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

[chefmom]

I'm thinking the same thing..that it has something to do with JB paying BOA for Casey...what is up with that anyway? Is that even legal? I mean it's not like she can even pay him back...not in cash anyway.:waitasec:

She's supposed to indigent anyway, isn't she? And with her history of no job and stealing from family and friends, just where would she have gotten this money?

 

[countzero]

She's supposed to indigent anyway, isn't she? And with her history of no job and stealing from family and friends, just where would she have gotten this money?

The sales of photos and videos was said by JB at one time when this was discussed months ago. NG tried to get a firm $$$ figure but wasn't successful.

KC is the "owner" of these photos and videos and gave some of them to JB to "media shop". ABC and NBC paid for some of them we know. At this point in time, the media really isn't interested in them.

Thanks Patty for editing this. I just saw Post #44 and came back to edit mine but found you already did.

 

[mitzi]

Wasn't there two sidebars that day? One was called an "in session" or something and they left the courtroom to discuss it. I thought that was the one about how JB was paid. The second one was up at the judge's seat at the front of the courtroom...don't know what that one was about...

Now that you mention it, I also thought the "in camera" sidebar was with Judge S. and Jose only, in his chambers. So maybe the prosecution didn't get to hear how KC was financing her team. Of course the media would show another sidebar in their video, since they were not allowed at the in camera one.

Funny how "in camera" means without cameras. :crazy:

 

[Muzikman]

Wasn't there two sidebars that day? One was called an "in session" or something and they left the courtroom to discuss it. I thought that was the one about how JB was paid. The second one was up at the judge's seat at the front of the courtroom...don't know what that one was about...

I was at this hearing, and you are correct. There was the "In Camera" meeting in another room, and then near the END of the hearing - after Strickland announced his decision about the conflict of interest - he says "I just wanted to have a sidebar conference for a minute about one other thing, and then we will conclude."

Only 34 seconds long -
http://www.wftv.com/video/19010224/index.html

I am not so sure that the sidebar hearing WAS about the conflict of interest issue, it was about something else.

 

[DotsEyes]

I fail to see how the issue of "who is paying the lawyer and how much" is relevant UNLESS there was a contingency fee contract, which is unethical in criminal and divorce cases.

In all likelihood, the sidebar discussion led to some agreements among the parties and no one can remember the details, so the sidebar will be transcribed to settle the dispute.

Did KC file for Indigent Status?

 

[countzero]

I fail to see how the issue of "who is paying the lawyer and how much" is relevant UNLESS there was a contingency fee contract, which is unethical in criminal and divorce cases.

In all likelihood, the sidebar discussion led to some agreements among the parties and no one can remember the details, so the sidebar will be transcribed to settle the dispute.

Did KC file for Indigent Status?

Not yet. Again, KC filing for indigent status was discussed but I don't know where specially those threads are.

What bothers me is the cost of her defense has been said to run an estimated $2M buckeroos. For someone that doesn't have two cents to rub together, how does the defense expect to get paid? Pro bono is one way. Writing books, screen plays, storyboards are all other ways. With the agreement that JB had LP sign, it had language written into that clearly said LP and his employees could not profit from their knowledge. Hummmmm, tells me JB wants that all to himself.

 

[kaRN]

I fail to see how the issue of "who is paying the lawyer and how much" is relevant UNLESS there was a contingency fee contract, which is unethical in criminal and divorce cases.

In all likelihood, the sidebar discussion led to some agreements among the parties and no one can remember the details, so the sidebar will be transcribed to settle the dispute.

Did KC file for Indigent Status?

IIRC It came up because the prosecution was concerned that if it was proven that Baez was to profit from the case after a verdict, it might affect his defense of the case and KC might have an avenue for appeal at a later date.

 

[Muzikman]

I fail to see how the issue of "who is paying the lawyer and how much" is relevant UNLESS there was a contingency fee contract, which is unethical in criminal and divorce cases.

In all likelihood, the sidebar discussion led to some agreements among the parties and no one can remember the details, so the sidebar will be transcribed to settle the dispute.

Did KC file for Indigent Status?

See my post at the end of the first page of this thread (with video link). The sidebar, I believe, was about an entirely different matter.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

See my post at the end of the first page of this thread (with video link). The sidebar, I believe, was about an entirely different matter.

(This fits your post better than Dot's. LOL)

Oh, Carp! Rain on my parade, will ya?! LOL

I was so hoping to settle this issue once and for all!!

WHO IS PAYING THE BIG BUCKS FOR CASEY'S DREAM TEAM?!

 

[chefmom]

I was at this hearing, and you are correct. There was the "In Camera" meeting in another room, and then near the END of the hearing - after Strickland announced his decision about the conflict of interest - he says "I just wanted to have a sidebar conference for a minute about one other thing, and then we will conclude."

