Defense Witness List

[nums24]

I think I figured out where JB found all his experts -

He went on line to Amazon.com.

I thought it was at doc in a box LOL:

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5593871&postcount=119"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Another New Lawyer for Casey - Dorothy Sims[/ame]

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

Dr. William Rodriguez - Forensic Anthropologist

Dr. Rodriguez is with the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology/Office of Armed Forces Medical Examiner.

Here are some links related to him:

Another Entomologist Takes Stand In Westerfield Trial
http://www.10news.com/news/1588407/detail.html

http://www.10news.com/news/1590476/detail.html (Photo in Article)

Forensic Entomology Lecture at National Zoo 2/20/2010
http://www.entomologyblog.info/forensic-entomology-lecture-at-national-zoo/comment-page-1

Banita Jacks Trial: Defense Moves to Dismiss
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/.../banita-jacks-trial-defense-moves-to-dismiss/


Page 9: http://www.afip.org/Downloads/newsletter/168-2.pdf

Forensic feat IDs nearly all Pentagon victims
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/sept11/victims/dcmilitary.html

Press Release: http://msp.maryland.gov/media/press_release_details.asp?identifier=784

And last but not least, he just had himself added to the Expert Witness Marketing Blog:

http://expertwitnessguru.com/blog/archives/85

Very impressive. But I became confused as he is referred to as both a forensic anthropologist as well as a forensic entomologist. Do you suppose he holds credentials for both specialties or was this just poor reporting? This, then begs the $64,000 question of what his role will be during the trial. . . ?

 

[nums24]

Very impressive. But I became confused as he is referred to as both a forensic anthropologist as well as a forensic entomologist. Do you suppose he holds credentials for both specialties or was this just poor reporting? This, then begs the $64,000 question of what his role will be during the trial. . . ?

I was very confused while researching him as well, I did see that Kathy Reichs and Dorothy Clay Sims acknowledge him in their books. His prior testimony was related to both bones and bugs.

The bigger questions is will the JAC actually allow him on the defense? HHJP denied a taphonomy expert. We still have not seen the defense motion or the JAC repsonse, and I see his expertise knowledge overlapping existing approved experts. What could he add to the case?

 

[AZlawyer]

So is Jose confusing the "substance" of their testimony with the "topic" of their testimony? I hope that makes sense...it seems Baez is confident he just needs to tell JA what area the person is an expert in.

For example, if I understand this correctly, JA is entitled to know if Baez' expert will testify that hair had a deathband, as opposed to just being told "He'll testify about hair"?

Order Addressing Motions to Compel & Other Discovery:

http://www.cfnews13.com/static/articles/images/documents/Casey-Anthony-Motion-1203.pdf

The order says JB has to disclose the subject matter of testimony AND area of expertise for each witness. Sounds like those are 2 different things according to HHJP. I don't think JB has to list what the experts' actual opinions will be, though. IMO, for example, "cell phones" is an "area of expertise"; "interpretation of tower pings shown in Casey Anthony's cell phone records" is a "subject matter of testimony"; and "Casey Anthony's cell phone pings do not prove she was ever on Suburban Drive" is an "opinion."

 

[beach]

IMO HHJP did not mean for JB simply to say "my forensics expert will testify about forensics AS YOU KNOW JA nanny nanny boo boo." However, I don't expect HHJP to do anything more than clarify his ruling and silently make one more mark next to JB's name on the chalkboard in his head. Sometimes the worst sanction a judge can impose is the loss of his respect for you.

--snipped & BBM

In re. bold, ITA and.... is there any question? 'nuff said. lol


I gotta say for the first time, HHJP made a bad ruling, imo. He has made a few that I was disappointed with but I had to agree they were legally sound. However, I don't agree with his denial of SA's request #1: "Any contracts or agreements, in any manner or form, setting forth the scope of work and expected compensation". From my experience this is very typical discovery. I think the SA has every right to know prior to deposing the experts the amount of compensation agreed upon. Otherwise, getting a straight answer in a depo is gonna be.....well, I'd rather be having a root canal. Plus, the contract would indicate the "scope of work" w/o including any opinion post-exam. I really don't understand his denial of the contracts.

Do you find his ruling unusual?

 

[LancelotLink]

I'm a tad confused on the motion as it pertains to page 4- VI. Payment of Transcription Costs from depositions taken at Oak Ridge Lab.

http://www.cfnews13.com/static/articles/images/documents/Casey-Anthony-Motion-1203.pdf

Is this the same issue CM brought up during the 10/29 hearing?
http://www.wftv.com/video/25568340/index.html at about 2:30 the issue is addressed.

