Kathi Belich as a Defense Witness? Seriously?

[Bittiness39]

I just had to print this one out and let my law clerk read it. She was appalled.

She must be part of the vast conspiracy that we are: the frame ICA club. The Defense can't seem to grasp why all of the evidence points directly to their client. Anyone who believes ICA is guilty or questions the Defense or their strategy requires a motion from the defense and JB whining about the unfairness of it all! LMAO! This is just the latest attempt by the Defense to sideline one of their legion of detractors! It won't work! ICA is guilty and no amount of whining nor lame attempts at motions will change that. The evidence leads back to their client for one simple reason: she is guilty!

Incidentally, the Defense seems to be overly concerned about what ICA's jail pals will say! I cannot wait for the trial! The jury is going to be so enraged by the defense that they will hasten to rightfully convict ICA and will look upon JB & Co. with scorn and contempt! Speaking of contempt, can't wait to see what will happen the next time Mr. Suspended Driver's License appears in front of HHJP.

 

[Intermezzo]

http://www.wesh.com/pdf/26889140/detail.html?utm_source=manual&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=casey+updates

Thanks Numbers,

The big problem, I see, is that Baez wants to conduct legal business via the telephone..instead of filing pleadings to the court...that way he can always say...I don't remember having that conversation..IMO :twocents:

So in the span of, what, 2 days Marvin Schecter is added then withdrawn from the Witness List?

And, IF Baez would have provided the reason and legal grounds why he filed a supplemental witness list LATE to the Court, in the first place, he would not have had to submit this motion...responding to the Prosecution.

 

[LambChop]

Okkkkkkkkk...I just read today's defense motion to strike state's motion to strike...who's on first...motion to help our client because she's gonna fry pleading. What a sloppy piece of work, number one. And...number two, JB is such a baby. This circus is spiraling downward daily. This trial is going to be the biggest slam dunk of century.

JB also laid out his reasoning for KB on the witness list and it does have to do with the interview with the jailhouse snitch.

Now, close your eyes and try to visualize JB in court cross-examining the State's witnesses. I can here HHJP now, Mr. Baezzzzzzzzz, you're out of order......

 

[TotallyObsessed]

She must be part of the vast conspiracy that we are: the frame ICA club. The Defense can't seem to grasp why all of the evidence points directly to their client. Anyone who believes ICA is guilty or questions the Defense or their strategy requires a motion from the defense and JB whining about the unfairness of it all! LMAO! This is just the latest attempt by the Defense to sideline one of their legion of detractors! It won't work! ICA is guilty and no amount of whining nor lame attempts at motions will change that. The evidence leads back to their client for one simple reason: she is guilty!

Incidentally, the Defense seems to be overly concerned about what ICA's jail pals will say! I cannot wait for the trial! The jury is going to be so enraged by the defense that they will hasten to rightfully convict ICA and will look upon JB & Co. with scorn and contempt! Speaking of contempt, can't wait to see what will happen the next time Mr. Suspended Driver's License appears in front of HHJP.

You may be more right than you know. I have a feeling that the jury will be so anxious to shut JB up, they'll convict ASAP so they can go home. Has he ever, ever argued before a jury? Seriously. That takes many years of practice to be successful. I have often said, attorneys are part actors/part con men. I used to work with an attorney who when he did his closing he would "hand" the case over to the jurors to do the right thing....punish that big, bad company. SOME OF THE JURORS would actually hold out their hands, like he was physically handing them something. That kind of "performance" takes many hours to hone.

I might add, that performance resulted in many, many multi-million dollar verdicts.

 

[ZsaZsa]

Well I have been an 'Intern' here at WS for a couple of years now, and I think I won 32 of the 34 arguments I have made ( thanks AZ Lawyer) so doesn't that qualify me to represent ICA? I sincerely think I could do as well as JB sometimes....
A few years ago I had a supersonic clearance but the Concorde stopped flying, so it has expired. :innocent:

 

[strawberry]

My teenage daughter always puts Little Debbie's Cosmic Brownies on my grocery list. I think that qualifies her to represent ICA as well.

