His Honor Judge Perry *Merged*

[elementary]

BBM - Check out the Conrad Murray trial. You'll see a real judge in action.

IMO

Yes! I happened upon it a couple of weeks ago. I was mesmerised. Awesome, just awesome, no nonsense judge. ITA! He rules.

 

[elementary]

I think HHJP was very frustrated by the antics of JB and the team. His concerns were that KC get a fair trial and she certainly can't complain. The lesson learned here was for the judge not to let it get out of his control. JB made his own rules and did his own thing. Let's hope he has to pay for it.

Why would any attorney allow his/her client to face the death penalty when they claim it was just a drowning? Have the state pay for testing and costs for investigations that were never necessary for an apparent drowning. jmo

I think that as a jurist, he, for the most part, handled all the defense motions in a well considered manner. The man knows his law. Kudos, but perhaps that focus is also an Achilles heel. He got played in the end, because he forgot about the other stuff.

I think that he did not act upon the law at his disposal. He let Baez skate. IMO, that's unconscionable. He instructed but did not rule, in the end, on court behaviour, on Baez's blatant contempt, yet found the time to smack down the proles who disrupted court proceedings. As if Baez did not.

I lost respect for him as an acting judge. I respect his knowledge of the law but not much else at this point. He did, indeed, let the rest go.

 

[elementary]

I don't think we should blame HHJP when he followed the law. Once JB let the molestation charges out of the box they lost that jury. While some members of the jury claim they did not believe KC was molested and that KC was a liar they failed to see the significance of the duct tape which was the State's case. The jury wanted to be told that Caylee died as of the result of having duct tape on her face although there was no forensic evidence left to prove it 100%. It appears they were under the impression if you can't prove it 100% you have to acquit. Clearly HHJP explained reasonable doubt to them but they apparently could not comprehend and judge fairly. Common sense should have told them what they wanted to know. Lost on this jury.

If JA had given his "famous" how Caylee died while looking into the eyes of her killer this jury would have not set her free, IMO. jmo

To me, this, with all due respect, sounds like someone saying, "I was only following orders". He could have instructed the jury to consider the context, the big picture. He had choices. He didn't use them. IMO.

His stamp on proceedings was sorely missing. His appeals record, however, remains intact.

 

[LambChop]

To me, this, with all due respect, sounds like someone saying, "I was only following orders". He could have instructed the jury to consider the context, the big picture. He had choices. He didn't use them. IMO.

His stamp on proceedings was sorely missing. His appeals record, however, remains intact.

I believe he did instruct the jury because we all got it. We all heard what he said and they jury still disregarded his instructions. He can't control what the jury does once they are in deliberation. And a "true" judge protects the defendants right to a fair trial inspite of the fact she has a "lousy" attorney, which is exactly what he did.

When the DP was put back on the table HHSS should have demanded JB step aside and replace him with a DP qualified attorney. JB was too deep into the case by the time JP came on the scene and it was too late to change. jmo

 

[Horace Finklestein]

I don't think we should blame HHJP when he followed the law. Once JB let the molestation charges out of the box they lost that jury. While some members of the jury claim they did not believe KC was molested and that KC was a liar they failed to see the significance of the duct tape which was the State's case. The jury wanted to be told that Caylee died as of the result of having duct tape on her face although there was no forensic evidence left to prove it 100%. It appears they were under the impression if you can't prove it 100% you have to acquit. Clearly HHJP explained reasonable doubt to them but they apparently could not comprehend and judge fairly. Common sense should have told them what they wanted to know. Lost on this jury.

If JA had given his "famous" how Caylee died while looking into the eyes of her killer this jury would have not set her free, IMO. jmo

He didn't follow the law. He sealed the jurors' names, he wrongly reprimanded the SA when they JB was caught lying or being unethical. He never should have allowed JB to bring up the molestation lie. I don't know how anyone could think favorably of Perry when he basically handed the victory to the DT.