JA tells the judge that JB recorded all the depositions, to which the judge sets up a way to have those deposition recordings transcribed.

So, why is this still an issue? Or is this a separate issue?

And even more confusing, HHBP asked about the Body Farm which is different from Oak Ridge. JA answers using the ORNL. Are they confusing the Body Farm with ORNL? From the media it appears JB and CM deposed experts at The Body Farm.

 

[beach]

--snipped & BBM

I gotta say for the first time, HHJP made a bad ruling, imo. He has made a few that I was disappointed with but I had to agree they were legally sound. However, I don't agree with his denial of SA's request #1: "Any contracts or agreements, in any manner or form, setting forth the scope of work and expected compensation". From my experience this is very typical discovery. I think the SA has every right to know prior to deposing the experts the amount of compensation agreed upon. Otherwise, getting a straight answer in a depo is gonna be.....well, I'd rather be having a root canal. Plus, the contract would indicate the "scope of work" w/o including any opinion post-exam. I really don't understand his denial of the contracts.

Do you find his ruling unusual?

Excuse me for quoting myself, but to keep it in context I wanted to add -
I realize that HHJP dismissed it w/o prejudice and suggested they pursue other means to obtain certain requested items/docs. So the SA is supposed to issue a subpoena duces tecum to each expert for the contracts? I'm not getting the point of going about it this way instead of just ordering the defense to produce them. What is the point?

 

[nums24]

It doesn't sound like the defense turned over their list:

"The defense team, meanwhile, was scheduled to turn over to the court a list of new witnesses who they claimed could support their contention that someone other than Anthony had put her daughter's remains in the woods. "

http://www.wesh.com/r/26015045/detail.html

 

[nums24]

I'm a tad confused on the motion as it pertains to page 4- VI. Payment of Transcription Costs from depositions taken at Oak Ridge Lab.

http://www.cfnews13.com/static/articles/images/documents/Casey-Anthony-Motion-1203.pdf

Is this the same issue CM brought up during the 10/29 hearing?
http://www.wftv.com/video/25568340/index.html at about 2:30 the issue is addressed.

JA tells the judge that JB recorded all the depositions, to which the judge sets up a way to have those deposition recordings transcribed.

So, why is this still an issue? Or is this a separate issue?

And even more confusing, HHBP asked about the Body Farm which is different from Oak Ridge. JA answers using the ORNL. Are they confusing the Body Farm with ORNL? From the media it appears JB and CM deposed experts at The Body Farm.

Separate issue - The issue was brought up at the 11/29 hearing, the court reporter apparently verbally agreed to JAC rates, but is now not agreeing. HHJP said work it out or file a motion, and yes they did go to the Body Farm for depositions. They can't get the transcripts, that's the issue.

 

[nums24]

Very impressive. But I became confused as he is referred to as both a forensic anthropologist as well as a forensic entomologist. Do you suppose he holds credentials for both specialties or was this just poor reporting? This, then begs the $64,000 question of what his role will be during the trial. . . ?

I think the defense is deliberately withholding everything, who knows which hat this guy will be wearing?

 

[chefmom]

It doesn't sound like the defense turned over their list:

"The defense team, meanwhile, was scheduled to turn over to the court a list of new witnesses who they claimed could support their contention that someone other than Anthony had put her daughter's remains in the woods. "

http://www.wesh.com/r/26015045/detail.html

Why am I not surprised? All I can say is that if they aren't admonished by HHJP for not turning in the list of new witnesses after all of the time and money they have spent arguing for the ability to go through all of the records and then calling as many people as they could, then there is something very wrong with the Florida court system. MOO.

 

[AZlawyer]

--snipped & BBM

In re. bold, ITA and.... is there any question? 'nuff said. lol


I gotta say for the first time, HHJP made a bad ruling, imo. He has made a few that I was disappointed with but I had to agree they were legally sound. However, I don't agree with his denial of SA's request #1: "Any contracts or agreements, in any manner or form, setting forth the scope of work and expected compensation". From my experience this is very typical discovery. I think the SA has every right to know prior to deposing the experts the amount of compensation agreed upon. Otherwise, getting a straight answer in a depo is gonna be.....well, I'd rather be having a root canal. Plus, the contract would indicate the "scope of work" w/o including any opinion post-exam. I really don't understand his denial of the contracts.