 

[nums24]

I asked Mr. Hornsby about the defense motion filed today to strike the State's motion, he was kind enough to respond:

http://blog.richardhornsby.com/2011/02/the-rule-of-sequestration/comment-page-1/#comment-3849

 

[TotallyObsessed]

Thanks Numbers,

The big problem, I see, is that Baez wants to conduct legal business via the telephone..instead of filing pleadings to the court...that way he can always say...I don't remember having that conversation..IMO :twocents:

So in the span of, what, 2 days Marvin Schecter is added then withdrawn from the Witness List?

And, IF Baez would have provided the reason and legal grounds why he filed a supplemental witness list LATE to the Court, in the first place, he would not have had to submit this motion...responding to the Prosecution.

EXACTLY. JB loves to make it look like the SAO just will not play nice. "They won't pick up the phone and work with me." waaaaaaaah - sorry JB real court doesn't work that way. Not at this point in the game where you have PROVEN that you will not play by the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.

 

[LambChop]

Between the dirty looks JB gives JA and LDB in court hearings and the way he conducts himself in interviews (very immature like everything is a big joke) I do not see this lost on the jury. jmo

 

[TotallyObsessed]

I asked Mr. Hornsby about the defense motion filed today to strike the State's motion, her was kind enough to respond:

http://blog.richardhornsby.com/2011/02/the-rule-of-sequestration/comment-page-1/#comment-3849

Well, I'm no lawyer but I disagree with RH here. The state has said it has an open, ongoing investigation that will go on up until and including during the trial. Period. If that means JB has to suffer these new witnesses, so be it. JB doesn't even cite one legal precedent or standing for his motion to strike. If whining were the key, he would most definitely win. But nobody really cares that the State has the upper hand in pulling in all their available resources, FBI, SS, etc. JB should not have chosen to represent an indigent client. :maddening:

ETA: thank you Nums for bringing that post here. I didn't mean to sound snarky to you. This case is just driving me absolutely bonkers.

 

[LambChop]

EXACTLY. JB loves to make it look like the SAO just will not play nice. "They won't pick up the phone and work with me." waaaaaaaah - sorry JB real court doesn't work that way. Not at this point in the game where you have PROVEN that you will not play by the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Well since SA's office is in charge of the "other" investigation it sounds from JB's attitude he is in deep doo. jmo

 

[cyberborg]

So ...

"the State has at tax payers expense, spared no expense in utilizing both the FBI and Secret Service to date this diary to fit their timeline. Despite their inability to do so, this does not appear to deter the State in presenting this evidence."

JB has been drinking the A's paranoid conspiracy theory kool aid. :banghead: Is JB afraid that the State is investigating the diary or just plain annoyed because he thought they had dodged that bullet? The whole world is trying to convict poor ICA and conspire to frame her in the murder. :waitasec:

It is o.k. for the Defense to go into prolonged and wasteful TES fishing expeditions with multiple motions wasting everyone's time ... including that of the tax payer. It is o.k. for the Defense to miss deadlines on reciprocal discovery and be sanctioned, at tax payer's expense. But it is not o.k. for the State to perform some due-diligence on the diary since the date is not 2003, cannot be 2003 and, it has a LOT of relevance if more recent.

 

[LancelotLink]

I read this motion to strike the motion to strike and all I can hear in my head is PeeWeeHerman: "I know you are but what am I?"

 

[Tiki]

Could they at least use spellcheck?! That drives me crazy. :crazy:


.

 

[cyberborg]

To paraphrase the latest motion ...

It reads like, "the State keep on working hard to further investigate nuances in this case and dotting all of the 'i's, crossing the 't's. The new discovery is creating more and more work for the Defense and we simply cannot cope and respond to everything, we are simply overwhelmed and reactive. The State is dogged in its determination to prosecute our client for capital murder and we are buried. We need a break.

Please make them stop. Please make them stop."

 

[Lanie]

Could they at least use spellcheck?! That drives me crazy. :crazy:


.

