Judge S. Orders Court Reporter To Release 3/25/09 Sidebar Transcript

[steadychick]

Could this "one other thing" have been about Casey's signed affidavit where she claims her innocence ? This affidavit was signed by Casey on Mar 10, 2009. A link is below...

http://www.wftv.com/blank/18901013/detail.html

This affidavit has always been very curious to me -- why would any attorney allow his client to tack on a hand written statement like this? Wouldn't it be great if the SA has found evidence of another agreement to "sell her story". The money has to be coming from somewhere. And even if the attorneys are working for free, we all know it's not really for free -- it's for the publicity which leads to future profits and/or attention to their special causes (like doing away with the death penalty or promoting a book). Even if they receive no immediate financial benefit, wouldn't just seeking publicity alone qualify as a potential conflict of interest and resulting potential for reason for appeal? Just askin.

 

[countzero]

Could this "one other thing" have been about Casey's signed affidavit where she claims her innocence ? This affidavit was signed by Casey on Mar 10, 2009. A link is below...

http://www.wftv.com/blank/18901013/detail.html

Hummmm, notice that this affidavit does not contain any clauses that prohibit JB or any of his co-counselors from selling their stories. Nor does it prohibit JB and crew from selling KC's story.

It simply says there are no agreements TO SELL Caylees story or KC story:

4. Said Retainer Agreement does not contain any clauses or parts that
allow or entitle him to any rights that would allow him to sell my "story",
or that of my daughter, Caylee Marie Anthony.

5. There are no other Agreements selling my "story".

I always look for what these affidavits and motions don't say rather than what they do say. Typical of JB and crew.

 

[athy]

muzikman, the next time you go to court you might want to wear one of this hearing pieces that let you hear even when people are whispering *winks

 

[kageykaren]

Go Sunshine! Go Sunshine!

:woohoo:

It was stated that JB didn't pay this, but was aware. This payment appears to be an action by the one who stole money out of a wallet on July 16, 2009. This rings CA's thought patterns possibly of, "I'll have this payment sent to settle this matter and there will be no reason to proceed with the check fraud hearing and Amy might drop the charges." I would love to hear from Amy right now to see if she had any communication with the A's and their counsel BC. concerning payment due.

 

[Muzikman]

muzikman, the next time you go to court you might want to wear one of this hearing pieces that let you hear even when people are whispering *winks

I thought of that immediately afterwards! *wink*

 

[karenmamo]

All we can do is "cross our fingers" and hope this is subject to release based on the "Sunshine Laws" :crazy:

How many fingers can I cross? Toes too--would be hard, but I will keep practicing.
:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo:

 

[Patty G]

Hummmm, notice that this affidavit does not contain any clauses that prohibit JB or any of his co-counselors from selling their stories. Nor does it prohibit JB and crew from selling KC's story.

It simply says there are no agreements TO SELL Caylees story or KC story:

4. Said Retainer Agreement does not contain any clauses or parts that
allow or entitle him to any rights that would allow him to sell my "story",
or that of my daughter, Caylee Marie Anthony.

5. There are no other Agreements selling my "story".

I always look for what these affidavits and motions don't say rather than what they do say. Typical of JB and crew.

We have a thread regarding the affidavit: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=81312&highlight=Casey's+Affidavit

 

[countzero]

We have a thread regarding the affidavit: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=81312&highlight=Casey's+Affidavit

Thanks, I know Patty. My post was in response to what this thread is about; the sidebar discussions and whether they were about how JB was getting paid.

Kinda/sorta cross referencing threads I guess.

If the speculation is correct I suppose this thread will be combined with the above thread.

 

[doobiedoo52]

I don't think this sidebar is going to reveal any info on who is paying the legal bill. That was discussed in camera and I recall the prosecution getting very upset at JB's closing reminder that it was not to be leaked. I still have my suspicians on the who is paying, but I'm not sure it will ever by publicly known unless it's after the trial.

 

[Pink Panther]

I don't think this sidebar is going to reveal any info on who is paying the legal bill. That was discussed in camera and I recall the prosecution getting very upset at JB's closing reminder that it was not to be leaked. I still have my suspicians on the who is paying, but I'm not sure it will ever by publicly known unless it's after the trial.

I still can't believe that WHO IS PAYING BAEZ is a secret...But I don't think that this issue has anything to do with finding out (unfortunately).

moo

 

[Patty G]

Thanks, I know Patty. My post was in response to what this thread is about; the sidebar discussions and whether they were about how JB was getting paid.

Kinda/sorta cross referencing threads I guess.

If the speculation is correct I suppose this thread will be combined with the above thread.

Nope, this thread is for the "release of the sidebar transcript" and won't be merged with the other unless the "sidebar transcript" shows it is associated with the affidavit, who is paying Baez etc., etc. :crazy:

 

[RR0004]

Here is a vid with the complete hearing:
http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/anthony_case/032509video_motion_hearing

The court reporter is not at the bench recording what was said for this sidebar.

She does, however, go into the other room for the In Camera conference and presumably records that. I remember there being a little bit of discussion in the courtroom on whether or not it would be recorded, and it was decided that it would be.


PattyG, would it make sense to have a section in the Case Resource Links collecting all of the Current Daily News threads? Seems like it could be helpful in the future, with a separate thread for each day, making it easy to find a particular day. Kind of a news timeline for what's happened in the case. I see Angel Who Cares has a somewhat similar thread for Media Links, but I don't know that everything from the Current Daily News is included.....

So that means that they want the transcript of that "in camera" meeting...and that was the meeting about the conflict of "financial" interests, correct?