Do you find his ruling unusual?

Excuse me for quoting myself, but to keep it in context I wanted to add -
I realize that HHJP dismissed it w/o prejudice and suggested they pursue other means to obtain certain requested items/docs. So the SA is supposed to issue a subpoena duces tecum to each expert for the contracts? I'm not getting the point of going about it this way instead of just ordering the defense to produce them. What is the point?

I thought he was saying they could use a subpoena duces tecum to get the documents from the experts at the same time as the depositions were taken. I think the reason HHJP ordered the SA to use that method rather than just ordering production of the documents is that the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure provide a very short list of things the defendant has to produce, and expert contracts are not on the list.

Rule 3.220(d)(1)(B):

(B) Within 15 days after receipt of the prosecutor’s Discovery Exhibit the defendant shall serve a written Discovery Exhibit which shall disclose to and permit the prosecutor to inspect, copy, test, and photograph the following information and material that is in the defendant’s possession or control:

(i) the statement of any person listed in subdivision (d)(1)(A), other than that of the defendant;

(ii) reports or statements of experts made in connection with the particular case, including results of physical or mental examinations and of scientific tests, experiments, or comparisons; and

(iii) any tangible papers or objects that the defendant intends to use in the
hearing or trial.

http://www.cobblawfirm.com/Rules_Discovery.htm

 

[The World According]

--snipped & BBM

In re. bold, ITA and.... is there any question? 'nuff said. lol


I gotta say for the first time, HHJP made a bad ruling, imo. He has made a few that I was disappointed with but I had to agree they were legally sound. However, I don't agree with his denial of SA's request #1: "Any contracts or agreements, in any manner or form, setting forth the scope of work and expected compensation". From my experience this is very typical discovery. I think the SA has every right to know prior to deposing the experts the amount of compensation agreed upon. Otherwise, getting a straight answer in a depo is gonna be.....well, I'd rather be having a root canal. Plus, the contract would indicate the "scope of work" w/o including any opinion post-exam. I really don't understand his denial of the contracts.

Do you find his ruling unusual?

I think it is around the 15 minute mark Beach. I am sure his legal assistant has the subpoenas sent out within a few minutes. As he said it is a hoop, extra work, but he can do it. Baez is just putting off the ineviteable. The state will get the information before the depos and much like the time the defense tried to bring in the surprise last minute witness to testify.....this is not above his skill set to manage in very short order. Jeff has been at this for over 20 years, Baez thinks he really won something.....we'll just see what the judge thinks of his childish e mails. We'll just see. Always good to see you on the board, friend! (I too wish he had ordered him to hand them over.) Indeed I think the experts will send the information to him far more organized and efficently than Baez could make his little maps and graphs, anyway.
http://www.wftv.com/video/25949344/index.html

 

[Intermezzo]

It doesn't sound like the defense turned over their list:

"The defense team, meanwhile, was scheduled to turn over to the court a list of new witnesses who they claimed could support their contention that someone other than Anthony had put her daughter's remains in the woods. "

http://www.wesh.com/r/26015045/detail.html

I think the defense is deliberately withholding everything, who knows which hat this guy will be wearing?

Why am I not surprised? All I can say is that if they aren't admonished by HHJP for not turning in the list of new witnesses after all of the time and money they have spent arguing for the ability to go through all of the records and then calling as many people as they could, then there is something very wrong with the Florida court system. MOO.

:waitasec:
What List of NEW Witnesses? The TES searchers that they called and then sent the PI to pay a personal visit? Where did they get that information?

SEE PAGE 4 of Judge Perry's Order from the Hearing last week.
http://www.cfnews13.com/static/articles/images/documents/Casey-Anthony-Motion-1203.pdf

The deadline for submitting the witness list of TES searchers, according to the Order, is BY DECEMBER 31,2010 (SEE PAGE 4) and depositions of these witnesses had to be completed by March 30, 2011.


Judge Perry ordered the Defense had to turn over the Expert Witness List on November 30 2010

In Judge Perry's recent Order he instructed the Defense to give the SAO, by 4pm Friday December 3rd, 2010, the Name of the EXPERT Witnesses, the area of expertise and the subject matter of what they are testifying to.

 

[LambChop]

I thought he was saying they could use a subpoena duces tecum to get the documents from the experts at the same time as the depositions were taken. I think the reason HHJP ordered the SA to use that method rather than just ordering production of the documents is that the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure provide a very short list of things the defendant has to produce, and expert contracts are not on the list.

Rule 3.220(d)(1)(B):

(B) Within 15 days after receipt of the prosecutor’s Discovery Exhibit the defendant shall serve a written Discovery Exhibit which shall disclose to and permit the prosecutor to inspect, copy, test, and photograph the following information and material that is in the defendant’s possession or control:

(i) the statement of any person listed in subdivision (d)(1)(A), other than that of the defendant;

(ii) reports or statements of experts made in connection with the particular case, including results of physical or mental examinations and of scientific tests, experiments, or comparisons; and

(iii) any tangible papers or objects that the defendant intends to use in the
hearing or trial.

http://www.cobblawfirm.com/Rules_Discovery.htm

Would this be why JB did not want any reports submitted by the experts? He was obligated to turn over the reports within 15 days of receipt. But what about "statements" from the experts. Surely they discussed with JB their findings. Is he claiming "work product" on statements reported to him by the experts during their examination of the evidence??? Or is it that the statements had to also be in written form? And surely JB did not tell the experts not to advise him of their findings but to "Surprise" him at the trial?????

 

[watcher9]

I would think the statements of the "experts" would have to be written, videoed or audio taped?
If they just discussed their findings with JB, wouldn't it be considered hearsay to relay that?
If an "expert" sent a letter or email declining their services because of their findings without describing the findings, would that be considered a statement? Would the letter/email be considered "discoverable" if the "expert" wouldn't be used?

 

[faefrost]

I would think the statements of the "experts" would have to be written, videoed or audio taped?
If they just discussed their findings with JB, wouldn't it be considered hearsay to relay that?
If an "expert" sent a letter or email declining their services because of their findings without describing the findings, would that be considered a statement? Would the letter/email be considered "discoverable" if the "expert" wouldn't be used?

I think that is one of the diferences between the prosecution and the defense regarding discovery. The prosecutor has to provide discovery of everything. The defense only must provide discovery of what they will be or plan on using at trial. So they don't have to provide anything for experts that they will not be using at trial.

 

[LambChop]

I think that is one of the diferences between the prosecution and the defense regarding discovery. The prosecutor has to provide discovery of everything. The defense only must provide discovery of what they will be or plan on using at trial. So they don't have to provide anything for experts that they will not be using at trial.

Somewhat sad to think that at this portion of their discovery process that defense feels they have nothing worth releasing. Puts a damper on the "when defenses evidence is revealed you will say, oh now I understand" statement. The comment about RK the other day at the hearing makes you wonder if they've hit the wall. I don't think this will go to trial. JB is NOT trial material. Many people suspect this and as Lincoln once said "why remove all doubt". jmo

 

[kaRN]

Would this be why JB did not want any reports submitted by the experts? He was obligated to turn over the reports within 15 days of receipt. But what about "statements" from the experts. Surely they discussed with JB their findings. Is he claiming "work product" on statements reported to him by the experts during their examination of the evidence??? Or is it that the statements had to also be in written form? And surely JB did not tell the experts not to advise him of their findings but to "Surprise" him at the trial?????

The defense experts would have created their reports from all the items, notes, tapes etc. the judge ordered JB to turn over ironically, so the SAO can get one of their own experts to compile it and create a summary of the defense findings.
What his experts verbalized to JB would have been dumbed down to his level. Either they found something that pointed to someone other than ICA or they didn't. From there, IMO JB made the decision that written reports weren't required. This defense has bragged about what the evdence would prove since August 2008. I don't think JB would have been able to contain himself if he had the opportunity to hold up a report to the press he's assembled on the court house stairs to tell them he was filing the discovery that would prove the world wrong.

I wonder what is said and what goes on between HRHBP and JB outside our earshot? I bet we'd be happy! I think if the court had appointed JB, he be removed from the case. But ICA hired him, and likes him and the state is prepared for trial tomorrow. I keep holding on to BP's words that if the list of witnessess wasn't filed, there would be no witnessess. I'm assuming correctly filed is implied. He is a member in good standing with the Florida Bar after all. I could have filed that witness list. Well no I couldn't, because even I would know to include their contact information.

 

[Tulessa]

I only got one thing to add, I bet those Mic's are turned off at the next trial. I KNOW they wouldn't have discussed hours and payments if they thought those had been turned on. I would have LOVED to have been a fly on the wall when JB & CM watched that trial afterwards.