JBaez requests Ex Parte Hearing with Judge Strickland

[Paintr]

Yes, but you get to see the big picture

Groan! :croc:

True but this case is like M.C. Escher's paintings...twists, turns, steps that go nowhere and things that look like one thing and then another.

 

[LancelotLink]

Yes, prosecution will go with ZFG story, which is Casey's sworn statement that can not be corroborated by anyone in any way. Then add to that the 31 days without reporting, death smell in car, hair in trunk, party pictures, the first call home from jail. Her case is hopeless.

:clap:

 

[travelgal]

[


This is my first post, so please be gentle. As I read several of the previous posts, one thought was reaffirmed: ineffective counsel. Today's denial of motion along with other errors committed by Baez, in my opinion, strongly exhibits ineffective assistance of council. If Baez continues to "counsel" in this manner, does it not increase KC's chances of appealing a conviction based on ineffective assistance of counsel? Or am I simply reaching too far?

:Welcome-12-june::Welcome-12-june: Amerika! Thanks for your great first post!! :takeabow:

 

[SoCalSleuth]

Bless all of our Hooahs! :usa::usa: Please extend my deepest appreciation for his service on this special occasion. I appreciate all of them, where ever they are :worldmap: each and every one. :soldier:

Thanks so much I'll pass it on!

 

[Themis]

But then isn't he now locked into the defense his client offered up already? That is ZG kidnapped the baby.

KC is charged with lying to the Sheriff's Office investigators. That was one of them so unless he wants to plead her to that or to be passive in the prosecution of those charges, it has to be worked in some way.

 

[Themis]

Would that be because the State could chose not to rebut when the defense rests?

That could happen.

 

[mitzi]

Can't the legal community complain about this? He is incompetent. I mean this is basic law school grounding.. when you write a motion or a brief, you cite case law.. It's not that difficult. How is he going to lead a trial if he can't even do that? I wonder what kind of stupid questions he asks during depos.

Does Baez have to give his depos over to the State as discovery eventually?...because I would sure love to see him in action! :crazy: I would have to make a huge amount of opcorn: for that!

 

[one_hooah_wife]

Huh? ex parte --- means that only the judge and "one side" is present. PERIOD!! ex parte is Latin for "from one side" ... "in camera" just means that the proceedings would be documented by a court reporter in front of the judge usually with both sides present but differs from ex parte, in that the proceedings permit both sides to be present and that it is documented and not subject to the public.

I'm quoting myself because I wanted to apologize ... That was so snarky! I was having a really bad day! But that is no excuse! And I stand corrected as others pointed out ex parte can mean both sides present. Again, I am sorry especially to Chez!

 

[MyTinkieGirl]

Nah. You have to remember who is speaking. This "ropes" thing coming from Hooah isn't harsh language. It's coming from a lawyer living among Marines to another lawyer. Lawyers talk like that. Tough talk among the US Marine culture is affectionate. Just have to do some translating. It was like an invitation to discuss. Hooah Wife and Chez like each other.

Thanks for lettin me know....sorry, it wasn't my business, anyway. I just heard that guy Michael Buffer in the back of my mind saying "Lets get ready to rummmmmble"....:crazy:
I'm a chemist.....no idea what so ever about the workings of legal minds. Closest I get to any legal matters is following gov regs on food/flavor products and patents....LOL

Oh, yeah....my divorce lawyer....

 

[Theonly1]

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

"An in camera inspection and an ex parte proceeding are not one and the same..."

"No legal authority has been provided..."

BWAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And if we can TRUST the only statute Baez DID CITE then what he's after comes from Category "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...

So he wasn't fishing directly for eyewitnesses, friends of Casey, etc. (if we are to trust his citing of Statute).

 

[Skully]

I didn't read the whole thread so sorry if this has been asked, but I am wondering if JB is wanting to look into CA's therapy sessions and thinks there may be something in them to support KC's allegations of abuse?

 

[one_hooah_wife]

I'm wondering if it was to compel the testimony or reports from the entomologist that Baez mentioned at the last discovery hearing ... he went on and on about how this guy was a very famous entomologist and was referenced in the evidence logs but to whom no reports were credited and who was, he felt, conspicuously absent from the State's witness list. If part of their theory is that Caylee had been moved to that site well after her death, then entomological evidence could be very important. I can't remember what the State said about it at the hearing. Just a thought.

 

[MyTinkieGirl]

I'm wondering if it was to compel the testimony or reports from the entomologist that Baez mentioned at the last discovery hearing ... he went on and on about how this guy was a very famous entomologist and was referenced in the evidence logs but to whom no reports were credited and who was, he felt, conspicuously absent from the State's witness list. If part of their theory is that Caylee had been moved to that site well after her death, then entomological evidence could be very important. I can't remember what the State said about it at the hearing. Just a thought.

IIRC....it was left at he was going to be added to the witness list....the list wasn't considered finalized (???).
Seems JB thinks he has the monopoly on "expert" witnesses, how dare the prosecution use someone he didn't think of using.:crazy:

 

[dax]

LEGAL WIZARDS PLEASE RESPOND and anyone else too!

