I'm feeling a link between the A's sudden request to visit KC privately this week and this motion from JB.
Which request was denied by the jail today. See here http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3531330#post3531330
I'm feeling a link between the A's sudden request to visit KC privately this week and this motion from JB.
OK. I just went back and read this all again. What JB seems to be saying is that he needs access to certain documents/records that are essential to the defense that he can't get because the SA doesn't have them to turn over in discovery. If he asks the SA to get these records he will get them but tip off the SA to the defense plans.
Adoption records popped into my head? Is that possible?
How about military records for B Snow? M Hopkins?
Mental Health records for witnesses?
You know, if I was a betting person, (which I am not) I would bet 14 cents and a steak sandwich that JB is going to get his request. This could be grounds for appeal and the Judge just might err on the side of caution.
Don't you know it. hehehe![]()
Waiting on an email.![]()
Sure - and if that's JB's focus (which, er, we still don't know b/c he so graciously left out any particulars whatsoever re: law or entities :doh, then you can bet Judge Strickland is not going to have an ex parte discussion with JBaez about this outside the SA's presence + on the record, in open court. Can you imagine if this is about a 3rd party's medical records? I know, total speculation, but seriously, what's JBaez thinking?!?!? :doh:
I do not think that JB is going to present a case based on his own client's insanity. I do however think he is going to parade someone else's mental health at trial and portray KC as a helpless victim of some other person's delusions. Remember...KC is as much a victim as Caylee.![]()
I have been thinking that since the mental health aspect apparently came into play with the DP being dropped, then perhaps JB is going after reports we are unaware of regarding KC, or... CA. You might be on to something, Paintr.
I agree it is not likely to be alibi or insanity. Could be Mom's or Dad's. He might be trying to show that KC is not a sociopath and needs money for those examinations.I do not think that JB is going to present a case based on his own client's insanity. I do however think he is going to parade someone else's mental health at trial and portray KC as a helpless victim of some other person's delusions. Remember...KC is as much a victim as Caylee.![]()
With an ex-parte hearing (in chambers and without the public but a court reporter may be present if requested) the one requesting the ex-parte hearing must give oral notice to the other side, generally at least 24 hours or before 10:00 a.m. the day before the hearing. The exact amount of notice is in state law or local court rules. Therefore, he cannot meet without the prosecution. If he does it could result in disqualification of the Judge and Judge Strickland isn't going to allow that to happen.
There are at least two possible things he might not be able to get through the normal discovery process: (1) an order that Orange County fund the experts and testing of evidence for a private attorney defense counsel, and (2) confidential and privileged information that cannot be obtained through his own client signing a consent form -- such as mental health records of another person -- like possibly CA's counselor who told her to seek custody and throw KC out of the house.
It's JB's burden of production and persuasion to carry the motion. Not doin' so good so far. No facts. No legal authority and no showing of facts or law as to why it must be done ex-parte and not on the record. Then, to top it off, expressly without SA -- that's NEVER done. No! No! No! There's only ONE time I can even imagine for that is if there is something terribly wrong with the SA himself and then --- then ---- the Attorney General would step into the vacuum! NEVER without somebody on the other side. I rarely say "never."
JB may reach out but it would be an exercise in futility. Right, Chez?
Not really. However, JB wants his defense theory to be a surprise attack. Generally, defense needs to list their witnesses before trial and that is when the defense theory of the case becomes apparent. Maybe he wants the public defender's office to pay for the defense testing and witnesses?Themis,
Thanks to you also for jumping in. Would it be standard to request state funding via ex-parte?
Which request was denied by the jail today. See here http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3531330#post3531330
Thank you kindly, Themis. Maybe I'll get to keep my 14 cents and my steak sandwich. :woohoo:
:floorlaugh: You can keep the 14 cents, but I'd love part of a steak sandwich right now. Maybe I'll go to the parking lot, basement party to see if there's any food there!Thank you kindly, Themis. Maybe I'll get to keep my 14 cents and my steak sandwich. :woohoo:
I'm feeling a link between the A's sudden request to visit KC privately this week and this motion from JB.
Recent medical records for GA??
Not silly questions, and here's my :twocents:Agree, but I was hoping when I heard about the A's request that perhaps we'd finally hear KC plea out. But with JB now asking for this, I am thinking not.
Here are some questions for Chez & Themis and the others:
1. Could JB go to the Judge and say, "We really want to plea out, but we don't like the State's offerings. Wah! Let's make a deal." :crazy:
2. Would an ex-parte be a normal course of action if JB was about to recuse himself from the case?
3. Would he request a session like this if he wanted to revisit the results of the last motion hearing, i.e. fess up that perhaps they hadn't been 100% clear (honest) about the definition of 'story' and it's impact on 'conflict of interest'?
Questions are likely silly ones, but as I wonder about JB's base knowledge, I guess my base question is: could JB be rquesting this for a reason other than a standard request to obtain additional discovery documents?
Could Jose be wanting to obtain mental health records for Casey or bring in a phychiatirist to talk with her in order to go for temp insanity defense? But if this was the case wouldn't he be required to disclose this so the SA could bring in experts of their own?