JBaez requests Ex Parte Hearing with Judge Strickland

[sumbunny]

I believe that JB is going to go for insantity- a last ditch attempt. He will plead that KC got pregnant, wanted to abort and was 'forced' by CA to have the baby. After Caylee was born, KC felt she lost her mother's and father's love because it became "all about Caylee" and she 'snapped'. And I think he is trying to hide his alleged defense from the prosecution hoping they will be unprepared for that defense at trial. :crazy:

Thus the reason for the distance between KC and the family and the reason she is refusing visits, there appears to be a distance and distrust between JB and the family. And remember JB's statement something about being shocked when we heard the whole story? He will try to play her as the poor, misunderstood child- too young to be a mother, too young and immature for the responsibility, and under pressure from her parents. She 'snapped'. She is not legally responsible because she wasn't in her right mind and didn't intend to kill Caylee, she just wanted her parents love back. (It won't work, but it's an alleged defense.)

Does anyone know if KC ever recieved counseling- perhaps while she was a minor? If so he may be having trouble obtaining records from her counselor, and doesn't want to supoena the record because if he does the prosecution will learn his alleged defense strategy.

I'm not sure the family knew of casey's pregnancy until she was over 7 months gone.

An abortion would be impossible

 

[Intermezzo]

That deposition is not until 4p (happening right now) but I have a feeling that he needs records that relates to someone that he wants thrown under the bus (RM or J. Grund or someone). Now, what I don't understand is once he subpoenas this info. won't the person who is the subject of the subpoena go public and then the SA will know the strategy anyways?

Also, in what situation would an ex parte motion be granted?

That is my theory as well.
In Lee's depo with Mr Morgan he mentioned Jesse knowing Casey's passwords...still casting suspicion on him.

http://www.wesh.com/caseyanthony/19054582/detail.html
"All along, Baez has said he knows information that will help explain why Casey Anthony didn't report Caylee missing for a month -- and why Casey Anthony didn't kill her daughter."

IMO, In order to explain the WHY's the Defense is going to point the finger at someone.

 

[Mendara]

He probably doesn't want it made public that he is going to throw the Anthony family, in particular Cindy, under the bus. Casey would lose their support prior to the trial.

I 100% agree. If not the A's the TL or AH or JG.

I remember a case way back where a person's defense theory was to blame her mother or to raise doubt that it could have been her mother and yet her mother still came to watch the case and didn't "mind". As the defense really isn't out right acusing her, but just adding resonable doubt. It was insane. I believe this is the way JB is going. He is going to throw several people under the bus.

 

[mysteriew]

I'm not sure the family knew of casey's pregnancy until she was over 7 months gone.

An abortion would be impossible

A simple detail that the defense will hope that the jury won't believe. Most people find it hard to believe that a family doesn't notice a pregnancy.

But I thought of another theory....

JB says he will explain why KC didn't look for Caylee. Why wouldn't she look for her missing daughter? Because she thought CA had found Caylee and taken her home with her! Because she thought CA had wanted to make her worry about Caylee.

How about KC left Caylee in her car while she ran in somewhere for a few minutes. When she returned to the car Caylee was gone and she thought she saw CA's vehicle turning the corner. She tried to call CA and got no answer. She looked at CA's myspace and saw the entry about her missing Caylee and that made her mad. She figured CA saw Caylee in the car, figured she would be in trouble for leaving her in the car, figured CA wanted to make KC worry, she thought Caylee was in safe hands with her mother, so she partied. She thought that Caylee was with her mother and she was in trouble, she was already mad so she didn't know Caylee was missing until her mother called police. She thought CA was bluffing. Now she wonders if CA may have harmed Caylee. After all, CA allegedly slapped KC. The expartee may be an attempt to obtain the psych records on CA.

 

[Intermezzo]

I'm looking for a little law education here (and a good memory)...

Does a defense atty have the right to subpoena someone's DNA?

Could JB be having a hard time getting his hands on JG's DNA that is on the paternity filing? I recall (not very clearly tho) JB having a problem with access to Caylee's DNA in a prior hearing. The information was in discovery, but it seemed he was discreetly trying to get the whole report that would include JG's DNA while everyone was distracted with Caylee's DNA. Does anyone remember the event I am referencing? Could the information he is trying to obtain be "in discovery" but not completely available to defense so still not bringing in new evidence? All the while, not drawing attention to building some sort of case against JG? Could one of the hairs in the car have been JG's?

I am not suggesting that this is anything more than mind games on the part of JB, but I am thinking that it is the manner in which he is trying to obtain this information that is designed to court the potential jurors . The "Real killer is going to walk thru that door right now, followed by acknowleding heads turned toward the door, as some sort of doubt in the evidence exclusively pointing to the defendants guilt kind of thing". Does that make sense?

Sorry, I'm as lame as a layperson gets when it comes to law..:crazy:

Sorry, did not get to your post before posting mine about JG and DNA.

 

[dax]

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.

<respectfully snipped>


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.

<respectfully snipped>


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.

bolded by me...

Are we looking too much at the obvious? Maybe this is about the dam~ video tape and/or Ashton.....any thoughts?

I wondered why he was focusing on depos of jail personnel this week.

 

[PGWodehouse]

I believe that JB is going to go for insantity- a last ditch attempt.
...respectively snipped...

Baez can't spring an insanity defense on the State. It's an affirmative defense, and notification must be presented prior to the trial. It wouldn't work, anyway, as here in FL we use the M'Naughten rule, which essentially boils down to not undertanding what you're doing (you're delusional and you stab a person thinking you're stabbing a watermelon) or not understanding that what you're doing is wrong. Tossing the body out like garbage and lying about Caylee's whereabouts for a month completely destroys this defense.

They could claim something along the lines of extreme duress where KC was just pushed to the boiling point, snapped, and killed Caylee without intent, making it manslaughter, but she would have to admit what she did, which I simply don't see her doing. The problem for the defense, is that, if she admits that she smothered or beat Caylee to death in a fit of rage, that would fall under our aggravated child abuse statutes, and therefore actually be felony murder.

I just don't see any option for the defense except attacking the prosecution's forensics. Baez may have something interesting up his sleeve, but to be honest, I don't think he's a very good atty, nor do I think he's very inventive, so I suspect he's up a creek, and he knows it.

 

[LancelotLink]

bolded by me...

Are we looking too much at the obvious? Maybe this is about the dam~ video tape and/or Ashton.....any thoughts?

I wondered why he was focusing on depos of jail personnel this week.

Or the video tape at Sawgrass? I know they told Casey they had seen one, but I always doubted this.

 

[mysteriew]

Baez can't spring an insanity defense on the State. It's an affirmative defense, and notification must be presented prior to the trial. It wouldn't work, anyway, as here in FL we use the M'Naughten rule, which essentially boils down to not undertanding what you're doing (you're delusional and you stab a person thinking you're stabbing a watermelon) or not understanding that what you're doing is wrong. Tossing the body out like garbage and lying about Caylee's whereabouts for a month completely destroys this defense.

They could claim something along the lines of extreme duress where KC was just pushed to the boiling point, snapped, and killed Caylee without intent, making it manslaughter, but she would have to admit what she did, which I simply don't see her doing. The problem for the defense, is that, if she admits that she smothered or beat Caylee to death in a fit of rage, that would fall under our aggravated child abuse statutes, and therefore actually be felony murder.

I just don't see any option for the defense except attacking the prosecution's forensics. Baez may have something interesting up his sleeve, but to be honest, I don't think he's a very good atty, nor do I think he's very inventive, so I suspect he's up a creek, and he knows it.

I have about the same opinion as you on JB as an attorney.... which is why I wonder if he might not try the defense. But I didn't think of the fact that defense does have to notify the court if they are using the mental defense.

But if he chooses not to use the mental, the only defense he has is the SOPDI defense. I don't think he will go for the ZFG defense, because that doesn't really explain why KC kept on partying and why no one had ever met ZFG. And LE has already tried to find a connection to ZFG and hasn't found one. I do think he might blame family though. And I don't think he will make it a nonspecific SOPDI, he will point at someone.

 

[frenchvixen]

Or the video tape at Sawgrass? I know they told Casey they had seen one, but I always doubted this.

This also crossed my mind. This is why KC came up with the other version of "handing off" Caylee at JBP to Zanny and Sammy (lol). Damn, I'm getting pissed all over again.

 

[LancelotLink]

This also crossed my mind. This is why KC came up with the other version of "handing off" Caylee at JBP to Zanny and Sammy (lol). Damn, I'm getting pissed all over again.

Is this why the request for ex parte was listed in a different docket? I don't know how that works. It states the case is closed, but it can't be. This dealt with Casey lying to LE and original charge of neglect.
I wonder now also if this has something to do with the June 9 date that everyone seemed so certain of.

 

[Theonly1]

I have yet to read the rest of this thread, so if this is a repeat, I apologize. I found the ex-parte listing in the docket. Only now I'm confused.
This is for case number- 08-CF-0010925-O, where Casey is charged with neglect of a child and lying to LE.

3/30/2009 A MOTION TO SEEK EX PARTE HEARING

Maybe they GOOFED on the case number and copied over an old pleading in this case before the capital murder charges were filed. It would not surprise me!

Proofreading skills = lacking

 

[LancelotLink]

Maybe they GOOFED on the case number and copied over an old pleading in this case before the capital murder charges were filed. It would not surprise me!

Proofreading skills...lacking.

I don't know. something tells me this has to do with the initial first moments of this investigation. Baez has seen something he thinks he can exploit. Just my opinion. Perhaps Baez filed it under this docket number to throw people off the scent?
Tis a mystery...

 

[Searchfortruth]

I remember hearing, way back, that Casey was looking up PTSD (I believe this was when she was out on bail). Don't know if they are thinking about using this as part of their defense strategy or not...

 

[Searchfortruth]

If they used PTSD would there be an explanation for her not calling LE for a month somewhere in the symptoms of that disorder ? I'm not saying there is any excuse for not calling LE right away, but guessing at what the defense may be going after.

 

[MomofBoys]

This was denied, and Strickland's reasoning sounds very much like "Uh, Jose, you actually need to cite LAW in your motions. Kthanks."

 

[scratchthatitch]

http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/local/040109ex_parte_denied

denied!

 

[autumnlover]

http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/local/040109ex_parte_denied

denied!

YAY!!! I wouldn't be surprised if JB knew it would be denied and this was just another one of his grandstanding tactics to show to the world how "innocent" his poor KC is. Gee, I love Judge Stirckland. Methinks it's going to be a great trial. No Judge Ito is he.

 

[marla]

Awwwwww, poor widdle, weeble Jose ..

 

[Paintr]

From the daily updates quoting the Sentinel

"Strickland denied Baez's request and noted in his order: "No legal authority has been provided to allow an ex parte hearing under the circumstances outlined in defendant's motion."

:woohoo: I am happy to lose my 14 cents and my steak sandwich. But JB may re submit his request.