It is my understanding that a DEFENDANT(KC) can ask to meet with the judge privately, meaning without defense (JB), by filing an ex-parte motion. If that is correct here in FL, could that have been the point of the motion?

Did KC want to meet with Judge S, alone?

Also, if a defendant did want to meet with the judge without their attorney or SA present and this motion wasn'T the way to do that... then how would they go about it? TIA!

 

[ziggy]

It hasn't hurt other 'high profile' attorney's who did miserably. You win some, you lose some. It gets your name on the news. You get to write a book about the case. You get to be a talking head. You reach for the stars of legal beagle celebrity with an opinion rather than work hard and work your way up as an Attorney.

These types, like experts will sell to the highest bidder and take that position.

JB sees this (KC) as a short-cut to fame and fortune --- he'll either be a prominent attorney either way or, be a talking head on GR's show.

How many of today's talking heads made their name on OJ, SP, Jonbenet, or others?

Do you know the name Steven Feldman? Hopefully JB will fall into that category.

By the way, he was guilty IMO of goss misconduct in the defense of David Westerfield...same thing...he knew his defendant was guilty because he knew where the body was yet he tried to mislead the jury instead of just concentrate on giving Mr. Westerfield a fair trial.

I spent a day in that court room and he was possibly the most annoying attorney I had ever seen or heard.

The point is - nothing ever happens to these rotten attorneys. There is no real authority over them it seems. I'd like to see SOMEONE be made an example of.

 

[Themis]

Great! I go to work and come home to such a generous offer. :blowkiss:

Ok...lets see. LBJ survived the madness that was the P Spector trial so we know she has nerves of steel. We have see her aggressiveness in court hearings so we know she is not afraid to be the center of attention and is not a slave to public opinion. She seems to have more than her share of self confidence.

I bet she'll stick it out to the bitter end and go out kicking and screaming. It'll take more than JB to drive LBK away. She won't quit.

Remember, if I lose this bet you all collect from Themis.

The stake is a photo of ONE steak sandwich and a total of 14 cents not a million steak sandwiches and $140,000 if a million people take it up. So, expect a part of a digital photo of atomic subparticles of crumbs and traces of metal.

 

[Chezhire]

I'm quoting myself because I wanted to apologize ... That was so snarky! I was having a really bad day! But that is no excuse! And I stand corrected as others pointed out ex parte can mean both sides present. Again, I am sorry especially to Chez!

:blowkiss: No problem. It wasn't hurting my feelings that another poster had a different opinion.
:laugh:
Nor was it prompting me to alter my established trial practices by running out and filing a motion seeking to have an ex parte conversation with a judge about discovery issues in a present matter of mine - I know better.
:saythat:

 

[Chezhire]

The stake is a photo of ONE steak sandwich and a total of 14 cents not a million steak sandwiches and $140,000 if a million people take it up. So, expect a part of a digital photo of atomic subparticles of crumbs and traces of metal.

Yep - I'm in on this bet, too.

 

[Chezhire]

Huh? ex parte --- means that only the judge and "one side" is present. PERIOD!! ex parte is Latin for "from one side" ... "in camera" just means that the proceedings would be documented by a court reporter in front of the judge usually with both sides present but differs from ex parte, in that the proceedings permit both sides to be present and that it is documented and not subject to the public.

For clarity's sake, I respond by saying that although an ex parte pleading is typically FILED by one litigant/group of litigants sharing the same common goal therein (i.e., litigant/group of litigants with the same goal therein are "present" in the filing itself,)
I've never heard of any state in the United States that outright provides/allows a litigant any right to engage in ex parte conversations/communications with the judge (i.e., just between themself and the judge,) in chambers, and off the record, which is what JBaez had requested, and which is what I've been posting about. JBaez should have known better. :doh: You cannot talk to the judge without the other side present.

Apparently Florida's not even a state wherein the judge has to wait to see if the other side is going to oppose such a request - Judge Strickland outright denied it with a written opinion the next day with NO opposition or pleading even being filed by the SA.

See US vs Sweat, 555 F.3d 1364, C.A.11 (Fla.),2009, f. 1, here:
SNIPPED: "...The terms “ex parte communication” and “private conference,” among other descriptions, are used throughout the trial court motions and appellate briefs. Because the usual definition of “ex parte communication” is “[a] generally prohibited communication between counsel and the court when opposing counsel is not present”-not an exact description of the pertinent conversation in this case-we do not use that term here. Black's Law Dictionary 597 (7th ed.1999)."
http://web2.westlaw.com/result/defa...y=CLID_SSSA1647654541524&rlti=1&eq=Welcome/53

 

[Paintr]

The stake is a photo of ONE steak sandwich and a total of 14 cents not a million steak sandwiches and $140,000 if a million people take it up. So, expect a part of a digital photo of atomic subparticles of crumbs and traces of metal.

Oooops! I should have know better than to take you up on that without reading the fine print! You guys are so good at that pesky fine print. :biggrin::biggrin::biggrin: