JBaez requests Ex Parte Hearing with Judge Strickland

[BeanE]

How would Officer C even know who Dominic C is? I doubt very much an officer would call a PI during an active investigation.

Is there a way to look up 911 calls from the A house, for example for protestor complaints, and see who the responding officer was?

 

[Chezhire]

I've been thinking the same thing about LKB withdrawing. Her valuable reputation in now linked to an attorney who is embarrassing himself in the courtroom and the national media. Maybe mine is just wishful thinking because she strikes me as an extremely formiddable opponent...

:waitasec: Your guess is really as good as mine. I know I wouldn't remain as counsel pro hac vice, but then again, maybe the reason she might stay is because she hopes to become the real force in the defense, despite JBaez's being local counsel.

 

[Chezhire]

Is it possible that Baez would be as sloppy about taking due caution where there was a third party within hearing distance as he was conveying the news of Caylee's body being found under visible video surveillance?

According to Chezhire, if a third party is obviously present the communication between a lawyer and client isn't privileged.

But, Baez says his conversation with Casey about where finding Caylee's body in a public room in front of deputy sheriff's, other inmates and video surveillance was. It doesn't sound to me as if Baez could reasonably expect that that communication in a public room full of people and a visible camera could not be overheard and wouldn't be videotaped.

JMO

Let me clarify my earlier post in this thread, wherein I said "[t]he rule is that any time a 3rd party is present and overhears what is being said between attorney and client, the things said by attorney and client are NOT privileged. As such, anything said in front of any prison employees is not privileged and may be introduced by the SA during any hearing or trial."

When I said "present," I meant present, as in someone who is also meeting or sitting at the table, etc., with the client and attorney. My choice of the word "overhears" was a poor choice of words, and I should have said "hears" or "is privy to."

It is a different situation entirely when a 3rd party inadvertently overhears what is being said between attorney and client. A waiver of the attorney client privilege must be express - courts will not find that an implied waiver took place. If someone inadvertently overheard the discussion, then there is no waiver.

Although I cannot locate a FL case exactly on point, if JBaez really did have a full blown converstaion with Casey in a public area in front of various jail employees, who were within arm's length from he and Casey, instead of asking for a private room, he may have screwed up. :waitasec:

 

[Chezhire]

I keep thinking there is a reason LE said Lee knew what he did that could lead to obstruction charges. P.I. Casey told LE that somebody told him not to call 911 first IF he found Caylee and that the somebody wasn't Cindy or George.

Chezhire or SoCal or Hooah,

If Lee was assisting Baez by tracking down Casey's leads could Lee be considered an agent of Baez's like a secretary or assistant?

See my reply to a related set of your questions in this thread, here:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3545348#post3545348

 

[Chezhire]

If they were able to get the evidence thrown out, couldn't it be brought up at trial that KC admitted to JB where the body was and therefore is clearly guilty? I mean everyone knows Caylee is dead and I'm sure a jury will want an explanation as to why they aren't talking about the remains or any evidence found with the body?

SNIPPED: "... Could the above doctrine also include evidence such as the actual body of the deceased who is ostensibly being represented by the state? Also, could the SA assume inevitable discovery since, in addition to Kronk and KW's documented excursions in August, JB's own PI was in the same exact vicinity three months later being filmed at what he is on record describing was the location of Caylee's body?..."

:smile: I love what I do, so writing about it is the just-for-fun part.

For one, inevitable discovery is never presumed and can be a difficult road for the SA to hoe. In this case, it already being 6+ from when Caylee was last seen (Father's Day,) together with the location of her body and manner in which it was concealed...well, let's just say I wouldn't want to be the SA trying to proove inevitable discovery. I've not heard a peep about the SA sending any investigators of theirs out to Suburban, which is what the SA would have to show to satisfy inevitable discovery. (Barring, of course, some issue with the PI's that renders their work discoverable by the SA...see below..)

As far as the issues surrpounding whether or not Caylee's body could be thrown out, as I said, it's great for discussion here, as anything is possible, but I don't see it as likely. The defense will have to establish a link between Kronk and his receiving some privileged communication/information, and I don't believe that he did. If he did talk to one of the PI's though, that's a whol other ball game.
This discussion here http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3545348#post3545348 is all about the infamous PI's and whether or not their work is covered by any privilege.

 

[BondJamesBond]

Off the top of my head, without benefit of seeing the subpoenas for the depositions (which, as in the case of Amy, mentioned above, would tell me a lot about what Baez wants to see, if he's sought written materials, too, via a subpoena deuces tecum,) I believe JBaez is intending to lock in potential key witnesses to their stories:

(1) as to Kronk, deputy, Hoover, DC, etc., it's all about when/how/why they noticed/discovered anything relevant to the case. If JBaez can poke even a single hole in Kronk's version of the events re: finding Caylee, well, you can only imagine where JBaez would try to take that during a trial; and

(2) as to the guards at the jail, it will be all about the specifics concerning Casey's reaction to the news on December 11, 2008, and possibly his and Casey's reactions when he was allegedly crying on whatever date that supposedly took place. If JBaez can find anything upon which to claim that Casey's rights were violated, he'll be moving to suppress any such testimony and/or evidence stemming therefrom.

So I don't think it's so much as what JBaez "expects" them to say as it is he needs to know what they will say so he can plan what to do next.
He's obviously worried about something - so he's got to see if it's going to be something he can suppress, or whether he's going to have to go to trial and deal with it in front of the jury.

Could JB also be hoping to paint them into their own story a bit?

IOW...if JB deposes a story from "witness A", and during trial "witness A" even so much as selects a word that could be interpretted differently the story they gave @ depostion...JB pounces (or trips and falls as he attempts to pounce)...angling to show contradiction in their story and discredit "witness A"?

"Witness A...before you said it was PINK...and now you say it's LIGHT RED?!?! Which is it! It can't be BOTH?! Or are you lying!!"

 

[Chezhire]

Could JB also be hoping to paint them into their own story a bit?

IOW...if JB deposes a story from "witness A", and during trial "witness A" even so much as selects a word that could be interpretted differently the story they gave @ depostion...JB pounces (or trips and falls as he attempts to pounce)...angling to show contradiction in their story and discredit "witness A"?

"Witness A...before you said it was PINK...and now you say it's LIGHT RED?!?! Which is it! It can't be BOTH?! Or are you lying!!"

Astute observations. Sure you're not a lawyer?
This is why depositions in criminal cases are VERY important.

 

[one_hooah_wife]

Could JB also be hoping to paint them into their own story a bit?

IOW...if JB deposes a story from "witness A", and during trial "witness A" even so much as selects a word that could be interpretted differently the story they gave @ depostion...JB pounces (or trips and falls as he attempts to pounce)...angling to show contradiction in their story and discredit "witness A"?

"Witness A...before you said it was PINK...and now you say it's LIGHT RED?!?! Which is it! It can't be BOTH?! Or are you lying!!"

But he then has to attempt to impeach the witness in trial ... thus allowing in the complete deposition ... much of which will not be favorable to the defense! So, you have to ask ... is it better for him to go along with the tiny inconsistencies or allow the court to hear (via redirect once that door has been open ...) the entirety of her statements?

 

[ecs5298]

Is there a way to look up 911 calls from the A house, for example for protestor complaints, and see who the responding officer was?

If I remember correctly, the listing of responses to the A's residence only had the beat car number on it, not who was staffing that car. Since the deputy that was involved with the Kronk deal was assigned to that beat, there's good possibility that he would have been there before.

I'll go search for the link.

 

[BondJamesBond]

If I remember correctly, the listing of responses to the A's residence only had the beat car number on it, not who was staffing that car. Since the deputy that was involved with the Kronk deal was assigned to that beat, there's good possibility that he would have been there before.

I'll go search for the link.

Your memory serves you well, ecs!

Report shows the Unit ID.

 

[Gma Kat]

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!

I had a question about that one hooah wife. In Cali an ex parte hearing requires 24 hours notice to the other side under "most" circumstances. In Domestic Violence situations the notice can be waived. In Florida is the same notice required? Am I to assume that the SA office was given notice of the hearing but did not attend? Or, in Florida is no notice required? The media knew about the hearing so we gotta assume (shame on me) that the SA knew about the hearing. A declaration from the atty is also required in Cali regarding the need for the hearing, I see that is not done quite the same in Florida. Where are the P's & A's???? (case law) I've only done one haering where the documents/subject of the hearing was kept from the other side. It was a defamation/lible suit and to put into writing the nature of the defamation would have perpetuated the defamation. I can't figure out what the premise for being silent is here.

 

[BeanE]

Your memory serves you well, ecs!

Report shows the Unit ID.