 

[elementary]

He didn't follow the law. He sealed the jurors' names, he wrongly reprimanded the SA when they JB was caught lying or being unethical. He never should have allowed JB to bring up the molestation lie. I don't know how anyone could think favorably of Perry when he basically handed the victory to the DT.

I don't think he had a choice when it came to following the letter of the law regarding the molestation lie. What I do not understand, along with you, is why he did not follow the letter of the law when it came to contempt and violations among other things.

She couldn't outright lie as she's only worked one case with JB and CM.

With ref to the Casey Anthony case:
" The defense got the jury they wanted because the (unusually forceful) judge resisted several attempts by the State to remove certain jurors and because seating jurors ( from a different county) unfamiliar with this high profile case meant seating jurors remarkably lacking in intellectual curiosity. Various media talking heads argued the outcome of this trial showed the "legal system worked." In my opinion it showed "collective gullibility is still alive and well"


I was criticized by some sleuthers earlier today for putting HHJP on my hate list.
But the above quote further proves my point. Some of the illiterate pro defense jurors were on that jury as a DIRECT result of the judge's refusal to do the right thing and strike them from the pool. The state fought hard and was struck down several times during jury selection.
JA and LDB would have known this was a problem. JB and CM must have been laughing their arses off behind closed doors. But the prosecution probably thought they had enough evidence to prove their case anyway.. I sure did.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

I don't think he had a choice when it came to following the letter of the law regarding the molestation lie. What I do not understand, along with you, is why he did not follow the letter of the law when it came to contempt and violations among other things.

He was concerned with avoiding appeals/covering himself. That's it. He knew very well that CA lied under oath and he did nothing about it. Then the people of FL re-elect him. It's simply unbelievable and I would say "you get the government you deserve" except victims suffer for the stupidity of the public.

 

[zippitydoda]

He was concerned with avoiding appeals/covering himself. That's it. He knew very well that CA lied under oath and he did nothing about it. Then the people of FL re-elect him. It's simply unbelievable and I would say "you get the government you deserve" except victims suffer for the stupidity of the public.

So true, you get the government you elect.

 

[FORDANIEL]

You know,I have not commented in months,so so stunned by this verdict.I was not impressed before the trial,with JP,I was definately not impressed during jury selection,was not impressed during the trial,he seemed stunned by the verdict,surprise surprise,I hold him VERY rrsponsible for this HUGE miscarriage of justice.I hope he sees Caylee every day of his life.Haven't commented as my thoughts at the time were very un popular..Still so heart sick.

 

[Intermezzo]

I don't think we should blame HHJP when he followed the law. Once JB let the molestation charges out of the box they lost that jury. While some members of the jury claim they did not believe KC was molested and that KC was a liar they failed to see the significance of the duct tape which was the State's case. The jury wanted to be told that Caylee died as of the result of having duct tape on her face although there was no forensic evidence left to prove it 100%. It appears they were under the impression if you can't prove it 100% you have to acquit. Clearly HHJP explained reasonable doubt to them but they apparently could not comprehend and judge fairly. Common sense should have told them what they wanted to know. Lost on this jury.

If JA had given his "famous" how Caylee died while looking into the eyes of her killer this jury would have not set her free, IMO. jmo

bbm 1
I agree

bbm 2
I wondered WHY JA did not give that, imo, powerful statement?

 

[krkrjx]

He was concerned with avoiding appeals/covering himself. That's it. He knew very well that CA lied under oath and he did nothing about it. Then the people of FL re-elect him. It's simply unbelievable and I would say "you get the government you deserve" except victims suffer for the stupidity of the public.

I believe KC would have had an excellent chance of winning on appeal based on incompetent counsel had she been convicted. Regardless of how the judge tried to preserve the integrity of the proceedings to avoid future appeal issues, JB was not competent to defend this case and it showed. All the talking heads who since the trial have called JB's tactics brilliant would have been calling those same tactics woefully lacking had his client been convicted. JMO

The judge should have been operating in the present rather than in the future. While some degree of foresight is necessary to avoid appeal issues, this judge focused on potential issues to the point where he failed to give adequate consideration to the task at hand (fair trial with justice prevailing). This was particularly evident, IMO, during jury selection.

