JBaez requests Ex Parte Hearing with Judge Strickland

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Paintr said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
Chezhire said:
Don't you know it. hehehe :D
Click to expand...

Aw, wouldn't it be fun to yank his chain just a little, before you slammed that door in his face? No telling what he might be willing to share!!
 
Chezhire said:
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:
Click to expand...

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."
 
Paintr said:
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. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


ugh, doesn't that make you feel sick just to think about! KC is a victim in her own mind, that doesn't make it a reality.
 
PotatoHead said:
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.
Click to expand...

Recent medical records for GA??
 
Paintr said:
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. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
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.
 
Themis said:
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.
Click to expand...

Themis,

Thanks to you also for jumping in. Would it be standard to request state funding via ex-parte?
 
Themis said:
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."
Click to expand...

Thank you kindly, Themis. Maybe I'll get to keep my 14 cents and my steak sandwich. :woohoo:
 
PotatoHead said:
Themis,

Thanks to you also for jumping in. Would it be standard to request state funding via ex-parte?
Click to expand...
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?
 
Paintr said:
Thank you kindly, Themis. Maybe I'll get to keep my 14 cents and my steak sandwich. :woohoo:
Click to expand...
: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!
 
MarleneM said:
I'm feeling a link between the A's sudden request to visit KC privately this week and this motion from JB.
Click to expand...

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?
 
This is not the first time JB has submited a motion without any case law attached, it is beginning to look like a pattern. Doesn't he have some paralegals in house to help out... or might it be because some of his motions are so far out in left field that it would be hard to find any supporting law ?
 
PotatoHead said:
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?
Click to expand...
Not silly questions, and here's my :twocents:
1-absolutely not.
2-absolutely not.
3-absolutely not.
I am wondering if JB has some weird, unusual motive for filing this...
 
Dear Prudence said:
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?
Click to expand...

If he wanted Caseys mental health records, all he has to do is have her sign a paper granting him the right to see them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 137 more.
Total: 3,092 (members: 138, guests: 2,954)

Online statistics

Members online
138
Guests online
2,954
Total visitors
3,092
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
603,320
Messages
18,154,954
Members
231,705
Latest member
Mr_Psycho
Back
Top