JBaez requests Ex Parte Hearing with Judge Strickland

[SoCalSleuth]

Wow, this thread is long! JB, as usual, is a nimwit. He will not be able to get an ex parte hearing with the judge without the prosecution present. The fact that he says he doesn't want to disclose defense strategy means he wants to discuss something substantive with the judge--not administrative. It will never happen. If he is seeking a subpoena he is seeking third party records. How is the judge going to order the third party to keep it a secret? He has no jurisdiction to do so absent a gag order & even then that's an iffy proposition. He can't be asking to secretly subpoena anyone's medical records because JB would have to give that party notice and an opportunity to be heard before he could get them. It would be impossible to keep that process secret by virtue of the process itself. Anytime you seek non-party records that non-party has an opportunity to object and otherwise be heard. It can't be kept secret. Also, I don't think JB has the competence to write a valid non-objectionable subpoena. This simply ain't gonna happen, imho.

 

[sunflowerchick]

Hi everyone! I just logged on a little bit ago, so I don't know if this has been discussed yet. I was going to start a new thread on it, but I have never done that before, so I am a little nervous.

In the media update thread for today, it mentioned that AH has an attorney. Why would AH have an attorney? Would that have anything to do with the reason for the Ex parte meeting?

 

[cyberborg]

Hi everyone! I just logged on a little bit ago, so I don't know if this has been discussed yet. I was going to start a new thread on it, but I have never done that before, so I am a little nervous.

In the media update thread for today, it mentioned that AH has an attorney. Why would AH have an attorney? Would that have anything to do with the reason for the Ex parte meeting?

Don't think so. I just think AH is doing the right thing and both protecting herself as well as having an advisor for the Depo, on when/how to answer the Defense questions. If I was AH I'd seek an attorney.

 

[Jolynna]

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.

It would definitely be helpful for Baez to know who has and who doesn't have alibis for after George says he saw Caylee at 1 p.m. on June 16.

Did Casey tell Baez that Jesse came by the Anthony house on June 16? Would Jesse's phone pings collaborate it?

If all Casey's friends have alibis that would just leave Casey's family to get thrown under the bus.

IMO

 

[cyberborg]

Wow, this thread is long! JB, as usual, is a nimwit. He will not be able to get an ex parte hearing with the judge without the prosecution present. The fact that he says he doesn't want to disclose defense strategy means he wants to discuss something substantive with the judge--not administrative. It will never happen. If he is seeking a subpoena he is seeking third party records. How is the judge going to order the third party to keep it a secret? He has no jurisdiction to do so absent a gag order & even then that's an iffy proposition. He can't be asking to secretly subpoena anyone's medical records because JB would have to give that party notice and an opportunity to be heard before he could get them. It would be impossible to keep that process secret by virtue of the process itself. Anytime you seek non-party records that non-party has an opportunity to object and otherwise be heard. It can't be kept secret. Also, I don't think JB has the competence to write a valid non-objectionable subpoena. This simply ain't gonna happen, imho.

Good analysis and logic.

To be flippant, I just think that JB is not ready to reveal his compelling story yet and since Hollywood writers have spent months developing it and he does not have the media rights contract in place yet -- he needs confidentiality to protect copyright.

More seriously, I wonder if this is based on his digging into LE and recent Depo of the guy who responded to RK's discovery of Caylee, together with investigation into jail procedures. Seems to be coming via TM, digging into the dirt of LE, the jail and, SA motives, etc.

 

[Gypsy Road]

Don't think so. I just think AH is doing the right thing and both protecting herself as well as having an advisor for the Depo, on when/how to answer the Defense questions. If I was AH I'd seek an attorney.

Me too! It's not only the smart thing to do, but necessary at this point. Look what has happened to everyone else in this case - RK for one, JG, RM, etc. Amy NEEDS representation even if she's an innocent victim in all of this. Who knows what the heck JB might try to pull. The defense t.v. talking heads are already jumping on the band wagon and trying to discredit Amy (because she was out partying with KC - they're trying to say she was no better than KC - puleeze). Big difference there. Amy isn't charged with murder, and Amy is not a mother who is responsible for a child. She was free to party till the sun came up if she wanted to. It has no bearing on whether or not she is a credible witness. I think the defense will try to dig up dirt on her so that she will look less credible to a jury. Having representation is necessary at this point for Amy. IMHO.

 

[momtective]

It would definitely be helpful for Baez to know who has and who doesn't have alibis for after George says he saw Caylee at 1 p.m. on June 16.

Did Casey tell Baez that Jesse came by the Anthony house on June 16? Would Jesse's phone pings collaborate it?

If all Casey's friends have alibis that would just leave Casey's family to get thrown under the bus.

IMO

and she would have no problem at all throwing CA under the bus...or driving over her for that matter.

 

[mitzi]

Yes. However, I read this motion as JB wanting to talk to the judge about his efforts to obtain certain items from other entities, not LE/OSCO/SA, without the SA present.

Could it be that JB wants to do his depositions without the presence of the SA?

 

[mitzi]

So, I called the Orlando Sentinel and asked for Sarah Lundy, the author of the article I'd snipped from, and asked her how she got a copy of this motion, since it wasn't online as of yet. She said she had to physically go to the courthouse to get it, that she didn't realize it had been filed 'til she went looking. I asked her to put it on the Orlando Sentinel's website, and she said she'd try, but she said she wouldn't promise it. She says it's only one page total - JBaez lists 5 points (NO LAW - no surprise there, eh???) on why he should get this hearing: "...he's in search for the truth...he's needing to subpoena things...items cannot be obtained through normal discovery through Rule 3.220, FL rule..."

Well, isn't that just typical of Baez, no case law listed. :loser:

 

[mitzi]

OK. I just went back and read this all again. What JB seems to be saying is that he needs access to certain documents/records that are essential to the defense that he can't get because the SA doesn't have them to turn over in discovery. If he asks the SA to get these records he will get them but tip off the SA to the defense plans.

Adoption records popped into my head? Is that possible?

How about military records for B Snow? M Hopkins?

Mental Health records for witnesses?

You know, if I was a betting person, (which I am not) I would bet 14 cents and a steak sandwich that JB is going to get his request. This could be grounds for appeal and the Judge just might err on the side of caution.

Maybe sealed juvie records for KC?

 

[john's mom]

JB's motion refers to 3.220 (m). I found a site here:

http://www3.fdle.state.fl.us/OGC/Legal_Bulletins/lb9602_9-24.html

This is section (m) :

(m) In Camera and Ex Parte Proceedings.

(1) Any person may move for an order denying or regulating disclosure of sensitive matters. The court may consider the matters contained in the motion in camera.

(2) Upon request, the court shall allow the defendant to make an ex parte showing of good cause for taking the deposition of a Category B witness.

(3) A record shall be made of proceedings authorized under this subdivision. If the court enters an order granting relief after an in camera inspection or ex parte showing, the entire record of the proceeding shall be sealed and preserved and be made available to the appellate court in the event of an appeal.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is from the same site, 'to assist you in making your determination (of how to categorize witnesses. (A, B, or C.)



(m) In Camera and Ex Parte Proceedings.

(1) Any person may move for an order denying or regulating disclosure of sensitive matters. The court may consider the matters contained in the motion in camera.

(2) Upon request, the court shall allow the defendant to make an ex parte showing of good cause for taking the deposition of a Category B witness.

(3) A record shall be made of proceedings authorized under this subdivision. If the court enters an order granting relief after an in camera inspection or ex parte showing, the entire record of the proceeding shall be sealed and preserved and be made available to the appellate court in the event of an appeal.

This is from the same site:

The following listing is a suggestion of how witnesses could be categorized for purposes of your discovery response, offered solely to assist you in making your determination.


NAMES/NOTICE ADDRESSES OF CATEGORY A WITNESSES (Category A witnesses include: (1) Eyewitnesses; (2) Alibi witnesses and rebuttal to alibi witnesses; (3) witnesses present when a recorded or unrecorded statement was made by, or taken from a defendant or co-defendant, all of whom must be specially-designated on the witness list; (4) investigating officers (defined in comments to the Rule as "an officer who has directed the collection of evidence, interviewed material witnesses, or who was assigned as the case investigator."); (5) witnesses known to have any material information that tends to negate the guilt of the defendant as to any offense charged; (6) child hearsay witnesses; and (7) expert witnesses who have not provided a written report and a curriculum vitae or who are going to testify test results or give opinions that are subject to the "Frye Test"): If checked, list continued on back or by attachment.



NAMES/ADDRESSES OF CATEGORY B WITNESSES (All witnesses not listed as either Category A or Category C witnesses are "B" witnesses. "B" witnesses include, but are not limited to, witnesses whose only connection to the case are as owners of property; transporting officers, booking officers, records or evidence custodians, and experts who have filed a report and curriculum vitae who will not offer opinions subject to the Frye test.): If checked, list continued on back or by attachment.



NAMES/ADDRESSES OF CATEGORY C WITNESSES (Those who performed only ministerial functions, or are those you may have no need to call at trial and whose involvement with, and knowledge of the case is fully set out in a police report or other statement provided to you in this discovery packet.):

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The witness list I found was from November 18th, and there are no Category B witnesses on it. I really don't get it. I thought I had it figured out and would only have to look at the Category B witnesses to see who JB wants to depose.

UGGGHHH.

 

[TinaD]

Ok, I had a bit of a twisted thought. Now you guys who know the case much better than me will probably say this is so far left field that its out of the ball game, but..

Is it possible that JB has finally realised that KC is in fact guilty, and that she's been spinning stories the whole time. At first he believed her, but now he's had a epiphany. However, its too late to step out of the case without causing major damage, and so he is deliberately setting up a pattern of behaviour that will allow an appeal of ..is it called..ineffective counsel? Then, when everything is done and dusted, he can tell the world that he sacrificed his future career prospects for his client. Or maybe he thinks he'll make enough out of a book deal and doing the circuit of talk shows, that the lack of future legal clients wouldn't be a problem. Any thoughts?

Edited to add: So he has asked for this meeting with the judge, knowing it will be knocked back but it helps demonstrate ineffective counsel?

 

[ThoughtElf]

Wow, this thread is long! JB, as usual, is a nimwit. He will not be able to get an ex parte hearing with the judge without the prosecution present. The fact that he says he doesn't want to disclose defense strategy means he wants to discuss something substantive with the judge--not administrative. It will never happen. If he is seeking a subpoena he is seeking third party records. How is the judge going to order the third party to keep it a secret? He has no jurisdiction to do so absent a gag order & even then that's an iffy proposition. He can't be asking to secretly subpoena anyone's medical records because JB would have to give that party notice and an opportunity to be heard before he could get them. It would be impossible to keep that process secret by virtue of the process itself. Anytime you seek non-party records that non-party has an opportunity to object and otherwise be heard. It can't be kept secret. Also, I don't think JB has the competence to write a valid non-objectionable subpoena. This simply ain't gonna happen, imho.

Hey SCS,

Legalities aside, any personal guesses on what he is after?

 

[suspicious mind]

OK I change my answer. I am betting baez wants records of a detective. baez is always crying about leaks, and how the pros is playing dirty by trying to come between he and his client, how the state isn't giving up all the discovery. he probably believes that if he requests the detective's records the usual way, the state will "doctor" them up before handing them over, so he is going to the judge to whine about how underhanded the state is and how they just want to "villify" his client so he needs the judge to help him get the "secret" "untainted" records of the detective.

 

[trixi491]

Me too! It's not only the smart thing to do, but necessary at this point. Look what has happened to everyone else in this case - RK for one, JG, RM, etc. Amy NEEDS representation even if she's an innocent victim in all of this. Who knows what the heck JB might try to pull. The defense t.v. talking heads are already jumping on the band wagon and trying to discredit Amy (because she was out partying with KC - they're trying to say she was no better than KC - puleeze). Big difference there. Amy isn't charged with murder, and Amy is not a mother who is responsible for a child. She was free to party till the sun came up if she wanted to. It has no bearing on whether or not she is a credible witness. I think the defense will try to dig up dirt on her so that she will look less credible to a jury. Having representation is necessary at this point for Amy. IMHO.

Actually, if you think about it, AH wasn't even really partying that much with KC during that time! KC started hanging out with TL and his roomies during that whole period and AH was kinda out of the picture except for the week TL was in NY and KC crashed there. In fact I don't even think she was at Fusion any of those nights. In a lot of the text messages you see her giving KC advice, asking about Caylee, showing sympathy and concern about things KC lies about (like her dad having a stroke), and even going along with the whole sleepwalking story even though I'm sure she didn't buy it. IMO she was nothing but a good friend to KC and shows no discredibility.

 

[Gypsy Road]

Actually, if you think about it, AH wasn't even really partying that much with KC during that time! KC started hanging out with TL and his roomies during that whole period and AH was kinda out of the picture except for the week TL was in NY and KC crashed there. In fact I don't even think she was at Fusion any of those nights. In a lot of the text messages you see her giving KC advice, asking about Caylee, showing sympathy and concern about things KC lies about (like her dad having a stroke), and even going along with the whole sleepwalking story even though I'm sure she didn't buy it. IMO she was nothing but a good friend to KC and shows no discredibility.

I totally agree. Irks me to no end when Jane W. (reddish-blond headed defense attorney) shows up on CNN trying to say that Amy is not credible because she partied with KC. That is such a ludicris stmt to make.

Back on topic. I would just love it if Judge Strickland decided to rule on this new motion in a public courtroom. I think it's going to be another smack down for JB. JMHO.

 

[Psmith]

I totally respect the knowlege and acumen of Chezhire and JWG.

My own take? The wily Baez has seen too many vintage tv shows in his office. He sees himself in a "Perry Mason" courtroom moment where he shows the identity of the killer (or whatever) in the last few seconds, to the total astonishment of millions--including the befuddled judge and that ratty SA. Some credit is due to his exellent PI, of course. : )

We have seen too well how SURPRISE! works for foxy Mr. Baez--or should I say his erstwhile client, Mr. Diaz has seen it very well first hand. He took his conviction very hard, btw.