 

[sayd]

I still think it all went back to the jury selection. Remember when JA tried to get the juror who said she couldn't make a decision off the panel? And Judge Perry pulled some legal hoopla to keep her on? :banghead:

 

[chefmom]

I still think it all went back to the jury selection. Remember when JA tried to get the juror who said she couldn't make a decision off the panel? And Judge Perry pulled some legal hoopla to keep her on? :banghead:

Yes! And everything had to be done according to the timetable he had in his head. He became more concerned with "my way or the highway" than in making sure BOTH sides had an equal say. HHJP made many decisions that directly contributed to this betrayal of justice, imo.

 

[FORDANIEL]

SO sad that he is still a judge. Whatever FCA does in the future is on his hands. But hey, at least there are no appellate issues.

Too bad the prosecution can"t appeal.:banghead:

 

[tsitra01]

I was disappointed with the jury from the very beginning and more so when JP would not allow the PT to strike , I didn't agree with using only those who didn't follow the news around them or God forbid used the computer to access FB, or other sites. Considering the verdict if they were ones who were not interested in what was happening around them.....it showed they sure didn't care about allowing a murderer go free and possibly commit the same crime on an innocent one in the future.

I would loved to have seen JA or LDB direct their OS and or CS directily in front of OCA while pointing their finger at her.....really drawing her in as the guilty party. I've seen it at other trials and it seemed very effective. She instead was allowed to act as the victim in her little loweredj chair and able to testify ver and over by shaking her head.MOO

Edit needed for speedy finger

 

[TotallyObsessed]

After listening to some of Jeff Ashton's comments on the jury selection process....I am more inclined to see this jury as pro-defense instead of impartial. JA was right, they had to weed out EVERYBODY that had pre-formed an opinion of guilt, but not a pre-formed opinion of innocense.

ETA: I in no way excuse the jurors and their verdict. But I can see how, in the end, an impartial jury was not chosen.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

After listening to some of Jeff Ashton's comments on the jury selection process....I am more inclined to see this jury as pro-defense instead of impartial. JA was right, they had to weed out EVERYBODY that had pre-formed an opinion of guilt, but not a pre-formed opinion of innocense.

ETA: I in no way excuse the jurors and their verdict. But I can see how, in the end, an impartial jury was not chosen.

FCA does what is in her nature and horrible as it is, it's to be expected. Same way with jurors who are uninformed, lack critical thinking, etc. The ONE person who should have known better was Belvin. He really is where the buck stops in this case.

 

[okiedokietoo]

I still think it all went back to the jury selection. Remember when JA tried to get the juror who said she couldn't make a decision off the panel? And Judge Perry pulled some legal hoopla to keep her on? :banghead:

As much as I agree that Judge Perry went way over backwards too far for the Defense (especially for JB) to make sure nothing would come back on appeal -

The Judge basically had no choice with the woman that couldn't wouldn't judge people:

JOHNS: Now, Brian, there was one juror who the prosecution didn't want and actually tried to get rid of.

TODD: That's right. This was a very -- you know, this was a very key moment in the case during jury selection.

This is juror number 4, an African-American woman in her 50s. The prosecution tried three times to throw her out, tried to use a preemptory challenge, because she said she didn't like to judge people during jury selection.

The defense used what's called a Batson challenge to try to keep her. That's a challenge saying you can't toss out a juror based on race.

Now, remember, the prosecution only said we don't want her there because she doesn't like to judge people. But in the end, the judge sided with the defense, kept her on. Experts tell us, though, that in the end, they don't think this particular juror swung the case.

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1107/05/sitroom.01.html
Aired July 5, 2011 - 17:00 ET

 

[logicalgirl]

Reposting my views from another thread - I am getting seriously concerned at the unwarranted disrespect regarding HHJP. Think about it, eh?


Chief Judge Belvin Perry is one of the most respected judges in the United States. Whatever he does, it is within the law or as the law requires it. As a judge he cannot let his personal opinion about anything that goes on in the courtroom to interfere with his actions.

I see lots of complaints about Judge Perry should have done this, or should have done that, but as I read the various legal summaries that fellow judges or lawyers have written, not one has written any negative comments about Judge Perry or how he ran his courtroom. It is one thing for him to sentence a woman who stood up and disrupted the courtroom, and quite another for a lawyer to comfort OCA - as much as it grated me. Both decisions fit within the laws available for him to base his decisions.

I saw nothing in any of HHJP's actions that indicated he showed any preference to OCA as a defendant, in fact to my eyes, quite the opposite. To the best of my knowledge, his job is to keep to the laws that guide the court and get a trial through from beginning to end. I think he did a fine job - much better than anyone else could have done. I don't get the comparison between the Conrad Murray trial and OCA's trial - Murrays trial was a mini trial compared to the mountain of evidence in the Anthony trial and the number of players involved.

For those who complain about HHJP, maybe it would be more fair to actually provide some points of law that indicate HHJP should have acted differently. I know we are unhappy about the verdict, but let's place the blame squarely on the shoulders of those it belongs to - the jury. And how about us backing off with this amount of disrespect for one of the finest judges Florida has ever seen. All IMO of course.

 

[krkrjx]

Reposting my views from another thread - I am getting seriously concerned at the unwarranted disrespect regarding HHJP. Think about it, eh?


Chief Judge Belvin Perry is one of the most respected judges in the United States. Whatever he does, it is within the law or as the law requires it. As a judge he cannot let his personal opinion about anything that goes on in the courtroom to interfere with his actions.

I see lots of complaints about Judge Perry should have done this, or should have done that, but as I read the various legal summaries that fellow judges or lawyers have written, not one has written any negative comments about Judge Perry or how he ran his courtroom. It is one thing for him to sentence a woman who stood up and disrupted the courtroom, and quite another for a lawyer to comfort OCA - as much as it grated me. Both decisions fit within the laws available for him to base his decisions.

I saw nothing in any of HHJP's actions that indicated he showed any preference to OCA as a defendant, in fact to my eyes, quite the opposite. To the best of my knowledge, his job is to keep to the laws that guide the court and get a trial through from beginning to end. I think he did a fine job - much better than anyone else could have done. I don't get the comparison between the Conrad Murray trial and OCA's trial - Murrays trial was a mini trial compared to the mountain of evidence in the Anthony trial and the number of players involved.

For those who complain about HHJP, maybe it would be more fair to actually provide some points of law that indicate HHJP should have acted differently. I know we are unhappy about the verdict, but let's place the blame squarely on the shoulders of those it belongs to - the jury. And how about us backing off with this amount of disrespect for one of the finest judges Florida has ever seen. All IMO of course.

Yes, the man knows the law and I realize that some of his rulings were what they were because of JB's incompetence. He had to spoon-feed JB throughout the trial. He did this to ensure that the appellate court would not see KC's defense as a total sham of which she was a victim.

I do not know about points of law but I have some concerns that I cannot just shake off because some here do not like to hear a bad word about JP. I will say that any other judge presiding over this case would probably have done a lot worse than JP as I do see him as impeccable in many ways.

However...when the state wanted to strike a juror he would not allow them to do so. They had a strike to use--one that could be used for virtually no reason at all--and JP refused to allow them to exercise that right to strike. I saw the defense strike jurors with far less argument from the judge.

Another issue I have is with the sentencing. KC had originally been sentenced to time served on the check fraud charges. Then when she was sentenced to four consecutive years on the four lying convictions, that initial time served was credited toward that sentence. I cannot figure out why she got consecutive sentencing that was basically allowed to run concurrent with a totally unrelated sentence that had already been served. It's odd, and to me it looks like she was given a break that she did not have to be given. JP must have had his reasons for doing this but I cannot fathom what they are.

I am not trying to argue or to incite. I am only stating my opinion. If it is an unpopular one, so be it.