ETA: ok...so there may be the possibility of a "sidebar microphone". Tomorrow is the day it will be released...wonder if we'll get to see it.

 

[Boston]

This is from the March 25th episode of Nancy Grace & I was wondering if the transcript that the state is refering to could have anythng to do with this .....


GRACE: Tot mom out of the jailhouse, into the courthouse today. There you see her in full ankle shackles, under oath, answering questions fired at her by the judge. It`s all about questions, questions arising whether tot mom and her lawyer are raking in money, money off Caylee`s murder. We know of an alleged $250,000-plus already paid over during this case, and the trial hasn`t even started. We haven`t even struck a jury.

A blow-up there at the end of the day in the courtroom. Drew Petrimoulx, WDBO, apparently, the defense attorney, Jose Baez, makes some comment suggesting that the state is leaking private information, and the state got mad and fired back. I don`t blame them, Petrimoulx. What exactly happened, in a nutshell?

PETRIMOULX: Jose Baez said that he didn`t want any information that they talked about in that seven-minute session that they had -- that private session about who`s paying for Casey`s defense. He made a comment, he said, Judge, I just want you to make sure that none of that information gets out to the public. The judge says, You know, that shouldn`t be something that I have to say. But the prosecution took offense to him saying that. He says, We know our ethical responsibilities. There`s no reason that we should need to be reminded of that.

One thing I will add, though. I will say that there have been leaks in this case. Whether they have came from the state attorney`s office or not, we don`t know that, but there have been a good amount of leaks...

 

[Muzikman]

Here is the motion and order by Strickland, it is the sidebar, not the in camera:
http://www.wftv.com/pdf/20146566/detail.html

Story on WFTV:
http://www.wftv.com/news/20146510/detail.html

 

[Truthwillsetufree]

This is from the March 25th episode of Nancy Grace & I was wondering if the transcript that the state is refering to could have anythng to do with this .....


GRACE: Tot mom out of the jailhouse, into the courthouse today. There you see her in full ankle shackles, under oath, answering questions fired at her by the judge. It`s all about questions, questions arising whether tot mom and her lawyer are raking in money, money off Caylee`s murder. We know of an alleged $250,000-plus already paid over during this case, and the trial hasn`t even started. We haven`t even struck a jury.

A blow-up there at the end of the day in the courtroom. Drew Petrimoulx, WDBO, apparently, the defense attorney, Jose Baez, makes some comment suggesting that the state is leaking private information, and the state got mad and fired back. I don`t blame them, Petrimoulx. What exactly happened, in a nutshell?

PETRIMOULX: Jose Baez said that he didn`t want any information that they talked about in that seven-minute session that they had -- that private session about who`s paying for Casey`s defense. He made a comment, he said, Judge, I just want you to make sure that none of that information gets out to the public. The judge says, You know, that shouldn`t be something that I have to say. But the prosecution took offense to him saying that. He says, We know our ethical responsibilities. There`s no reason that we should need to be reminded of that.

One thing I will add, though. I will say that there have been leaks in this case. Whether they have came from the state attorney`s office or not, we don`t know that, but there have been a good amount of leaks...

What has been leaked ?

 

[okiedokietoo]

I wonder if there is any significant revelations in this sidebar at all. I wonder if the State Attorney has just been doing their homework and trying to keep one step ahead of the defense. I found this case:
http://www.romingerlegal.com/illinois/illinois_case_law_1/82527.htm

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellee, v. ULECE MONTGOMERY, Appellant
Reading through this, which is hard for me because I don't speak legal language, it seems this person was convicted and the Appeal Court upheld his conviction. Part of his reason to appeal was because of ex parte communications between judge and defense counsel/counsels -Defense stating that the Judge had said if defendant would plead guilty then he would sentence defendant to life and not death. Ms Lyon testified that she was told this by the defendants attorney - defendant pled guilty and received Death.
That's the short of it. I just think that the State is way ahead of us and has already done/and continuing to do their research for their case against KC. So while we are all speculating on what is in the sidebar conversation that the State is so interested in, I specualte at this point to say - nothing of importance, they just want record of it so it stops defense tactics before they can start.

I could very well be wrong and I am speculating at this point. Ms Lyon's main purpose, at least career-wise, is anti death penalty and achieve that by any means, my opinion of course.

 

[The Eunice Burns]

What has been leaked ?

Yeah, hasn't everything been under Sunshine? Or have I missed a step, or two?

 

[cecybeans]

I found this:

What about those times when the judge does not want anyone to hear? During federal proceedings (this also applies to many state courts), the sidebar conference (where the two attorneys confer at the bench with the judge) is considered a privileged conversation regarding procedural issues that are not to be heard by the jury, witness or gallery.

To prevent these conversations from being overheard, the new U.S. federal standard has pink noise injected into the room in all loudspeakers except the judge's, thereby masking the conversation. A button labeled "sidebar" at the judge's control panel activates this. The system must switch off all mics in the room, activate the sidebar mic (generally an omnidirectional boundary mic located on the rail of the judge's bench) and route the signal to the court reporter and the tape deck for transcription.

http://digitalcontentproducer.com/mag/avinstall_orderinthecourt/

bolded by me

Thanks Patty, for all your research. And also for giving us a new phrase to describe KC when she talks....

 

[Truthwillsetufree]

Yeah, hasn't everything been under Sunshine? Or have I missed a step, or two?

Exactly.

 

[twomanywords]

I think since there has been so many "imported" lawyers from other states that probably got started from them not knowing the laws in Florida.
JMO