Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #1

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
rhornsby said:
Judge Strickland is a screwdriver and Jose Baez is...
Click to expand...

On WESH you predicted Judge Strickland would grant the defense motion and step down-- could you perhaps briefly explain why you thought Strickland would step down? Were you totally sure or just pretty convinced?
 
Will JSautomatically be assigned another case? Could JS be assigned to another case that JB is currently the attorney on or would he not be assigned to another JB case until KC's trial is over?
 
rhornsby said:
Judge Strickland is a screwdriver and Jose Baez is...
Click to expand...

I just posted the same thing on the Judge Strickland Steps Down thread. :D


We only thought we heard stuttering before....
 
Mr. Hornsby: Does the fact that within his order Judge Strickland did mention the verbal exchange within the courtroom but did NOT mention any personal telephone conversation with Marinade Dave mean that it did not take place? In other words, would it be expected for the judge in this situation to address each specific allegation or no?

Is it common for a judge to include the amount of sarcasm included in Judge Stricland's order of recusal? I understand how the judge feels, and I'm not saying putting sarcasm in there was wrong. I'm just asking, is that usually seen in this type of an order? In any type of a judicial order?

Can you decipher for us the "tight boots" portion of the phrase "the product of either a fertile imagination or tight boots?" Is J. Cheney known to wear boots a lot?

Last, but not least, I just, for the first time, saw you interviewed on TV. You are much younger than I had imagined you to be from your writings. And a very good-looking young man.

Thank you in advance for your reply.
 
nancy botwin said:
On WESH you predicted Judge Strickland would grant the defense motion and step down-- could you perhaps briefly explain why you thought Strickland would step down? Were you totally sure or just pretty convinced?
Click to expand...

It is mandated by the rule. When a person asks a judge to disqualify himself, the only thing the judge can do is ask (1) is the motion legally sufficient and (2) IF what they allege were true, would a reasonable person have a well founded fear of being treated unfairly.

It would have been impossible for him to stay on.
 
AlwaysShocked said:
Mr. Hornsby: Does the fact that within his order Judge Strickland did mention the verbal exchange within the courtroom but did NOT mention any personal telephone conversation with Marinade Dave mean that it did not take place? In other words, would it be expected for the judge in this situation to address each specific allegation or no?

Is it common for a judge to include the amount of sarcasm included in Judge Stricland's order of recusal? I understand how the judge feels, and I'm not saying putting sarcasm in there was wrong. I'm just asking, is that usually seen in this type of an order? In any type of a judicial order?

Can you decipher for us the "tight boots" portion of the phrase "the product of either a fertile imagination or tight boots?" Is J. Cheney known to wear boots a lot?

Last, but not least, I just, for the first time, saw you interviewed on TV. You are much younger than I had imagined you to be from your writings. And a very good-looking young man.

Thank you in advance for your reply.
Click to expand...

No, it does not mean it is not true. I do not know what tight boots refers to, but I have heard that the prosecution has affectionately nicknamed Cheney Mason [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foghorn_Leghorn"]Foghorn Leghorn[/ame].
 
rhornsby said:
It is mandated by the rule. When a person asks a judge to disqualify himself, the only thing the judge can do is ask (1) is the motion legally sufficient and (2) IF what they allege were true, would a reasonable person have a well founded fear of being treated unfairly.

It would have been impossible for him to stay on.
Click to expand...

Thanks for responding-- I guess I'm looking for more clarity. To me, the allegations (viewed as facts) do not form a reasonable basis for the fear one wouldn't receive a fair and impartial trial.

Could you give a hypothetical example of allegations which would not be legally sufficient?
ETA: More specificaly, could you tweak the existing allegations to create the hypothetical-- if Strickland had/hadn't done x and y, but had done z, etc. To wit, was there any one thing Strickland did that was particularly egregious and could he have remedied the situation by disclosing the interactions?
 
rhornsby said:
No, it does not mean it is not true. I do not know what tight boots refers to, but I have heard that the prosecution has affectionately nicknamed Cheney Mason Foghorn Leghorn.
Click to expand...

I'm going to stick with my little theory that "tight boots" was stopping the circulation getting to his brain. - works for me.
 
jandkmom said:
Will JSautomatically be assigned another case? Could JS be assigned to another case that JB is currently the attorney on or would he not be assigned to another JB case until KC's trial is over?
Click to expand...
No, the recusal is personal to CA and only applies in her case. If JB were to represent other clients, they would have to file a motion to recuse alleging they were fearful Judge Strickland would be vindictive because of their attorney.

Also, when I say I think JB is a screw, I mean he will never be able to take advantage of Judge Strickland's known disposition by pleading to the bench in future client's cases (such as was done in the check case) or be able to look Judge Strickland in the face, as he knows his motion was bogus.
 
rhornsby said:
It is mandated by the rule. When a person asks a judge to disqualify himself, the only thing the judge can do is ask (1) is the motion legally sufficient and (2) IF what they allege were true, would a reasonable person have a well founded fear of being treated unfairly.

It would have been impossible for him to stay on.
Click to expand...

Where were you this weekend when I was trying to convince 250 angry WS'ers of this fact lol?? :crazy:
 
I may have missed your (or someone else's) quick summary on the resubmission of denied motions.

If CM tweaks them and resubmits, will this new Judge "deeply" consider these motions? In other words, will JS's ruling generally stand?

Thanks in advance
 
beach2yall said:
I understand the filings of motions to reconsider - what I want to know is, will Judge Perry have to reconsider the same (exact) motion already filed, or will Mason have an opportunity to amend in an attempt to...er, correct Baez's deficiencies?
Click to expand...

bumpity-bump

for myself and logicalgirl
 
Not sure if this is a legal question, but didn't see the regular question thread.

I read that Judge Perry is not a proponent of cameras in the courtroom. Can someone please reassure me that we will still get to see this trial on live feed?
 
I read on another thread that judge Perry was on the grand jury for CA. Would that be grounds to dismiss him from this case? I thought grand jury was private info.
 
Since the defense team cannot honestly have thought the JS was biased, what was their actual strategy here? Were they hoping this would cause a delay? Or open an avenue for appeal later on? Would seem to me that the devil you know is better than the one you don't, so I just don't get this at all.
 
Inmate Anthony is charged with:

FIRST DEGREE MURDER
AGGRAVATED CHILD ABUSE
AGGRAVATED MANSLAUGHTER OF A CHILD
FALSE INFO TO LEO RE MISSING PERSON OR FELONY
FALSE INFO TO LEO RE MISSING PERSON OR FELONY
FALSE INFO TO LEO RE MISSING PERSON OR FELONY
FALSE INFO TO LEO RE MISSING PERSON OR FELONY

My question:

If Inmate Anthony decides to plead guilty but to aggravated manslaughter of a child, will this be accepted by the State/Judge?

Is this something they can plead guilty to and would it remove her from a DP sentence??

TIA!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 183 more.
Total: 458 (members: 184, guests: 274)

Online statistics

Members online
184
Guests online
274
Total visitors
458
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
609,283
Messages
18,252,051
Members
234,595
Latest member
slyshe11
Back
Top