Thanks, ecs and Bond!

The unit Cain used in responding to the burglary, #220, made frequent reappearances at the A home between 8/21 and 9/14.

It's not a stretch for me that Cain was in 220 and back at the A house, and that he may very well have mentioned to somebody there that he'd fielded a call to Subarban just a week earlier. It's kind of fun to imagine KC overhearing that conversation... I'm off to see when it was when Baez requested those field trips with KC...

ETA: Field trips motion heard October 10. Trying to find when Baez first expressed interest and filed this motion. No idea where I'm going with this, but hey, I'm doc dump deprived...

ETA 2: Best date I can find for filing this motion is Oct 3.

 

[Themis]

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.

Correction: Living among Army soldiers - not Marines.

 

[MAMABEAR]

I've lurked a long time and have always been impressed with everyone's knowledge on these boards. After reading all 24 pages, the above is what made me smile.

:balloons::Welcome-12-june::balloons:
Happy Sleuthing!!!!!!!!!!:blowkiss:

 

[Paintr]

"In depositions today, Baez seemed to be focused on three issues, Belich said: 1. The sheriff's office investigation of Zenaida Gonzalez. 2. The office's handling of an August tip about a suspicious find in the area where Caylee's remains were later found. 3. Meter reader Roy Kronk, who found Caylee's remains in December.



Baez expects to take more depositions in two weeks, and the defense wants to subpoena records from Texas EquuSearch, Longo reported"


So, was it TES records that JB was after?



http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2009/04/casey-anthony-case--2.html#more

 

[Meemom]

But he then has to attempt to impeach the witness in trial ... thus allowing in the complete deposition ... much of which will not be favorable to the defense! So, you have to ask ... is it better for him to go along with the tiny inconsistencies or allow the court to hear (via redirect once that door has been open ...) the entirety of her statements?

I can soooooo see JB jumping up to try to impeach a witness, while LKB grabs his coattails and tries to pull him back down into his seat

 

[octobermoon]

:clap:

I can soooooo see JB jumping up to try to impeach a witness, while LKB grabs his coattails and tries to pull him back down into his seat

 

[ecs5298]

Your memory serves you well, ecs!

Report shows the Unit ID.

You rock BJB! I ran out of time to find it before I had to get ready for work. I must get more organized.


ETA: Looked back through the Aug13th records and RC worked unit 220A (20 is the beat sector) the 2 preceding it may be the shift time for example "1st" shift "2nd" shift etc the "A" may be a designator for a "one man car". That's how it works for a couple of our local departments around there.

 

[NSS]

"In depositions today, Baez seemed to be focused on three issues, Belich said: 1. The sheriff's office investigation of Zenaida Gonzalez. 2. The office's handling of an August tip about a suspicious find in the area where Caylee's remains were later found. 3. Meter reader Roy Kronk, who found Caylee's remains in December.



Baez expects to take more depositions in two weeks, and the defense wants to subpoena records from Texas EquuSearch, Longo reported"


So, was it TES records that JB was after?



http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2009/04/casey-anthony-case--2.html#more

I hope this is the right thread.

When asked how the depos went, JB told a reporter that he still had more to do, and didn't have all the forensics in yet (some testing was still being carried out). So the SA still has forensic cards to play.

He is currently focusing on the dumping of the body, hoping he can show that KC was, possibly, in jail at the time.
He can't put too many eggs in that basket though since he has no clue WHAT the forensics will show regarding linkage between KC and the body.

The SODDIT defence is the only one he has, but he can't run with the imaginanny (< ~~~~ copyright - fellow WSer) since LE have pretty much shown that Zanni lives only in KC's dreams.

 

[ecs5298]

Astute observations. Sure you're not a lawyer?
This is why depositions in criminal cases are VERY important.

Which I think is the reason that some lawyers have the reputations they do (not you, Chezhire) is that they will go to extraordinary lengths to debate whether something was "pink" or "light red" when in the big picture it really doesn't matter does it?

How a jury can let a murderer go free because the prosecution said "pink" and the defense sowed the idea that it was "light red" is beyond me and defies all common sense.

These minute details is all JB has to work with. If you widen the lens and look at the big picture, there is no defense for KC. It's always sickened me that justice has evolved into who can better play the smoke and mirrors game instead of presenting the facts and the truth.

I'll get off my soap box now and go on the record that I'm not talking of our legal eagles here who give of their knowledge so generously.