Defense Motion to Seal Penalty Phase Discovery Documents

[nums24]

Casey Anthony Defense Asks For Privacy
New Motion Filed In Case


http://www.wesh.com/r/25911924/detail.html

READ THE MOTION: http://www.wesh.com/pdf/25912035/detail.html

 

[countzero]

Well now, isn't this nice of AF to think about the penalty phase witnesses and not wanting to cause harassment or embarrassment to them or ICA because JB and CM have made this case a media circus.

Just when I thought ICA had gotten herself an attorney with some credibility, however high she might be over JB and CM, I find AF sinks herself right down there with them.

I won't even venture to guess how HHJP will rule on this one. Other than to say, the law is the law. Just what is AF afraid of the public seeing?

 

[Intermezzo]

I found it!

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/35304530/Casey-Anthony-protective-order-to-death-penalty

That's the one!!!! :woohoo:
Thanks Nums...:blowkiss:

Defendant's Motion for Protective Order with Respect to Penalty Phase Discovery (April 28, 2010)

http://www.wesh.com/pdf/25912035/detail.html

Okay...The Motion Reads

"... that Ms Anthony moves this Court to enter an order protecting Miss Anthony from having to reveal any information relating to any potential penalty phase proceedings from the State prior to the time that she is actually convicted of First Degree Murder, should that event occur"

This Motion had to do with with holding penalty phase discovery from the State Prosecutors

It was Denied on May 11, 2010 by Judge Perry.

 

[AZlawyer]

That's the one!!!! :woohoo:
Thanks Nums...:blowkiss:

Defendant's Motion for Protective Order with Respect to Penalty Phase Discovery

http://www.wesh.com/pdf/25912035/detail.html

Okay...The Motion Reads

"... that Ms Anthony moves this Court to enter an order protecting Miss Anthony from having to reveal any information relating to any potential penalty phase proceedings from the State prior to the time that she is actually convicted of First Degree Murder, should that event occur"

This Motion had to do with with holding penalty phase discovery from the State Prosecutors

It was Denied on May 11, 2010 by Judge Perry.

I've read the new motion now. As Intermezzo said, the old motion asked for permission to hide the penalty phase evidence from the State until after the conviction (and was denied); the new motion asks for permission to hide the penalty phase evidence from the public/media. I was wrong in assuming that the evidence in question was a specific "discovery response" from a third party, though; apparently they want to keep all the penalty phase evidence secret, and it was just a clumsily-titled motion.

So far, no flashes of brilliance from Finnell...

 

[beach]

Casey Anthony Defense Asks For Privacy
New Motion Filed In Case


http://www.wesh.com/r/25911924/detail.html

READ THE MOTION: http://www.wesh.com/pdf/25912035/detail.html

Paragraph 3 of that motion -

"To date witnesses in this case, especially defense witnesses, have already been subjected to intense media pressure and harassment by the media and the public at large. This has resulted in a chilling effect with some witnesses becoming reluctant to come forward with information for fear of harassment and stalking."

I declare this is the biggest crock of hyprocrisy I have yet to read in any motion filed in this case. Harassment?...Stalking? I had to read it a couple of times to make sure they weren't referring to themselves. WTH do they call what they are doing to the TES volunteers??? Nope, they are talking about the media...the media who receives INVITATIONS from the defense to press conferences THEY summon. The media who the Anthonys have courted ad nauseum for 2+ years. Let's not forget their BFF media mogul Jim Lichenstein who accompanies the Anthonys to EVERY hearing.

WTH? What a joke. lol

 

[logicalgirl]

Maybe they are referring to the public closely following the evidence that Laura Buchanan has told a few whoppers and is now trying to correct her big mess.

 

[countzero]

Yep Beach, I had to go back and re-read it twice myself. Not only does AF give HHJP one option if denied, she gives him three:

6. Should the Court refuse to grant Defendant's requests for judicial notice contained in paragraphs 1 and 2 supra, Defendant requests an evidentiary hearing on these issues.

7. Should the Court refuse to grant an Order restricting disclosure to the public and media at this time, Defendant objects to any disclosure at this time and requests this Court delay disclosure of any kind until after the innocent/guilt phase of the trial.

Hummm, one would think that a defense witness would want to come to the aid of ICA. That is IF there is one of substance, which there doesn't appear to be since AF wants to hide them away until after the innocence/guilt phase is completed and IF the penalty phase is required.

AF, that is a lot of IF's for you to overcome.

 

[beach]

Maybe they are referring to the public closely following the evidence that Laura Buchanan has told a few whoppers and is now trying to correct her big mess.

The defense should be sending candy, flowers and an effusive thank you note to the SA for exposing her "misstatement/half-truths" before that blew up in their face in front of the jury. They'd have never found it on their own because they don't want to know the TRUTH.

 

[LambChop]

Defense witnesses:

BS (Kronk's son) - maybe he now does not want to cooperate BECAUSE DC's emails were released stating they were looking at BS as a suspect. So was it public pressure or defense's strategy.
TES Volunteers - Do you think by now someone would have come forward if they had information for defense directly and would have done so long before they would feel threatened by anyone?
LB - TES volunteer who claims to be in two places at once. Need I say more.
JJ - felt so much pressure from defense he taped the conversation. (This clearly indicates someone who does not trust the people he is dealing with)
St. J - Ladies with the horses. Claims to be pressured by defense PI and PI will not take no for an answer.
When someone calls you on the phone and asks you a question and your answer is no, I have no information you are not a witness. You have nothing for the defense to say you witnessed. To my knowledge the only people who feel threatened and harassed are the TES volunteers who have nothing to contribute but still are being called.

Maybe someone should introduce AF to the ringleader of the media circus. JB meet AF.

JMO

 

[countzero]

Oh ... and another thought here. We know, by previous examples, of JB and CM's inability to focus on the important issues of this trial. So why the heck is AF so focused and intent on hiding her penalty witnesses from the media and JQ public IF she is so convinced of her client's innocence?

This just floors me. It's one thing having to prepare for the penalty phase using the mitigation specialist. I get that. I don't get the need to hide behind the robes of the court information that is court mandated because it "might" cause embarrassment and lack of privacy for the defense witness(s).

Have I been enmeshed in too many high school football games to figure this out on my own?????

 

[krisskross]

Paragraph 3 of that motion -

"To date witnesses in this case, especially defense witnesses, have already been subjected to intense media pressure and harassment by the media and the public at large. This has resulted in a chilling effect with some witnesses becoming reluctant to come forward with information for fear of harassment and stalking."

I declare this is the biggest crock of hyprocrisy I have yet to read in any motion filed in this case. Harassment?...Stalking? I had to read it a couple of times to make sure they weren't referring to themselves. WTH do they call what they are doing to the TES volunteers??? Nope, they are talking about the media...the media who receives INVITATIONS from the defense to press conferences THEY summon. The media who the Anthonys have courted ad nauseum for 2+ years. Let's not forget their BFF media mogul Jim Lichenstein who accompanies the Anthonys to EVERY hearing.

WTH? What a joke. lol

Yep... Im' sure Roy Kronk would have been appreciative of such consideration for their motion in limine.

I'd expect J Perry to immediately deny withholding discovery from the state and asking Ms Finnel to substantiate her chilling and stalking claims. She seems to have went a tad overboard.

 

[Oakley]

Paragraph 3 of that motion -

"To date witnesses in this case, especially defense witnesses, have already been subjected to intense media pressure and harassment by the media and the public at large. This has resulted in a chilling effect with some witnesses becoming reluctant to come forward with information for fear of harassment and stalking."

I declare this is the biggest crock of hyprocrisy I have yet to read in any motion filed in this case. Harassment?...Stalking? I had to read it a couple of times to make sure they weren't referring to themselves. WTH do they call what they are doing to the TES volunteers??? Nope, they are talking about the media...the media who receives INVITATIONS from the defense to press conferences THEY summon. The media who the Anthonys have courted ad nauseum for 2+ years. Let's not forget their BFF media mogul Jim Lichenstein who accompanies the Anthonys to EVERY hearing.

WTH? What a joke. lol

Well JB could've had a gag order imposed way back when but opted not to so he could spout off to the media. But now, after it is no longer in his client's best interest, there is a change. And what about the state's witnesses that the defense has attempted to throw to the dogs? Like Kronk, Amy, Jesse, Ricardo, Tony et al.

 

[Sun]

Casey Anthony Defense Asks For Privacy
New Motion Filed In Case


http://www.wesh.com/r/25911924/detail.html

READ THE MOTION: http://www.wesh.com/pdf/25912035/detail.html

Pics and videos of the victim, Caylee, were sold to the media/entertainment business by Casey/Baez. Now, they want to use the "media coverage" as a reason to get the court to seal Discovery from the media/public. I'm just shaking my head in disbelief.

 

[tlcya]

if this weren't ultimately about a dead little angel this would be roll on the floor laughable.

So after the defense launches a very obvious campaign to harrass anyone and everyone who was disclosed as a possible witness for the prosecution they file a motion wanting their witnesses exempt from disclosure. Judge Perry, rightfully IMO, denies the motion. Now we file a motion asking for the same thing and oh btw if you deny this request too could ya maybe at least keep our very special witnesses a secret til after she is found guilty and we are in the sentencing phase, pretty please with sugar?

Total bunk!

 

[Horace Finklestein]

Well now, isn't this nice of AF to think about the penalty phase witnesses and not wanting to cause harassment or embarrassment to them or ICA because JB and CM have made this case a media circus.

Just when I thought ICA had gotten herself an attorney with some credibility, however high she might be over JB and CM, I find AF sinks herself right down there with them.

I won't even venture to guess how HHJP will rule on this one. Other than to say, the law is the law. Just what is AF afraid of the public seeing?

Wow. What an intellectually dishonest woman Ms. Finnell is. She respects the witnesses' privacy and doesn't want them harassed, unless SHE does the harassing. The Ohio family told her they do NOT want to speak with her. Amazing.

 

[Numbers]

Paragraph 3 of that motion -

"To date witnesses in this case, especially defense witnesses, have already been subjected to intense media pressure and harassment by the media and the public at large. This has resulted in a chilling effect with some witnesses becoming reluctant to come forward with information for fear of harassment and stalking."

I declare this is the biggest crock of hyprocrisy I have yet to read in any motion filed in this case. Harassment?...Stalking? I had to read it a couple of times to make sure they weren't referring to themselves. WTH do they call what they are doing to the TES volunteers??? Nope, they are talking about the media...the media who receives INVITATIONS from the defense to press conferences THEY summon. The media who the Anthonys have courted ad nauseum for 2+ years. Let's not forget their BFF media mogul Jim Lichenstein who accompanies the Anthonys to EVERY hearing.

WTH? What a joke. lol

And - taking a page out of Baez's book - she does not notice the media for this motion.

 

[logicalgirl]

Wow. What an intellectually dishonest woman Ms. Finnell is. She respects the witnesses' privacy and doesn't want them harassed, unless SHE does the harassing. The Ohio family told her they do NOT want to speak with her. Amazing.

You are right - which begs the question - has this motion been submitted so AF can make another run at them because she feels she WILL be able to get them to talk to her - if this information is sealed that is?

 

[faefrost]

Am I missing something here, or has this not already been argued and denied? The judge has clearly said in past rulings that the defense is subject to discovery. That discovery is subject to public Sunshine Law releases except in very narrow and specific circumstances. That the penalty phase is still subject to discovery and must meet all set discovery deadlines, and that if they don't like any of it they should take it up with the legislature to convince them to change the law. Am I wrong in sensing yet another defense spanking on the horizon? I can't see HHJP being overly concerned that this would be viewed as a reversible error or an appellate issue?

 

[beach]

Am I missing something here, or has this not already been argued and denied? The judge has clearly said in past rulings that the defense is subject to discovery. That discovery is subject to public Sunshine Law releases except in very narrow and specific circumstances. That the penalty phase is still subject to discovery and must meet all set discovery deadlines, and that if they don't like any of it they should take it up with the legislature to convince them to change the law. Am I wrong in sensing yet another defense spanking on the horizon? I can't see HHJP being overly concerned that this would be viewed as a reversible error or an appellate issue?

IIRC, last time the request included the discovery be sealed from the SA, too. If I understand it correctly, this time they are just asking that it not be released to the public.

I still think this will be denied, especially for the reasons stated. Maybe this is just one of those things "for the record". I predict one of their main appellate arguments will be that the Sunshine Laws prevented Casey from getting a fair trial.

 

[P1569]

IIRC, last time the request included the discovery be sealed from the SA, too. If I understand it correctly, this time they are just asking that it not be released to the public.

I still think this will be denied, especially for the reasons stated. Maybe this is just one of those things "for the record". I predict one of their main appellate arguments will be that the Sunshine Laws prevented Casey from getting a fair trial.

Usually read a lot here but want to mention that back when the State requested a gag order for all parties. JA had a full folder of all the defense media flurries as of then. I have a feeling that this folder has grown with transcriptions of such appearance have been kept just for a possible appellate reason for the 119 Statute issue. mo