Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #1

[Horace Finklestein]

Upon a motion for reconsideration, the new judge can reconsider and issue new rulings on issues already settled by Judge Strickland. The parties have to file Motions for Reconsideration within 20 days of Judge Strickland removing himself. (I don't think Strickland will remove himself, but that's how it would go down if he did).

Wow I guess we'll have about 5 years worth of that to look forward to...

 

[Horace Finklestein]

IF there is a new judge for whatever reason... could he (please Lord) decide to actually get this thing going to trial - as in telling both sides they have 2 or 3 months and then we're going to trial? It escapes me why it is being delayed like this...there seems to be NOTHING going on...just goofy motions and stuff like the letters being released. I'd love to have a jodge tell them to get ready and go!

 

[beach]

Dragging my post/question over from the other thread -

From paragraph 1, section f:

Mr. Knechel has also been interviewed by investigators working for the prosecution and may well be a witness in this case.

My question is --- should we expect the SA to file a response to this motion?

http://www.cfnews13.com/uploadedFiles/Stories/Local/0416%20Motion%20To%20Disqualify%20Judge.pdf

 

[LambChop]

Can the judge ask for a special investigator to look into the charges? I find the breaks in the conversation reported disturbing because you just don't know what the conversation before leads up to the answers that were documented. Sometimes people who receive a compliment tend to embellish their statements to others.

 

[doogiesgirl]

I've made a couple of comments on the thread regarding this issue. Short answer: I think the motion is likely to be granted, due to an appearance of impropriety and/or court politics (and the desire to avoid handing the defense an appeal issue on a silver platter).

AZL--can I just say TY-TY-TY!!!for all you do for us. :bowdown:

O/T ..ok(my left pinkie is numb today? ....it's so hard to type w/a numb pinkie!) AGE! AARRGGG!!!!

AZL: anyway....along the lines of the lastest motion re: JSS. Can you tell me how this works. Does JSS decide this for himself? Or is their a panel of judges (how many?) with a head (so to speak) that takes a vote, and if so, is JSS's vote included? Or what....how does this get decided? TIA

O/T it took so long to type that!

moo

 

[AZlawyer]

So if JS is replaced and and previous rulings can be reconsidered I presume that the trial will be further delayed.

Have any of our lawyers had a case where the judge was replaced at this point in the case and if so what does it do to the timeline?

We are still nowhere near trial...I don't think it will delay anything.

Hi AZ

In other high profile cases that were discussed on the internet, have any motions like the one today been filed? Baez has made such a fuss about the internet/bloggers and so forth since he had this case, I'm wondering if this has occurred in the past?

I've never heard of a case like this one.

I don't have direct knowledge or experience w/ FL law, but I would say that no, we are not going to see the results of the pretrial psych evaluations. Using a defendant's compulsory participation in a competency evaluation would violate the 5th amendment protection against self-incrimination.
If, however, Casey intends to use a mental health defense or introduce mental health related mitigation evidence at sentencing, the state can have her evaluated by its own expert and we'll get to hear those findings during sentencing.

Good point. I was talking about mental health evaluations done for purposes of mitigation/response, not whatever was done when she was evaluated for competency.

IF there is a new judge for whatever reason... could he (please Lord) decide to actually get this thing going to trial - as in telling both sides they have 2 or 3 months and then we're going to trial? It escapes me why it is being delayed like this...there seems to be NOTHING going on...just goofy motions and stuff like the letters being released. I'd love to have a jodge tell them to get ready and go!

I don't think a new judge would change the timeline already set up by this judge. It seems like a reasonable timeline.

Dragging my post/question over from the other thread -

From paragraph 1, section f:



My question is --- should we expect the SA to file a response to this motion?

http://www.cfnews13.com/uploadedFiles/Stories/Local/0416%20Motion%20To%20Disqualify%20Judge.pdf

They could file a response, but perhaps would rather take a neutral stance in light of the fact that a denial of the motion could mean an appeal issue for the defense.

Can the judge ask for a special investigator to look into the charges? I find the breaks in the conversation reported disturbing because you just don't know what the conversation before leads up to the answers that were documented. Sometimes people who receive a compliment tend to embellish their statements to others.

From my reading of the Florida rule, the judge has to decide this motion based on the assumption that the facts alleged are true.

AZL--can I just say TY-TY-TY!!!for all you do for us. :bowdown:

O/T ..ok(my left pinkie is numb today? ....it's so hard to type w/a numb pinkie!) AGE! AARRGGG!!!!

