JBaez requests Ex Parte Hearing with Judge Strickland

[Paintr]

: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!

Ask for Chefmom! She is a fabulous cook.:blowkiss:

 

[frenchvixen]

I know what it is---------he gave the guards their depos today.

That deposition is not until 4p (happening right now) but I have a feeling that he needs records that relates to someone that he wants thrown under the bus (RM or J. Grund or someone). Now, what I don't understand is once he subpoenas this info. won't the person who is the subject of the subpoena go public and then the SA will know the strategy anyways?

Also, in what situation would an ex parte motion be granted?

 

[KenoshaKid]

Wonder if Judge S will respond tomorrow, April Fool's Day?

 

[ThoughtElf]

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...

TYVM.

You are hitting 'send/receive' every minute on that email icon, right? :crazy:

 

[frenchvixen]

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:

Does this mean that we will be having a hearing this week on this motion?

 

[SuziQ]

I just came to this thread and haven't read past the first two pages so far. So I apologize if this has already been brought up.

JB hasn't gotten a copy of the jailhouse reaction tape has he? Maybe this is another tactic of him keeping it under wraps....IDK.

 

[Chezhire]

I just came to this thread and haven't read past the first two pages so far. So I apologize if this has already been brought up.

JB hasn't gotten a copy of the jailhouse reaction tape has he? Maybe this is another tactic of him keeping it under wraps....IDK.

IDK...could have. Isn't going to get him what he wants though, if that's his goal.

 

[Themis]

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?

They're good questions! :blowkiss:
1. Let's make a deal with the judge without the SA's input? No. It is the State's sole authority to prosecute and recommend the findings (guilty or not) and sentence they want. Only then does the judge have the right to decide on different findings or sentence. Even when both the SA and the defense agree on a "deal" the judge does have the authority to reject the stipulated deal and do something different, but a judge would tell them he won't accept it and then give them a chance to go to trial first.

2. Recusal of JB? No. That wouldn't be "discovery." If JB has an ethical conflict, he would state in his motion that he has an ethical conflict of interest. There has to be a basis for the motion. Even then, the SA would not be excluded from the in chambers (in the Judge's office) hearing. The attorney doesn't generally even have to specify the nature of the conflict to state it is an ethical conflict. If so, the Judge would appoint the Public Defender. Still, that's not "discovery."

3. Revisiting the last hearing -- "story" -- and getting money from the "story." Again, this isn't "discovery." JB has an obligation to be fully candid with the courts. If not, there are many things that could happen. Since the last hearing took place on the record with the SA bringing the motion, it is not likely to be the subject of an ex-parte hearing without the SA present. Once again, this is not "discovery."

What fits better is something along the lines of his trying to get privileged information. The SA doesn't have to turn over privileged information. This is probably what he wants.

 

[frenchvixen]

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."

Did JB get in trouble before when he presented a motion before the court that was incomplete or it didn't state what is was supposed to state? This is what happens when you get your J.D. online!! Geesh.

 

[cecybeans]

Recent medical records for GA??

Could JB want access to G's "suicide note"? Perhaps details on the "dark veiled" people his daughter associated with that G purportedly mentioned he wanted to handle vigilante style? It might help corroborate the latest KC lie in terms of who else she'd like her team to throw under the bus.

 

[JSR]

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 ?

I think the answer is simple, he's lazy. I've yet to see counsel routinely fail to cite a legal basis for its motion/requests.

 

[MAMABEAR]

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.

But maybe she won't sign---then???

 

[Moe]

If there is no case law cited, could the Judge Strickland simply throw out the motion?

 

[JSR]

But maybe she won't sign---then???

He can't go against her wishes. If she didn't sign for her records he can't go over her head to get them. He CAN however attempt to get privileged records of a third party. Attempt is the key word there.

 

[cecybeans]

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.

What if she is unwilling to do so? Not saying insanity defense would be the strategy here, but perhaps looking for a personality disorder to explain her "odd behavior" for 31 days after the "accidental death" might be in order. What if his client does not want to cooperate (because she is perhaps in denial of her aforementioned disorder)? Would he have to drop the strategy?

Conversely, could JB also be attempting to justify her odd behavior after the indicent as paranoia stemming from a severe personality disorder Cindy might have (she was PETRIFIED of what her mother would do)?

 

[Mumsy]

They're good questions! :blowkiss:
1. Let's make a deal with the judge without the SA's input? No. It is the State's sole authority to prosecute and recommend the findings (guilty or not) and sentence they want. Only then does the judge have the right to decide on different findings or sentence. Even when both the SA and the defense agree on a "deal" the judge does have the authority to reject the stipulated deal and do something different, but a judge would tell them he won't accept it and then give them a chance to go to trial first.

2. Recusal of JB? No. That wouldn't be "discovery." If JB has an ethical conflict, he would state in his motion that he has an ethical conflict of interest. There has to be a basis for the motion. Even then, the SA would not be excluded from the in chambers (in the Judge's office) hearing. The attorney doesn't generally even have to specify the nature of the conflict to state it is an ethical conflict. If so, the Judge would appoint the Public Defender. Still, that's not "discovery."

3. Revisiting the last hearing -- "story" -- and getting money from the "story." Again, this isn't "discovery." JB has an obligation to be fully candid with the courts. If not, there are many things that could happen. Since the last hearing took place on the record with the SA bringing the motion, it is not likely to be the subject of an ex-parte hearing without the SA present. Once again, this is not "discovery."

What fits better is something along the lines of his trying to get privileged information. The SA doesn't have to turn over privileged information. This is probably what he wants.

Just what would constitute "priveledged information"? Could that be some Damning evidence from the FBI? Prints on the duct tape??
Just hoping....