Only 34 seconds long -
http://www.wftv.com/video/19010224/index.html

I am not so sure that the sidebar hearing WAS about the conflict of interest issue, it was about something else.

It may not have been about the money issue, but whatever it was about, the pros now wants it in transcript for purposes at trial.

 

[Muzikman]

(This fits your post better than Dot's. LOL)

Oh, Carp! Rain on my parade, will ya?! LOL

I was so hoping to settle this issue once and for all!!

WHO IS PAYING THE BIG BUCKS FOR CASEY'S DREAM TEAM?!

Sorry, SS, I would like to see an answer to that too.

But I am now SUPER-CURIOUS, what kind of sidebar conversation would cause the prosecution to take the highly unusual step of requesting a transcript of that sidebar "for purposes of trial?" And the Judge agrees so quickly and wants it produced by 5 PM this thursday?

Something's up.

 

[MAMABEAR]

I wonder if this would be available under the Sunshine Law so that we would get to see it?

I'm sure JB has time to post a motion to keep us from it. LMAO
He better hip-hop over there and get the ball rolling. Member when he tried to throw his 2 cents in with the release of the autopsy reports---right there in court. So what? We have another 2 weeks fore JB has to let go of it?

 

[chefmom]

Sorry, SS, I would like to see and answer to that too.

But I am now SUPER-CURIOUS, what kind of sidebar conversation would cause the prosecution to take the highly unusual step of requesting a transcript of that sidebar "for prosecution purposes?" And the Judge agrees so quickly and wants it produced by 5 PM this thursday?

Something's up.

Yes, yes, yes! But, what? (Gosh! Are we all jonesing for a good doc dump or what?)

:woohoo:

 

[chefmom]

I'm sure JB has time to post a motion to keep us from it. LMAO
He better hip-hop over there and get the ball rolling. Member when he tried to throw his 2 cents in with the release of the autopsy reports---right there in court. So what? We have another 2 weeks fore JB has to let go of it?

Oh, I'm sure ole JB will file a motion or three to restrict the public release of this. :crazy:

 

[christee]

Judge S. has ordered the court reporter to release the transcription of the sidebar by this Thurs. The prosecution has requested that it be released for "purposes of trial." The sidebar was in March.

http://www.clickorlando.com/video/20135377/index.html

Wish I could read lips!

 

[Midwest MOM]

I fail to see how the issue of "who is paying the lawyer and how much" is relevant UNLESS there was a contingency fee contract, which is unethical in criminal and divorce cases.

In all likelihood, the sidebar discussion led to some agreements among the parties and no one can remember the details, so the sidebar will be transcribed to settle the dispute.

Did KC file for Indigent Status?

I have to agree...It should not be an issue if the state is not paying the bill for her defense. Would a Multi-millionaire be asked the same question? Has this ever been an issue with other cases? Of course I am curious also..very curious!

However it is starting to seem to me that the prosecuting attorney may not be as confident that they have as strong of a case as they claim.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

Sorry, SS, I would like to see an answer to that too.

But I am now SUPER-CURIOUS, what kind of sidebar conversation would cause the prosecution to take the highly unusual step of requesting a transcript of that sidebar "for purposes of trial?" And the Judge agrees so quickly and wants it produced by 5 PM this thursday?

Something's up.

Could it have anything to do with the Judge filing that whatever it was with the bar against JB?

 

[Noddy]

I was at this hearing, and you are correct. There was the "In Camera" meeting in another room, and then near the END of the hearing - after Strickland announced his decision about the conflict of interest - he says "I just wanted to have a sidebar conference for a minute about one other thing, and then we will conclude."

Only 34 seconds long -
http://www.wftv.com/video/19010224/index.html

I am not so sure that the sidebar hearing WAS about the conflict of interest issue, it was about something else.

bold by me

I'm sure curious to know what that 'one other thing' is because he didn't seem surprised or concerned about the financial arrangements.

 

[Muzikman]

Could it have anything to do with the Judge filing that whatever it was with the bar against JB?

I don't know, could be, we probably need to look back at a timeline for Feb/March to see what other issues were coming up.

Something Baez said during that sidebar has got the prosecution bringing it into evidence, is what it looks like to me.

 

[countzero]

I have to agree...It should not be an issue if the state is not paying the bill for her defense. Would a Multi-millionaire be asked the same question? Has this ever been an issue with other cases? Of course I am curious also..very curious!

However it is starting to seem to me that the prosecuting attorney may not be as confident that they have as strong of a case as they claim.

bbm:
I see it in the opposite venue; the SA is confident with their case. I feel they are closing in on JB and tighting the attempts for motions that JB seems to enjoy writing.