Lol, the words 'where' spelled correctly, 'there' just the wrong words.

ITA, I didn't think I was a grammar geek until I started reading these motions. It's also a little unnerving, like when you go into the hospital and your nurse turns out to be the loser slacker moron you went to high school with. :0

 

[AZlawyer]

My predictions:

1. Defense's Motion to Strike Motion to Strike denied as silly.

2. State's Motion to Strike Schecter as witness granted, as defense has withdrawn him and stated no good cause in any event.

3. State's Motion to Strike Belich as witness: if I were HHJP, I would want a little more info about what Belich could possibly say that (1) relates to the State's new witnesses, and (2) isn't covered by the journalist's privilege. I would be concerned that the witness list is being used as a tactic to thwart the 1st Amendment. If it is, I would grant the State's Motion to Strike as it is not "good cause" to list someone as a witness just to thwart the 1st Amendment. However, if HHJP decides to take this filing at face value and denies the State's Motion to Strike Belich as a witness, IMO the State ought to take her depo, get the answers to these questions, and bring the answers to the attention of HHJP if they are "hinky."

4. State's Motion to Strike Kenneth D as a witness: Denied, as he will (supposedly) be rebutting discovery very recently disclosed by the State. I wonder if JB has actually talked to him about his proposed testimony, though? And I wonder if the State actually intends to use the diary as evidence anyway, if they can't find anything to connect it to 2008? How is this going to play out at trial? State: This diary is not from 2003! JB: Yes it is! Or anyway at the very least it's from 2005! State: Oh, well, OK, it might be from 2005. What's the point?? :waitasec:

5. State's Motion to Strike witnesses who already appeared on the State's list: Denied. IMO the defense would be allowed to call people from the State's list at trial even if the defense NEVER puts them on its own list.

 

[Aedrys]

My predictions:

1. Defense's Motion to Strike Motion to Strike denied as silly.

2. State's Motion to Strike Schecter as witness granted, as defense has withdrawn him and stated no good cause in any event.

3. State's Motion to Strike Belich as witness: if I were HHJP, I would want a little more info about what Belich could possibly say that (1) relates to the State's new witnesses, and (2) isn't covered by the journalist's privilege. I would be concerned that the witness list is being used as a tactic to thwart the 1st Amendment. If it is, I would grant the State's Motion to Strike as it is not "good cause" to list someone as a witness just to thwart the 1st Amendment. However, if HHJP decides to take this filing at face value and denies the State's Motion to Strike Belich as a witness, IMO the State ought to take her depo, get the answers to these questions, and bring the answers to the attention of HHJP if they are "hinky."

4. State's Motion to Strike Kenneth D as a witness: Denied, as he will (supposedly) be rebutting discovery very recently disclosed by the State. I wonder if JB has actually talked to him about his proposed testimony, though? And I wonder if the State actually intends to use the diary as evidence anyway, if they can't find anything to connect it to 2008? How is this going to play out at trial? State: This diary is not from 2003! JB: Yes it is! Or anyway at the very least it's from 2005! State: Oh, well, OK, it might be from 2005. What's the point?? :waitasec:

5. State's Motion to Strike witnesses who already appeared on the State's list: Denied. IMO the defense would be allowed to call people from the State's list at trial even if the defense NEVER puts them on its own list.

Awesome as usual, AZ. And the first one just sounds silly. Jose wanted to strike the SA's strike. I mean really, how schoolyard can you get?

 

[LancelotLink]

ynotdivein's post on the Diary thread reminded me of a video.
I need to go find the video where Baez calls KB by KG in an attempt to, take her aback, embarrass? Does the use of her name as KG in the three strikes you're out motion bear any significance to her being called or is this just another attempt at being boorish?

 

[TotallyObsessed]

Awesome as usual, AZ. And the first one just sounds silly. Jose wanted to strike the SA's strike. I mean really, how schoolyard can you get?

Wouldn't it normally have been titled "Defense's Response to Motion to Strike" ????