AZL: anyway....along the lines of the lastest motion re: JSS. Can you tell me how this works. Does JSS decide this for himself? Or is their a panel of judges (how many?) with a head (so to speak) that takes a vote, and if so, is JSS's vote included? Or what....how does this get decided? TIA

O/T it took so long to type that!

moo

From my reading of the Florida rule, JS will decide this one himself, but, as mentioned above, can't take into consideration the truth or falsity of the facts alleged. :banghead:


BTW, Themis has posted on the other thread and disagrees with me about the likely outcome of this motion, so we can all cross our fingers that I'm wrong.

 

[beach]

From my reading of the Florida rule, the judge has to decide this motion based on the assumption that the facts alleged are true.

........



From my reading of the Florida rule, JS will decide this one himself, but, as mentioned above, can't take into consideration the truth or falsity of the facts alleged. :banghead:

uh...I don't even know what to say about this. It seems insane. How can one expect him to not consider the truth or falsity of the facts when it is himself that is accused of impropriety??? :banghead:

 

[nancy botwin]

uh...I don't even know what to say about this. It seems insane. How can one expect him to not consider the truth or falsity of the facts when it is himself that is accused of impropriety??? :banghead:

He can tell the truth.

A judge's inability to consider or comment on the truth or falsity of the allegations is something the FL Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee is actually proposing to change. A JEAC panel has been contemplating revisions/alternatives to the existing procedure and may promulgate a suggested rule change this month, to be presented to a committee meeting in June. Here are some articles that discuss how the rule works, its problematic implications for judges facing specious allegations within recusal motions, and the proposed changes:
http://www.floridabar.org/DIVCOM/JN...3b2a08a58a1669d6852576a40046ac05!OpenDocument
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/JAEC+...judge+to+rule+on+recusal+motions.-a0223373185

If these proposed changes do occur, they won't affect how Judge Strickland deals with the instant motion for recusal.

 

[Spangle]

Upon a motion for reconsideration, the new judge can reconsider and issue new rulings on issues already settled by Judge Strickland. The parties have to file Motions for Reconsideration within 20 days of Judge Strickland removing himself. (I don't think Strickland will remove himself, but that's how it would go down if he did).

Does that include wither or not the State will pay her bills???

 

[kew17]

As has been already widely commented on: What effect if any, will the fact that Cheney Mason tried to notorize something on his own case (which I do believe is not legal to do) with an expired notory commission? Also, where is AL's siggy on the motion? Is that necessary? These clumsy mistakes on the part of the defense are really getting old. I'm surprised CM let this one pass over his head. We know the defense's motions are for the most part, all legally flawed. Is this one legal or acceptable?

Thanks in advance!

 

[AZlawyer]

Does that include wither or not the State will pay her bills???

I think that rule would be interpreted to mean that motions decided against the defense can be reconsidered. It would make no sense for the State to get reconsideration of motions they lost because the judge was supposedly biased in favor of the State.

As has been already widely commented on: What effect if any, will the fact that Cheney Mason tried to notorize something on his own case (which I do believe is not legal to do) with an expired notory commission? Also, where is AL's siggy on the motion? Is that necessary? These clumsy mistakes on the part of the defense are really getting old. I'm surprised CM let this one pass over his head. We know the defense's motions are for the most part, all legally flawed. Is this one legal or acceptable?

Thanks in advance!

I don't think it will have any effect. I have never heard anything about notarizing the signature of your client being illegal or improper. Now, obviously, the expired commission makes it ineffective, but that deficiency would be so easy to correct that I can't imagine anyone will bother pointing it out.

I agree that almost everything filed by the defense seems to have been thrown together and filed in a big hurry, with little to no proofreading.

 

[LambChop]

Not sure this has been asked before. If JS were to deny the motion regarding his removal could he then ask KC directly if she would prefer to have another judge?

 

[kew17]

AZ - Have I told you lately that I think you are a gem!!!?!!!

Found at this site: http://notaries.dos.state.fl.us/education/faq/index.html

"An attorney is exempt from this provision of the law and is permitted to notarize his client's signature on a document that he has prepared, if he is serving as the attorney-of-record and is only receiving a fee for his legal services or his notary services. However, if the attorney were also a party to the transaction, or had an interest, such as being named the executor or administrator of an estate, he should not notarize his client's signature on such documents."

Thanks for answering AZ! Now I'm off to find KC's visitation records. I'm curious to if CM actually "witnessed" the signature. I guess I'm a little hung up on this little detail as I had a friend here in Texas that was taken to court on a notory issue as she did NOT abide by the rules. She was heavily fined and other courses of action. There are clear rules to follow, and by all means if this defense likes to spout that the presiding judge and the SAO isn't following this rule or that rule, I sure want all their "lack of playing by the rules" followed. Particularly with the fact that Florida taxpayers are funding this circus! I just wish their lack of rule following was brought to the forefront of the court more and they were penalized for their actions or lack thereof!