Good luck, "foxy" Baez.

 

[TakeNote]

JB's motion refers to 3.220 (m). I found a site here:

http://www3.fdle.state.fl.us/OGC/Legal_Bulletins/lb9602_9-24.html

This is section (m) :

(m) In Camera and Ex Parte Proceedings.

(1) Any person may move for an order denying or regulating disclosure of sensitive matters. The court may consider the matters contained in the motion in camera.

(2) Upon request, the court shall allow the defendant to make an ex parte showing of good cause for taking the deposition of a Category B witness.

(3) A record shall be made of proceedings authorized under this subdivision. If the court enters an order granting relief after an in camera inspection or ex parte showing, the entire record of the proceeding shall be sealed and preserved and be made available to the appellate court in the event of an appeal.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is from the same site, 'to assist you in making your determination (of how to categorize witnesses. (A, B, or C.)



(m) In Camera and Ex Parte Proceedings.

(1) Any person may move for an order denying or regulating disclosure of sensitive matters. The court may consider the matters contained in the motion in camera.

(2) Upon request, the court shall allow the defendant to make an ex parte showing of good cause for taking the deposition of a Category B witness.

(3) A record shall be made of proceedings authorized under this subdivision. If the court enters an order granting relief after an in camera inspection or ex parte showing, the entire record of the proceeding shall be sealed and preserved and be made available to the appellate court in the event of an appeal.

This is from the same site:

The following listing is a suggestion of how witnesses could be categorized for purposes of your discovery response, offered solely to assist you in making your determination.


NAMES/NOTICE ADDRESSES OF CATEGORY A WITNESSES (Category A witnesses include: (1) Eyewitnesses; (2) Alibi witnesses and rebuttal to alibi witnesses; (3) witnesses present when a recorded or unrecorded statement was made by, or taken from a defendant or co-defendant, all of whom must be specially-designated on the witness list; (4) investigating officers (defined in comments to the Rule as "an officer who has directed the collection of evidence, interviewed material witnesses, or who was assigned as the case investigator."); (5) witnesses known to have any material information that tends to negate the guilt of the defendant as to any offense charged; (6) child hearsay witnesses; and (7) expert witnesses who have not provided a written report and a curriculum vitae or who are going to testify test results or give opinions that are subject to the "Frye Test"): If checked, list continued on back or by attachment.



NAMES/ADDRESSES OF CATEGORY B WITNESSES (All witnesses not listed as either Category A or Category C witnesses are "B" witnesses. "B" witnesses include, but are not limited to, witnesses whose only connection to the case are as owners of property; transporting officers, booking officers, records or evidence custodians, and experts who have filed a report and curriculum vitae who will not offer opinions subject to the Frye test.): If checked, list continued on back or by attachment.



NAMES/ADDRESSES OF CATEGORY C WITNESSES (Those who performed only ministerial functions, or are those you may have no need to call at trial and whose involvement with, and knowledge of the case is fully set out in a police report or other statement provided to you in this discovery packet.):

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The witness list I found was from November 18th, and there are no Category B witnesses on it. I really don't get it. I thought I had it figured out and would only have to look at the Category B witnesses to see who JB wants to depose.

UGGGHHH.

wow........:thumb: thanks for all the hard work and info here.....all of you amaze me!

i wonder if there is a new list of witnesses...or maybe jb wants to add someone.....:shocked2: a B witnesses but wants to keep it priviate? :chicken:

i think jb and kc want what ever it is....priviate :snooty:....because they know how great W/S is :razz: and we will get down to the nitty gritty of it......and mess up their whole plan

 

[flnana]

:blowkiss: You're welcome.
As a general rule, adoption records and mental health records of an individual are typically maintained by whatever state or local entity or health care provider in which that individual was physically located/resided at the time same were made and, therefore, records requests would have to be made to that state/its entities/health care providers, not the federal government.

Can you get adoption records or mental health records for someone besides your client without that person's permission?

ETA Sorry, I didn't read all the way through before I asked this question! Several people answered it already--thanks

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

Canon 3A(4) of Florida's code of judical conduct states clearly that:
A judge should accord to every person who is legally interested in a proceeding, or his lawyer, full right to be heard according to law and except as authorized by law neither initiate or consider ex parte or other communications concerning a pending or impending proceeding.
http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/flsup...8/op-74248.pdf


Seems Baez missed Attorney 101....I don't think this is a legal maneuver but one where Baez seems he's entitled to this "secret" meeting as to not tip his hand on his defense strategy. The prosecutors have a right to be there to voice their concerns and such. Baez is so friggin lazy and wants everything handed to him on a silver platter...

No doubt this might blow up in his face....:furious: