JBaez requests Ex Parte Hearing with Judge Strickland

[Chezhire]

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.

You have written a great criticism of our legal system here in America. It's definitely a problem that parties on each side have to contend with. It's one reason why some innocent folks have been sent to jail for crimes they didn't commit - and why some guilty folks walk after committing unspeakable crimes.

 

[The World According]

This reminds me that in an earlier hearing to compel documents from the SA, which the SA didn't "have" to produce at that time, specifically records from the FBI, and he kept complaining to Judge Strickland that he needed to SA to send a letter to the FBI saying that the SA had no objection to his request, but Judge Strickland said that without a letter from the FBI in response to JBaez's written request that said what JBaez was arguing, he wouldn't take any action. Judge Strickland has already told JBaez once, in open court, that he has to go through the hoops first and THEN come to him.

I admire that he has brought in world renown scientist , and I don't think he is an evil guy. Having said that....... he needs help from a seasoned criminal lawyer who will kibitz over his shoulder and mentor him through this. He has prepared many pleadings incorrectly and the judge has been very, very patient with him. The Texas Equisearch motion he brought was laughable, and that is just one example. He has done some unforgivable things like going on talk shows admitting KC has lied, and discussing things she told him. Again I don't think he is lazy, or not trying his best. I believe he is simply in over his head. The judge is painfully aware of JB 's antics. In my opinion, there was zero chance. Zero. Under no circumstance was the judge going to allow him an ex parte hearing ,when the judge has had to question him in open court about his ethics and even filed a complaint to the bar against him. He doesn't trust him, and even if he held him in high esteem, no judge in this high profile case is going to do anything that could ever, EVER be suspect. Their reputation is very sacred, and the judge must be beyond reproach. He is in a tough position, and he wont ask for a first chair, he is too aware that this is a career making case. He has stated publicly that he considers himself to have an immense responsibility to all Hispanic lawyers that come after him that he handles himself in a way he can forever be proud of, so he is not going willingly. Respectfully, JB needs a big brother.
Love, love, love your posts by the way!!!!

 

[absolut_alexis]

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.

Well, taking someone's freedom away is a big deal. Having a criminal conviction changes people's lives: employment opportunities decrease, everything is harder. I understand the frustration of manipulating seemingly small details but court isn't just about guilt, it is about sentences, and every little bit matters.

 

[The World According]

: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.

She wants to be what Henry Lee was to the OJ case. None of us ever remember that it was not Johnny Cockran who started out as first chair, that changed mid stream. Funny, I can see him in my mind but I can't remember the name of the lawyer that started out as first chair. See what I mean? She knows this case has international attention, and you can't buy this kind of advertising. Wild horses couldn't pull her off this case!!! Her own husband wants his two minutes on Nancy Grace and Greta to talk about this case, even though that does not serve her client, they just can't help themselves. They are ALL on this case pro bono. That is why the in camera meeting about just who is paying for this dream team was over in two minutes, they are all pro bono. All of them? Yes sir, all of them. Alright then, let's return to the courtroom. Lawyers would pay to be on this case, trust me! This kind of attention can move your family behind the gates and put your kids through college. It is the same idea when people work at the white house when they know they could easily earn ten times as much in the business world, but they do it as a stepping stone and to gain the exposure, right Chez?

 

[Jolynna]

She wants to be what Henry KLee was to the OJ case. None of us ever remember that it was not Johnny Cockran who started out as first chair, that changed mid stream. Funny, I can see him in my mind but I can't remember the name of the lawyer that started out as first chair. See what I mean? She knows this case has international attention, and you can't buy this kind of advertising. Wild horses couldn't pull her off this case!!! Her own husband wants his two minutes on Nancy Grace and Greta to talk about this case, even though that does not serve her client, they just can't help themselves. I love Koby by the way.

Robert Shapiro. Along with all the other lawyers, he wrote a book about the case called, The Search for Justice: A Defense Attorney's Brief on the O.J. Simpson Case.

 

[The World According]

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:

If you listen to all of the audio recordings of the two corrections officers, they say that they watched through the glass KC and JB have an attorney/client meeting. If they listened in, they should not have and JB will for once have something. I remember Yuri sounding incredulous at their description of the event, like he was thinking, just shoot me!

 

[The World According]

Robert Shapiro. Along with all the other lawyers, he wrote a book about the case called, The Search for Justice: A Defense Attorney's Brief on the O.J. Simpson Case.

Indeed, I trust they are keeping notes and notes already for the eventuality that if she gets off their books can be published the day the trial is completed. I don't blame them. Even Robert Kardashian was one of OJ's lawyers, even though his wife was best friends with Nicole and had just returned from a vacation with her and it tore his family to pieces. In order for the high profile lawyers to continue to command their high fees they have to REMAIN IN THE PUBLIC EYE, right? In any event, Jose asking for the ex parte hearing was novice. I do believe LKB and some of the others are going to give him suggestions of how the big kids do it going forward.

 

[Chezhire]

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:

If you listen to all of the audio recordings of the two corrections officers, they say that they watched through the glass KC and JB have an attorney/client meeting. If they listened in, they should not have and JB will for once have something. I remember Yuri sounding incredulous at their description of the event, like he was thinking, just shoot me!

Re: overhears, I said above that the privilege remains intact as long as someone else was not present at the meeting and/or at the table with them, that if someone inadvertently overheard the discussion, then there is no waiver of the privilege.

Nope - watching through the glass is not against the rules, as long as they aren't lip reading.

 

[Chezhire]

: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.

She wants to be what Henry Lee was to the OJ case. None of us ever remember that it was not Johnny Cockran who started out as first chair, that changed mid stream. Funny, I can see him in my mind but I can't remember the name of the lawyer that started out as first chair. See what I mean? She knows this case has international attention, and you can't buy this kind of advertising. Wild horses couldn't pull her off this case!!! Her own husband wants his two minutes on Nancy Grace and Greta to talk about this case, even though that does not serve her client, they just can't help themselves. They are ALL on this case pro bono. That is why the in camera meeting about just who is paying for this dream team was over in two minutes, they are all pro bono. All of them? Yes sir, all of them. Alright then, let's return to the courtroom. Lawyers would pay to be on this case, trust me! This kind of attention can move your family behind the gates and put your kids through college. It is the same idea when people work at the white house when they know they could easily earn ten times as much in the business world, but they do it as a stepping stone and to gain the exposure, right Chez?

:waitasec: She just might like to become the force behind the defense, but not all lawyers would remain at any cost - I would have left a long time ago, as did Mark Nejame. This case is not going to unfold as the OJ case did, mark my words.

 

[Chezhire]

Indeed, I trust they are keeping notes and notes already for the eventuality that if she gets off their books can be published the day the trial is completed. I don't blame them. Even Robert Kardashian was one of OJ's lawyers, even though his wife was best friends with Nicole and had just returned from a vacation with her and it tore his family to pieces. In order for the high profile lawyers to continue to command their high fees they have to REMAIN IN THE PUBLIC EYE, right? In any event, Jose asking for the ex parte hearing was novice. I do believe LKB and some of the others are going to give him suggestions of how the big kids do it going forward.

I don't think JBaez consulted LKB. I cannot imagine LKB (or any attorney with any trial experience, for that matter) allowing him to file the ridiculous motion that's the reason for this thread, and their experience cannot help him if he doesn't ask their advice.