JBaez requests Ex Parte Hearing with Judge Strickland

[watcher9]

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.

Thank you so much for answering my question so thoroughly. Now, I can fully understand the difference.

What I just can't understand is how could JB say KC is "innocent" if KC told him the "true" facts and/or he looks at the evidence. It seems to me that he runs with "lies" just about as far as KC does....

 

[SoSueMe]

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.

They won't need a text message because KC told LE she talked with Caylee on the phone July 15th. I think that little lie will come back to bite her big time in this case.

 

[Wisteria]

“Baez claimed through the motion, they did not want to tip off the prosecution as to their defense strategy”

This statement angers me to no end. I am a mother of 2 kids. If something terrible happened to one of them- I would want justice! To find their killer and see them punished. This strategy to sneak around and find a way out of the charges only helps to prove her guilt and not her innocence. If Casey knows who killed her daughter and doesn’t tell, she is protecting a killer. If her lawyer doesn’t share pertinent information he claims to have about this baby killer HE is allowing a murderer to go free. The only person she is protecting is herself.
There will be no big shocker in this story except that Casey did it and is-
wait for it-
STILL LYING ABOUT IT!

This trial can’t get here quick enough. I would love for there to be some hidden sceme that a mother was caught up in to explain all the lies and weird behaviour but that is just not how it happened. IMO. Casey didn’t want Caylee and didn’t want anyone else to have her either. End of story. We will never understand it. Sadly, I can’t wait until Casey is in jail for the rest of her natural life, the press moves on to other stories, and we the public can forget this monster forever.

God bless Caylee. She is safe in the arms of Jesus.

 

[MaryAnn]

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

I'm no legal eagle that's for sure, but do you think he's trying to avoid giving the Zenaida defense. Sounds like it to me. It says:

Here the defendant requests and ex parte hearing regarding a "sensitive matter" in order to prevent releasing the "defendant's theory of defense".

What do you think??

 

[Wisteria]

"defendant's theory of defense".


Um.... How about the truth?

 

[Marina2]

They won't need a text message because KC told LE she talked with Caylee on the phone July 15th. I think that little lie will come back to bite her big time in this case.

So true. No matter what KC's story is there's no reason whatsoever to lie to LE in order to make them believe Caylee was alive and happy on July 15th. In any circumstance KC can think of she should have been begging for the investigators to find Caylee and bring her home before harm came to her. Instead, she implies that Caylee is fine, reading her book and happy. No need to worry, she alive and happy. This is one piece of evidence she won't be able to explain away.

 

[Chezhire]

If this is the case, I am curious to know why he would seek assistance from the Judge. Why not ask for assistance from one of the other Attorneys on the case.

:waitasec: I'm not saying it makes sense to me, but from what I've seen in the courtroom thus far, JBaez seems to expect that the SA or another entity will do his work for him, and he's continually been asking the judge to make the SA do it for him. All I can guess is that maybe JBaez is too proud to admit to the other attorneys he's working with that he doesn't know the first thing about what the law in FL is re: how to get that which he wants.

 

[SoCalSleuth]

Hey SCS,

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

Yes. Something having to do with searches, the searchers, and possibly TES.

 

[Chezhire]

A subpoena is a form that can be filled out. It's not just getting advice on how to do a subpoena. I think he needs "a court order" (which is usually the response from agencies or providers holding privileged records). You can't use a subpoena to get to privileged information. Therefore, he thinks he needs something like a court-signed subpoena but really he needs a "court order" which means the one holding the records must be given notice so they can appear and object or make a motion to quash (usually a subpoena).

True re: form subpoenas, though I never use them. I prefer to draft my own and allow the clerk of court to simply attach their pink/green/yellow cover sheet to it for the serving officers' use. MUch easier for me, as mine tend to be rather, er, lengthy.

In LA, there are specific rules regarding an attempt to obtain privileged records from a 3rd party. Example: for banking records, we have a whole slew of rules/hoops for obtaining banking reg.s that you have to jump through before you actually GET what you want via the subpoena to the particular banking institution (notice to the account holder within so many days before the return date for the documents to be produced, so as to allow them time to object, etc.) Same thing for medical records.

 

[PGWodehouse]

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.

That's my bet. He filed for ex-parte, and wanted in camera. Good ol' Jose. At least he's good for a chuckle.

 

[Chezhire]

SNIPPED: "... "He wants somebody's records and he does not want to say who. Apparently they won't give it to him if he's tried to through other channels," criminal defense attorney Richard Hornsby said.
Hornsby said he thinks it's a smart move by Baez because "he sees something everyone else is missing, but he doesn't want to tip the state off to what he's going to raise at trial."
Strickland has not yet ruled on whether he will allow the hearing."..."

