JBaez requests Ex Parte Hearing with Judge Strickland

[LancelotLink]

Now I have the feeling this was all a red herring from Baez. He deliberately sent in a vague request, knowing it would be denied. Why? To give the false impression to prosecutors that he had something amazing!

 

[LancelotLink]

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.

I agree!!!

 

[LancelotLink]

Maybe this was Jose's attempt at an April Fool's joke.

 

[nssherlock]

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.

Bolded by me..........I believe this is a good option for KC. It seems to me to be the only way she'll be released at some future date. Maybe finally her lawyer is being honest with her about the real possibilities.

 

[Themis]

What is the difference between not guilty and innocent?

This is an excellent question! :clap::clap::clap: You're really catching an important point here.

"Not Guilty" is a verdict that means the jury found that the prosecution did not prove all of the elements of the charged crime to the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt." That's all it means.

"Acquittal" is similar to "Not Guilty" in that the prosecution is acquitted and the prosecution will not continue to go forward.

Neither of the above means the defendant is innocent if the actual facts of what happened were known to all.

"Innocent" means the defendant/accused actually did not do the crime. The "true" facts would show that this defendant did not do the crime.

The criminal justice system is just a public resolution forum to address criminal violations. We, as a society would rather a guilty person goes free than innocent people are convicted and punished. Therefore, we set the bar very high to prove the crime; beyond a reasonable doubt. When the verdict is "Not Guilty" or "Acquitted" it just means that society will not go further in prosecuting this crime and the defendant will not be subject to punishment by the State.

 

[Paintr]

Now I have the feeling this was all a red herring from Baez. He deliberately sent in a vague request, knowing it would be denied. Why? To give the false impression to prosecutors that he had something amazing!

Do you really think JB is that clever? After all, he never seems to quote case law for anything.

 

[momtective]

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

denied!

Can I get a "h3ll yeah!"

 

[Themis]

I agree. I am theorizing that the defense will present a case in which Casey was being stalked by someone she knew and that person is the guilty party in this case. I think they will claim that since Casey knew her stalker and couldn't imagine that the stalker would hurt Caylee, Casey thought she could "handle it" herself as she told the 911 operator. I think it's also important for everyone to remember that while the evidence looks very damning, that would be because this is ONLY the prosecutions case that we have seen. But we only have half of the story because Casey has withheld the truth, yet over and over again, we are hearing her attorneys say that she is innocent - not that she is not guilty, but innocent. The attorneys know full well the meaning of not guilty versus innocent, so I find that very interesting. I also find it very intriguing that here is no direct evidence so far. Everything is circumstantial, which I believe makes this case so very fascinating.

Circumstantial evidence is good evidence and can be weighed and used as a basis to support a conviction on circumstantial evidence alone. Better to have solid circumstantial evidence than "direct" evidence from a poor observer or a biased eyewitness. Eyewitness are often wrong.

 

[Themis]

I thought this kind of thing was not allowed at FL trials. (Perry Mason moments)
It was explained in another thread, here is the post from
member "MiraclesHappen"

Big Glitch in Florida Law.

Florida Rules of criminal procedure 3.220 have plugged up loopholes which allowed experts to spring things at trial by giving the prosecution the opportunity to depose the witnesses who are going to be called by the defendant during trial.


Specifically listed as available to be deposed by either side, are expert witnesses who have failed to reduce their findings or opinions to writing.:deal:

The Florida rules are really geared to getting the info out before trial to avoid this type of situation in which theories are plucked from the sky..

Being somewhat familiar with the PS case, I was basing my humble opinion on the parameters of Florida law & Procedure and their incredibly wide latitude regarding discovery. :blowkiss:

Per Rule 3.220, available for questioning before trial & during the process of discovery:
(7) expert witnesses
who have not provided a written report and a curriculum
vitae or who are going to testify to test results or
give opinions that will have to meet the test set forth in
Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).

Everything you said is right and MiraclesHappen does an exceptional amount of research for quality posting here on legal issues. I have great respect for you both.

What you are talking about is the expert witnesses and other witnesses and how they are on witness lists and subject to depositions. But, in preparing a case, the defense may have consulted with other people who are not yet on the list. These do not have to be disclosed until the defense decides to call them as a witness.

I know, I can hear your next question: How can defense call them if they were not on the witness list. Well, the witness list generally only contains witnesses that side intends to call in their "case-in-chief." The case in chief for the prosecution is the case they intend to put on at trial to prove the elements of the charged offenses. The case in chief for the prosecution would be the defense -- usually affirmative defenses. But, a lot of the defense case is to cross-examine prosecution experts. Then, after the "case-in-chief" comes the "rebuttal" witnesses. These are where the "trial by ambush" witnesess or law come into play. Defense can simply say, "I didn't know the prosecution witness was going to testify that way, so now I have to rebut what they said." So, they put on a rebuttal and it surprises the prosecution. Then, the prosecution can put on what is known as "surrebuttal" (pronounced "sir rebuttal"). In essence, it is a rebuttal to the rebuttal (a counter to their counter). For this, they might need a recess to prepare for surrebuttal. Rebuttal or surrebuttal is where the ambush comes into play. Trials and evidence are many layered things. There are issues with branches and tentacles that seem to never end. The trial attorney must keep dozens of things in the top of his or her mind because he can't let them go unchallenged or unsupported.

