any "hinkiness" here.

No matter how one feels personally about Casey, I would hope it could be kept in mind that it is the justice system we ALL use and we should want it to work accordingly in the event we were ever sitting at a defense table. JMHO

BBM: With all due respect...he did NOT INTERUPT a court PROCEEDING to address MD. People may have still been in the courtroom but the proceeding was clearly over, no INTERUPTION in any proceeding took place.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

I don't believe he will believe that she could believe that considering Dave seems to be a friend of the family and of the defense...or at least a sympathizer.

Apparently, it looks like it doesn't matter what anyone believes. :crazy:

 

[Marina2]

So by merely making an allegation against a judge, ANY allegation, as long as the defendant believes the allegation is true (which one could assume the defendant would, or why would they even be filing the motion?), a judge MUST recluse himself?

So if a defendant is of a particular race, they could file a motion for judge to recluse themselves because they believe said judge is prejudice against their race? Doesn't have to be true....just because defendant BELIEVES it, judge must step down?

This is not making sense to me?

Not just because a defendant believes it to be true. They have to give reasons that would lead a reasonable person to believe the judge is being biased. The reasons given have to be taken as fact; the truth of the allegations can't be considered.

A defendant can only do this once. In any subsequent motions for disqualifying the judge the allegations made can be challenged as factual or not and a decision made base on that.

This is my understanding of how it works.

 

[nancy botwin]

That is exactly how I understood it too. nancy botwin posted here about it, also.

My response quoting her original post

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5079971&postcount=542


Her response here -

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5081103#post5081103


THE way this Rule is written is a REAL problem. I am still dizzy trying to understand it.

Thanks! And I agree it's a problem!
I'm reposting [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5078652#post5078652"]this[/ame] explanation of the truth/falsity issue too because I think it might help illuminate things. Like you are all flushing out here, it doesn't matter if the defense's allegations are actually false. JS has to look at them as if they are true, even if he knows them to be false.

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?