JBaez requests Ex Parte Hearing with Judge Strickland

[one_hooah_wife]

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.

Yep, no double jeopardy on motions! What is shameful is that this guy is purportedly teaching "pre-trial practice" at some unfortunate law school!! IMO ... when in reality, he needs to survey that course at a "real" law school!! IMO

 

[Friday]

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.

Wow, I was reading along thinking, "OMG, this theory could work for the defense!" And then I thought of a comforting conflict with this tale--Casey was texting/talking to CA during this period and claiming Caylee was with her and Zenaida throughout it. If there's any records of even 1 text from Casey re that, then this theory won't fly.

Also, it's a little late for Casey to claim she thought Cindy had Caylee after she's already claimed two different locations where Zenaida allegedly kidnapped her. And Lee testified to that to LE and JM.

 

[Themis]

Paintr,

Might I suggest a fine baloney?

:croc::slap::spit:

Make it a ham sandwich because "it" is already indicted!

 

[Paintr]

QUOTE=amethyst221;3536612]Paintr,

Might I suggest a fine baloney?[/QUOTE]

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:[

 

[one_hooah_wife]

:croc::slap::spit:

Make it a ham sandwich because "it" is already indicted!

Let's make it Prosciutto ... just for style points!!

 

[Themis]

Yep, no double jeopardy on motions! What is shameful is that this guy is purportedly teaching "pre-trial practice" at some unfortunate law school!! IMO ... when in reality, he needs to survey that course at a "real" law school!! IMO

OMG! He's teaching pretrial practice in a law school? I knew he was "teaching" but pretrial practice!?! OMG!!! Well, his students are getting a "real lesson" aren't they?

 

[Paintr]

:croc::slap::spit:

Make it a ham sandwich because "it" is already indicted!

Thanks to you guys, I am thinking of becoming a vegetarian. and swearing off betting for the duration of this case. :laugh:

 

[Themis]

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

Just think of it this way. Our justice system is so good, it can withstand defense counsel! :floorlaugh:

 

[Themis]

Let's make it Prosciutto ... just for style points!!

Stylish but salty. Bring lots of punch! :blowkiss:

 

[Themis]

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

Good question. If this was a joint effort ... well ... I guess that thought speaks for itself.

 

[LancelotLink]

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

I don't know, honestly.

 

[SuziQ]

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.

Baez has had to refile a couple of motions because he used the original case number. I can't believe he's still making that mistake.

 

[Paintr]

O/T but could one of you legal minds please answer a question I asked earlier in the ZG lawsuit thread?

TYK in advance.

 

[Tiki]

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.

Wow! I went away for a few hours and came back to this! You guys new it all along - now you're absolutely giddy - me too!

:woohoo:

 

[Omachka]

OMG! He's teaching pretrial practice in a law school? I knew he was "teaching" but pretrial practice!?! OMG!!! Well, his students are getting a "real lesson" aren't they?

Hopefully they are learning what not to do. Isn't it scary to see who is teaching our next generation of lawyers?

 

[Themis]

Hopefully they are learning what not to do. Isn't it scary to see who is teaching our next generation of lawyers?

Memo to Law School Applicants:
Step 1. Only go to an ABA certified Law School!
Step 2.

 

[Intermezzo]

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!

To Baez: What a Waste, a huge waste
Back to the drawing board

 

[Balthazar]

*resp. snipped.
this version of accounts in no way explains casey's behaviour.
if you have ever been the victim of a crime committed against you by someone you 'know', the very first thing you realize is that you don't know them, you never did, and you're keenly aware that you have no idea what this 'stranger' is capable of. it's terrifying.

I know from personal experience that stalking can be subtle, even flattering in the initial stages. It can also be so subtle that many young women don't even realize that they are being stalked until it is too late. Even if the woman is aware of the stalking they often don't want to report the stalking because they think they can handle it and they don't want their "friend" to get in trouble. Many women don't take the stalker seriously until it escalates into true physical danger and they wind up hurt or killed. But the thing about stalkers is that eventually they will snap and do something terrible and there is no way to know when that will happen. Many stalkers plan revenge against their victims that includes killing the victim's love object (boyfriend, pet, child, parents) before destroying the victim. Remember Casey said this happened because she refused to do something. I think the defense is going to say that whatever it was she refused to do was the turning point for the stalker who felt rejected by her and who plotted to get Caylee away from Casey and kill Caylee and punish Casey by making her look guilty.

I'm not saying I believe that this is what actually happened. But I do think this is the story the defense will present. It will be interesting to see how compelling a case the defense can put together.

 

[Dear Prudence]

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.

Bold by me.

I believe Judge Strickland agrees with you. In his ruling attached below he says as much.

http://www.cfnews13.com/uploadedFil...fendant's Motion to Seek Ex Parte Hearing.pdf

 

[Dear Prudence]

Baez has had to refile a couple of motions because he used the original case number. I can't believe he's still making that mistake.

Well believe it because looks like he did it again. This is from "Todays Current News" thread quoting a WFTV article.

<snipped>
Defense attorney Jose Baez had filed the request in the wrong case file, so at first there was confusion over the request. But once it got to the judge's office, he turned it down without a hearing.

Judge Strickland ruled there is no legal basis for the defense request.