 

[elementary]

I'm getting a little confused now with this latest motion. What are the various roles of the defense team? Who is the first chair now and what does that mean, for example? I understand that A Lyon did not sign the motion to recuse JS, nor did LKB. Does this mean anything?

Thanks to all the attorneys for your patience and time! It's an ongoing education.

 

[denjet]

I have been trying to find out which judge is next in rotation should Strickland recuse himself ...
I've looked over on the court site but can't figure it out:

http://www.ninthcircuit.org/judges/directory/index.shtml

Anyone know how to do this or if that info is available?

 

[AZlawyer]

Not sure this has been asked before. If JS were to deny the motion regarding his removal could he then ask KC directly if she would prefer to have another judge?

He could...but he won't.

AZ - Have I told you lately that I think you are a gem!!!?!!!

Found at this site: http://notaries.dos.state.fl.us/education/faq/index.html

"An attorney is exempt from this provision of the law and is permitted to notarize his client's signature on a document that he has prepared, if he is serving as the attorney-of-record and is only receiving a fee for his legal services or his notary services. However, if the attorney were also a party to the transaction, or had an interest, such as being named the executor or administrator of an estate, he should not notarize his client's signature on such documents."

Thanks for answering AZ! Now I'm off to find KC's visitation records. I'm curious to if CM actually "witnessed" the signature. I guess I'm a little hung up on this little detail as I had a friend here in Texas that was taken to court on a notory issue as she did NOT abide by the rules. She was heavily fined and other courses of action. There are clear rules to follow, and by all means if this defense likes to spout that the presiding judge and the SAO isn't following this rule or that rule, I sure want all their "lack of playing by the rules" followed. Particularly with the fact that Florida taxpayers are funding this circus! I just wish their lack of rule following was brought to the forefront of the court more and they were penalized for their actions or lack thereof!

Don't thank me--you were the one who answered the question!!

If CM wasn't really there when KC signed, then someone ought to point that out to whatever agency in Florida governs notaries.

I'm getting a little confused now with this latest motion. What are the various roles of the defense team? Who is the first chair now and what does that mean, for example? I understand that A Lyon did not sign the motion to recuse JS, nor did LKB. Does this mean anything?

Thanks to all the attorneys for your patience and time! It's an ongoing education.

Anyone can sign the documents, appear in court for pre-trial hearings, etc., unless the judge specifically orders something like, "For this hearing, lead trial counsel must appear in person." At the actual trial, one of the death-penalty-qualified attorneys (AL or CM) will have to be present, but even then I don't think there's any requirement that they be "first chair" (i.e., that they take the lead in questioning, arguing, etc.).

I have been trying to find out which judge is next in rotation should Strickland recuse himself ...
I've looked over on the court site but can't figure it out:

http://www.ninthcircuit.org/judges/directory/index.shtml

Anyone know how to do this or if that info is available?

I suspect that there's no way to find out who will be assigned the case. Otherwise, motions to disqualify would become rampant.

 

[butwhatif?]

I've got some easy-peasy questions for the legal eagles:

1. Will this play-out in the courtroom or will we just see a piece of paper with the words motion approved/denied on it?

2. Can you please speculate as to how soon this might happen? Are we looking at 'first thing Monday morning' soon, or 'later this week' soon.

TIA

 

[legalmania]

Was this a motion or affidavit? I've always just signed motions with a certificate of service, only affidavits need to be notarized right?

 

[butterfly1978]

If JS grants the motion he is basically admitting guilt of acting inappropriate, what would that do to his career? Could future prisoner's claim that they do not want this judge because he was "inappropriate in this case? Could he be denied I guess promotions like Cheif Justice for this, if he agrees and recues himself?

I really like JS, and I think this motion is crap, however if there are no long term repercussions, I think he should step aside and let someone else handle it, because he has put up with JB for two years and thats enough to grate on anyones nerves and if JB is willing to chance this with another judge who is likely not to be as easy as JS than so be it. By looks of last hearing JS was getting fed up with JB anyway. So he may grant the motion simply for his on sanity and nerve sake. OHHHH and if he does I hope he goes on every morning show, evening show and any other show he can and tell exactly what he thinks of JB, but he won't because he is a classy man!

 

[ZsaZsa]

Is there any way to know if JS has ever had a motion to recuse himself before?
If there is, what was his response...?