 

[salvarenga]

Interesting article on reasons why Jose would file for an ex parte with the judge:

http://www.mcacp.org/issue56.htm


Severance

Where a defendant seeks to sever the counts of an indictment, the defense must show both an important testimony to give about one count and a genuine need to refrain from testifying about another. This is to be determined in an ex parte, in camera hearing. CPL 200.20(3)(b)(ii).

Investigative services

Where defense counsel seeks county payment for investigative or expert services, County Law § 722-c provides for the application to be made ex parte.

Attorney work product

A prosecution claim of attorney work product may require in camera inspection to determine if the statement is Brady or Rosario material. People v Dockery, 278 AD2d 427, 717 NYS2d 657 (2d Dept 2000).

Grand jury minutes

Where the defense requests inspection of grand jury minutes, the judge must review these in camera. The court may release grand jury minutes, but the prosecution must be given an opportunity beforehand to argue that release of the minutes would not be in the public interest. CPL 210.30(3).

Discovery

With contested discovery, the court may review ex parte or in camera, and grant a protective order. CPL 240.90(3); People v Mobley, 162 AD2d 305, 558 NYS2d 1 (1st Dept 1990); People v Ellis, 188 AD2d 1043, 592 NYS2d 200 (4th Dept 1992); Handling § 8:114. Police employment records are entitled to confidentiality and should be first reviewed in camera prior to any disclosure. Handling § 18:436. Mental health and other private records may require in camera review before being turned over to counsel. People v Arnold, 177 AD2d 633, 576 NYS2d 339 (2d Dept 1991); Handling §§ 8:84, 8:164. Where a social services agency had investigated a sexual abuse allegation, the defendant had a due process right to have the records reviewed in camera. Pennsylvania v Ritchie, 480 US 39 (1987). Ex parte or in camera review may be appropriate with some discovery, but it should be the exception rather than the rule. With Rosario material, for example, the Court of Appeals noted that " . . . omissions, contrasts and even contradictions, vital perhaps, for discrediting a witness, are certainly not as apparent to the impartial presiding judge as to single-minded counsel for the accused; the latter is in a far better position to appraise the value of a witness' pretrial statements for impeachment purposes." People v Rosario, 9 NY2d 286, 290, 213 NYS2d 448 (1961); see also, People v Bugayong, 182 AD2d 450, 582 NY2d 175 (1st Dept 1992).

 

[cecybeans]

This might sound completely out of left field, but since we have attorneys swimming in the pool I thought I'd bring it up.

Could JB need federal tax records for CA and GA to prove they claimed Caylee as a deduction? Would this blur the barrier of guardianship and the lines of responsibility or culpability if a "household accident" was claimed as cause of death? I wouldn't think this would be the entire strategy, but perhaps a link in a chain to cast reasonable doubt as to who would share the burden of blame in an accidental death (which, seeing as Macaluso still seems to be on board, might be the direction they are headed). Just wondering...

 

[Chezhire]

Interesting article on reasons why Jose would file for an ex parte with the judge:

http://www.mcacp.org/issue56.htm


Severance

Where a defendant seeks to sever the counts of an indictment, the defense must show both an important testimony to give about one count and a genuine need to refrain from testifying about another. This is to be determined in an ex parte, in camera hearing. CPL 200.20(3)(b)(ii).

Investigative services

Where defense counsel seeks county payment for investigative or expert services, County Law § 722-c provides for the application to be made ex parte.

Attorney work product

A prosecution claim of attorney work product may require in camera inspection to determine if the statement is Brady or Rosario material. People v Dockery, 278 AD2d 427, 717 NYS2d 657 (2d Dept 2000).

Grand jury minutes

Where the defense requests inspection of grand jury minutes, the judge must review these in camera. The court may release grand jury minutes, but the prosecution must be given an opportunity beforehand to argue that release of the minutes would not be in the public interest. CPL 210.30(3).

Discovery

With contested discovery, the court may review ex parte or in camera, and grant a protective order. CPL 240.90(3); People v Mobley, 162 AD2d 305, 558 NYS2d 1 (1st Dept 1990); People v Ellis, 188 AD2d 1043, 592 NYS2d 200 (4th Dept 1992); Handling § 8:114. Police employment records are entitled to confidentiality and should be first reviewed in camera prior to any disclosure. Handling § 18:436. Mental health and other private records may require in camera review before being turned over to counsel. People v Arnold, 177 AD2d 633, 576 NYS2d 339 (2d Dept 1991); Handling §§ 8:84, 8:164. Where a social services agency had investigated a sexual abuse allegation, the defendant had a due process right to have the records reviewed in camera. Pennsylvania v Ritchie, 480 US 39 (1987). Ex parte or in camera review may be appropriate with some discovery, but it should be the exception rather than the rule. With Rosario material, for example, the Court of Appeals noted that " . . . omissions, contrasts and even contradictions, vital perhaps, for discrediting a witness, are certainly not as apparent to the impartial presiding judge as to single-minded counsel for the accused; the latter is in a far better position to appraise the value of a witness' pretrial statements for impeachment purposes." People v Rosario, 9 NY2d 286, 290, 213 NYS2d 448 (1961); see also, People v Bugayong, 182 AD2d 450, 582 NY2d 175 (1st Dept 1992).

Great examples. Want to mention though that NONE of the above options allow for ex parte hearings with the judge outside the presence of the SA.
These are examples of motions that may be filed on an ex parte basis, which simply means the judge takes action, either granting/denying/granting in part/etc., with no hearing or argument from anyone, even the requesting party.

 

[cajun]

Since he filed this yesterday shouldn't be up on the county website already? Also,don't you think the judge would have responded by now??