 

[Themis]

Do you really think JB is that clever? After all, he never seems to quote case law for anything.

No, I don't think clever or feint was the reason for this motion. I think he doesn't know whether, when or how to obtain privileged information. Generally, he cannot have it. I think he thought it was sensitive and should be not in the public view -- like mental health information. I think he doesn't understand that third party patient records are not his to use and it is not a balancing test, but a question of whether or not they are privileged or fall into an exception. He may not understand the difference between an ex-parte communication, a closed hearing or an in-camera review.

 

[Themis]

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.

It's a new day, people! The judges are going to require JB to have law and legal citations in order to get his motions granted. :clap:

BTW, the Judge didn't "throw out" his motion, but actually ruled on it.

 

[ThoughtElf]

No, I don't think clever or feint was the reason for this motion. I think he doesn't know whether, when or how to obtain privileged information. Generally, he cannot have it. I think he thought it was sensitive and should be not in the public view -- like mental health information. I think he doesn't understand that third party patient records are not his to use and it is not a balancing test, but a question of whether or not they are privileged or fall into an exception. He may not understand the difference between an ex-parte communication, a closed hearing or an in-camera review.

Where was LKB in helping him prep this motion? :waitasec:

 

[AZlawyer]

No, I don't think clever or feint was the reason for this motion. I think he doesn't know whether, when or how to obtain privileged information. Generally, he cannot have it. I think he thought it was sensitive and should be not in the public view -- like mental health information. I think he doesn't understand that third party patient records are not his to use and it is not a balancing test, but a question of whether or not they are privileged or fall into an exception. He may not understand the difference between an ex-parte communication, a closed hearing or an in-camera review.[/QUOTE]

Clearly not.

I don't think he was being tricky either--he isn't smart enough. He wanted to keep something secret (I thought it was his REASON for asking for the documents, not the documents themselves) and just cited to the only rule he knew that allowed "secret stuff."

 

[Paintr]

It's a new day, people! The judges are going to require JB to have law and legal citations in order to get his motions granted. :clap:

BTW, the Judge didn't "throw out" his motion, but actually ruled on it.

So does that mean that JB must write a whole new motion, citing case law, before he can submit this to the Judge again. The motion was ruled on, so that doesn't preclude future motions on the same topic, does it?

Should I be out fattening up a steer for a future steak sandwich?

 

[amethyst221]

Good for Judge S!!! A lawyer asking the court for something routine should have supporting legal authorities. One asking for some extraordinary and unusual relief or proceeding should definitely provide some. Unless he's just totally incompetent, you almost have to think this is part of some orchestrated move by the defense to set something up, what I have no idea. The recent statements about how he's "discovering" her innocence every day, the selective depositions (finally!), etc. Having typed that, I think I just talked myself out of argument number 2. Never mind.

 

[Themis]

So does that mean that JB must write a whole new motion, citing case law, before he can submit this to the Judge again. The motion was ruled on, so that doesn't preclude future motions on the same topic, does it?

Should I be out fattening up a steer for a future steak sandwich?

The ruling was procedural so he can bring the same substantive motion again.

Go with lean beef, it's better for your health. If he ever gets the procedure right, it will depend on the substance of his motion and that we don't know. He probably doesn't know.

 

[njustice]

If Baez is so concerned about his defense theory getting out, it must not be a very good one. Otherwise, it would stand up to criticism. He's probably worried that the sooner the theory is revealed the more time there will be to poke holes through it.

I keep having to convince myself defense lawyers are a necessary part of our legal process but I still feel like they've cheapened the system in so many ways

 

[amethyst221]

Paintr,

Might I suggest a fine baloney?

 

[Themis]

No, I don't think clever or feint was the reason for this motion. I think he doesn't know whether, when or how to obtain privileged information. Generally, he cannot have it. I think he thought it was sensitive and should be not in the public view -- like mental health information. I think he doesn't understand that third party patient records are not his to use and it is not a balancing test, but a question of whether or not they are privileged or fall into an exception. He may not understand the difference between an ex-parte communication, a closed hearing or an in-camera review.[/QUOTE]

Clearly not.

I don't think he was being tricky either--he isn't smart enough. He wanted to keep something secret (I thought it was his REASON for asking for the documents, not the documents themselves) and just cited to the only rule he knew that allowed "secret stuff."

ITA. That's about the depth of the analysis and if it is, they are in waaaaaaaaaaaaaay over their heads.

 

[Paintr]

The ruling was procedural so he can bring the same substantive motion again.

Go with lean beef, it's better for your health. If he ever gets the procedure right, it will depend on the substance of his motion and that we don't know. He probably doesn't know.

Thank you kindly for the answer.

I'll see if I can find a hill to pasture him on. LOL!