I'd say that Mr. Hornsby is giving JBaez too much credit here re: has JBaez even bothered to go through the legally appropriate channels to try to obtain that which he seeks before filing this. Since I don't give JBaez that much credit, plus the fact that I'm well versed in the fact that any time an attorney sends out a subpoena, they HAVE to certify that they've sent what we attorneys call "notice" copies to all counsel of record. It's called "there is no trial by ambush" in my part of the world. :doh:

 

[cyberborg]

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?

Yes, JB's teaching style is "lessons learned". He goes to the class and he says, "o.k. class, the lesson I learned today on how not to file a motion is ....", nothing like fresh and raw real world experience gained that week.

 

[AZlawyer]

I'd say that Mr. Hornsby is giving JBaez too much credit here re: has JBaez even bothered to go through the legally appropriate channels to try to obtain that which he seeks before filing this. Since I don't give JBaez that much credit, plus the fact that I'm well versed in the fact that any time an attorney sends out a subpoena, they HAVE to certify that they've sent what we attorneys call "notice" copies to all counsel of record. It's called "there is no trial by ambush" in my part of the world. :doh:

My guess is:

1. JB wants to get his hands on some third-party documents that require a court order signed by the judge rather than just a subpoena (banking records, etc.);

2. To get the court order, he knows he will have to say WHY he needs those documents;

3. He thinks the prosecutors are too stupid to figure out his master plan if all they have is a copy of the subpoena (i.e. the list of documents he wants), rather than his explanation of WHY he wanted the subpoena.

IMHO the prosecutors are plenty smart enough to follow JB's bread crumbs and he might as well just show his hand.

 

[Chezhire]

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...ey-anthony-baez-motion-040109,0,6432933.story

REQUEST DENIED.
JUST AS WE KNEW IT WOULD BE. :laugh: JBaez...tsk tsk. No law or authorities cited...cause there aren't any.

 

[Wisteria]

My guess is:

1. JB wants to get his hands on some third-party documents that require a court order signed by the judge rather than just a subpoena (banking records, etc.);

2. To get the court order, he knows he will have to say WHY he needs those documents;

3. He thinks the prosecutors are too stupid to figure out his master plan if all they have is a copy of the subpoena (i.e. the list of documents he wants), rather than his explanation of WHY he wanted the subpoena.

IMHO the prosecutors are plenty smart enough to follow JB's bread crumbs and he might as well just show his hand. [/QUOTE]

Jose just doesn't want anyone to poke holes in his only theory before he goes to court. The blitz attack is the only chance he gets.

 

[Chezhire]

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

Betcha she didn't even know about it.
Wanna place bets on how likely it will be that she'll withdraw???
(J/K...but the more I look at what I wrote, the more I wonder...)

 

[Chezhire]

My guess is:

1. JB wants to get his hands on some third-party documents that require a court order signed by the judge rather than just a subpoena (banking records, etc.);

2. To get the court order, he knows he will have to say WHY he needs those documents;

3. He thinks the prosecutors are too stupid to figure out his master plan if all they have is a copy of the subpoena (i.e. the list of documents he wants), rather than his explanation of WHY he wanted the subpoena.

IMHO the prosecutors are plenty smart enough to follow JB's bread crumbs and he might as well just show his hand.

Frankly, the only plausible thing I was able to come up with would be a potential REBUTTAL WITNESS, since their identities don't, depending upon the state and the testimony they're expected to give, have to be disclosed in advance of the trial.

In LA, an attorney does not have to disclose rebuttal witnesses' identities, but you better be darn sure you know who does and doesn't qualify as a rebuttal witness before you take that gamble. I cringed while watching a judge rule that a particular witness did NOT get to testify and the attorney lost his case. (Appeals, malpractice alerts, anyone?!?!?)
Anyhow, so maybe JBaez thinks he's got a potential rebuttal witness and, since it's not a document, and maybe FL is like LA and - although he doesn't have to disclose his rebuttal witness's identity - he can't FIND the rebuttal witness, so maybe he needs a court order to help him locate the immediate whereabouts of the potential rebuttal witness. eek: Casey has him looking for ZANNY!?!?!? J/K...)

 

[dax]

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

JB clever? absolutely not! Sneaky? absolutely! imo

 

[Paintr]

Betcha she didn't even know about it.
Wanna place bets on how likely it will be that she'll withdraw???
(J/K...but the more I look at what I wrote, the more I wonder...)

Oh No! I am not betting with you guys any more. I'd starve to death and die broke. Those 14 cents add up over time, ya know.

 

[Dear Prudence]

Yes, JB's teaching style is "lessons learned". He goes to the class and he says, "o.k. class, the lesson I learned today on how not to file a motion is ....", nothing like fresh and raw real world experience gained that week.

Lesson #1 - Use the correct case number :floorlaugh: