JBaez requests Ex Parte Hearing with Judge Strickland

[NancyT]

i thinking that also.....but how would that get to the truth? unless he is going with an accident.....and he would say she is not guilty of pre-meditated?

It might be a mental health issue, though I'm not convinced, but there is no way IMO, that Casey Anthony is going to take any sort of responsibility for her actions. It just ain't gonna happen!

 

[LancelotLink]

Someone tell me ....first article of the ex-parte motion reads:

"The defense is charged with the responsibility of investigating their case in an effort to search for the truth."

Isn't the "truth" what the defendent says it is?

Why is Baez searching for ANYTHING?

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/media/acrobat/2009-03/45901273.pdf

Yeah! I thought he promised that we would all see Casey as a courageous young woman who had been protecting Caylee, blah blah blah...so who is getting tossed under the bus?
George? Didn't he say once he never watched Caylee by himself?

 

[NancyT]

I've read all the posts here and have to chime in with MHO. I think Baez wants confidential records (medical, military, juvenile police, or whatever) for those people he wants to throw under the bus. I'm thinking Jesse, Amy, and Ricardo for starters. I think he wants to find out the "down and dirty" on them to discredit them as witnesses for the prosecution. He may also want to create a scenario where poor, innocent Casey was deceived by this group of drug-using, grudge-holding people.

I think it's a major fishing expedition.

Maybe I'm conjuring up something that never happened (LOL), but weren't they looking for some info on Ricardo not too long ago? I tend to agree with you. They're looking to throw someone under a bus.

 

[TakeNote]

Thanks! I wasn't able to follow all of that, but I did learn a thing or two.

your welcome.....:blowkiss:
i always need to break things down....its good to know that i helped! thanks

 

[NancyT]

Perhaps he meant to say the defense is searching for any proof of his client's version of the truth. Good luck with that Jose.

Maybe he'll find someone who holds a crystal ball who can concoct a photo of Zanny the Nanny.

 

[trixi491]

I know JG has taken a lie dectector test and passed..does anyone know if RM, AH, TL, or any of the possible people JB might plan to throw under the bus did? If not, I hope they do b/c I believe all of them would pass and JB would have a pretty rough time pointing the finger at them.

 

[TakeNote]

I've read all the posts here and have to chime in with MHO. I think Baez wants confidential records (medical, military, juvenile police, or whatever) for those people he wants to throw under the bus. I'm thinking Jesse, Amy, and Ricardo for starters. I think he wants to find out the "down and dirty" on them to discredit them as witnesses for the prosecution. He may also want to create a scenario where poor, innocent Casey was deceived by this group of drug-using, grudge-holding people.

I think it's a major fishing expedition.

why ask for them in priviate though.....i dont think jb or kc at this points cares about anyone elses priviatcy....

i think it has to do with kc.....kc only cares about kc!

 

[camcneishg]

Lets say he wants CA's therapy records, lets say the therapist was the JOGGER....how would you go about getting those records if the Jogger is dead?? What happens in cases like this when a dr. passes away, and you need the medical records??

 

[TakeNote]

Maybe he'll find someone who holds a crystal ball who can concoct a photo of Zanny the Nanny.

:floorlaugh:

 

[CarolinaMoon]

why ask for them in priviate though.....i dont think jb or kc at this points cares about anyone elses priviatcy....

i think it has to do with kc.....kc only cares about kc!

I think that because he doesn't want anyone to know WHO he's throwing under the bus so he can "surprise" the prosecution in a classic Perry Mason moment.

Seems he's tried to "surprise" the prosecution before and wants to find a legal way to do it.

:croc:

 

[NancyT]

does anyone know what the fl laws are .....if the defendent....say is mentally ill....and she will not plea.....but her defense thinks she does...can her defense then go to the judge to ask for the ability to take kc rights from her..... show that she is not able to make a good choices....and perhaps give control to her parents...like custody of her....lol...does that make since?

I guess someone could technically get power of attorney over her rights, but in this case, I just don't see that happening. I do think the family held those rights where Caylee's remains were concerned.

While they may show that Casey may be say, bi-polar or something along those lines (if they could prove that), there is no way they'll be able to show that she's mentally insane. Insanity is a legal concept anyway, so I'm not sure it could be used as a true mental condition.

As for a defense, they would have to have a moronic juror to ever get a not guilty by reason of insanity verdict in this case. The defense knows this is simply not an option. The threshold would be, did the defendant know that her actions were wrong at the time she killed Caylee? The cover-up proves she knew what she did was wrong. In the Andrea Yates case, it was established quite well that Andrea knew her actions were LEGALLY wrong. After she drowned those children, she even picked the phone up and called 911 and her husband to get home from work. What the defense was able to prove was, she believed if her children lived to reach an age of accountability, they would be doomed to Hell for eternity. Since the law makes no attempt to define the terms, right and wrong, jurors can interpret that to mean morally right and wrong, or legally right and wrong. Clearly in that case she knew it was legally wrong, but she thought it was morally right (she was literally psychotic and had a LONG history of documented mental illness). Thus, she met the legal qualification for insanity. Casey will NEVER meet that threshold. For starters, she would have to admit guilt and IMO, she's not even about to do that, let alone convince a jury that she meets the definition of legal insanity.

 

[NancyT]

Lets say he wants CA's therapy records, lets say the therapist was the JOGGER....how would you go about getting those records if the Jogger is dead?? What happens in cases like this when a dr. passes away, and you need the medical records??

I'm not sure which is which, doctor/patient, attorney/client, but one ends at death and the other never ends. If I had to take a guess, I would say that the attorney/client privilege never ends. I say this because many times, doctors testify under oath about patients who have been murdered, but it is just a guess.

 

[Searchfortruth]

I agree in that Jose is looking to throw someone under that bus, who... I guess is the question. I tend to think either Ricardo or Jesse. He was interested in Ricardo's computer records, I believe, and he is interested in questioning Amy...Amy of course knows Ricardo and Jesse. I tend to think that placing blame on an innocent person will piss the jury off and it's very risky for the defense to try, but JB is low on choices at this point. A good attorney would have sought a plea deal by now, IMO.

 

[camcneishg]

I'm not sure which is which, doctor/patient, attorney/client, but one ends at death and the other never ends. If I had to take a guess, I would say that the attorney/client privilege never ends. I say this because many times, doctors testify under oath about patients who have been murdered, but it is just a guess.

Thanks NancyT. I was just thinking since the jogger's death is still an on going murder investigation....if she was her therapist...those records would be pretty hard to get to right about now. And I'm sure JB wouldn't want to let that cat out of the bag...

 

[NancyT]

Thanks NancyT. I was just thinking since the jogger's death is still an on going murder investigation....if she was her therapist...those records would be pretty hard to get to right about now. And I'm sure JB wouldn't want to let that cat out of the bag...

I have no idea how any of that may play out. I'd imagine that with the liberal courts in Florida, they'd be willing to do just about anything to see that a defendant gets as fair a trial as possible, but I really have no clue.

 

[Dr. Know?]

Problem here is that if they want to discuss something with the judge that they don't want the SA to hear b/c it's their "strategy," then they shouldn't be discussing it with the judge either.

I am pages behind but it's like a child playing Mom against Dad!!! Thanks.

 

[TURBOTHINK]

Well all their names are on the state's witness list, so they're all getting one. I'm not sure if they were served yet, but I thought I heard once that they had been? Don't take that to the bank though.

They won't serve them on them personally, they will send them to their attorney of record.

 

[TURBOTHINK]

I've read all the posts here and have to chime in with MHO. I think Baez wants confidential records (medical, military, juvenile police, or whatever) for those people he wants to throw under the bus. I'm thinking Jesse, Amy, and Ricardo for starters. I think he wants to find out the "down and dirty" on them to discredit them as witnesses for the prosecution. He may also want to create a scenario where poor, innocent Casey was deceived by this group of drug-using, grudge-holding people.

I think it's a major fishing expedition.

He is not going to get a PRIVATE hearing with a judge. That is a basis for an appeal later and Strickland has worked way too hard to keep this trial up front and with no basis for later appeals.

 

[trixi491]

I think that because he doesn't want anyone to know WHO he's throwing under the bus so he can "surprise" the prosecution in a classic Perry Mason moment.

Seems he's tried to "surprise" the prosecution before and wants to find a legal way to do it.

:croc:

I thought if the defense was really considering placing the blame on someone they would have to reveal who that person was before trial? I think I remember reading FL law requiring that so there really couldn't be any "Perry Mason moments." Once again, I THINK i remember that's what I read

 

[CarolinaMoon]

I thought if the defense was really considering placing the blame on someone they would have to reveal who that person was before trial? I think I remember reading FL law requiring that so there really couldn't be any "Perry Mason moments." Once again, I THINK i remember that's what I read

Well, this is JB! As I said, he's tried surprising the prosecution before. Didn't work too well.

I don't think he'll get that hearing.

I do hope the motion is heard in open court with the prosecution chiming in with their own opinions.

However, I'm guessing Strickland may just issue a written denial.

I am ever the optimist!