Motion for George's Grand Jury Transcript MERGED

[Patriciao]

George says he did not smell anything the day Casey raced ahead of him and threw the gas cans at him. George also says in subsequent conversations that he lives with a very strong willed woman (Cindy) who he loves very much but it's very hard for him to go against anything she decides or says.

 

[beach]

Did we ever find out if Baez does get this transcript of George's testimony does it become public record?

Not yet, but we may have an answer on Tuesday. It is one of the defense motions filed for reconsideration.


See pg. 1, paragrah 2 (b). States original request attached as Exhibit B, PDF pg. 16


http://www.wftv.com/pdf/23477589/detail.html.


Not positive that it is one that will be ruled upon, as I need to review HHJP's order addressing exactly which motions will be heard on Tuesday. I know the TES motion for reconsideration is going to be rescheduled.


That said, I don't care if GA's GJ testimony is released to both the State & defense, but it should be sealed. Sunshine laws aside, I pray they are never made public. Legally speaking, it is against everything I believe in. Grand jury witnesses should be able to speak freely and not be subjected to public scrutiny. That is one dangerous line to cross, imo. GA feeling safer to express his true feelings w/o facing the wrath of CA or anyone else, is a perfect example of my reasoning.

 

[BlOnDe_GuRrL]

Is GA's grand jury testimony online anywhere? I've searched and searched for it for months, but couldn't find it

Also the police interview where he said about knowing what the smell in the car was because he was in LE at one point?
All I can seem to find is the ZFG depo
Thx!

 

[beach]

Is GA's grand jury testimony online anywhere? I've searched and searched for it for months, but couldn't find it

Also the police interview where he said about knowing what the smell in the car was because he was in LE at one point?
All I can seem to find is the ZFG depo
Thx!

The grand jury testimony hasn't even been released to the SA or the defense yet, so NO, it is not public record. I personally hope it never is released for public review, legally speaking. GJ testimony is supposed to be secret.


The LE interview you refer to was released a long time ago and is very telling. I will try to find it for you and link it.

 

[beach]

Is GA's grand jury testimony online anywhere? I've searched and searched for it for months, but couldn't find it

Also the police interview where he said about knowing what the smell in the car was because he was in LE at one point?
All I can seem to find is the ZFG depo
Thx!

George has given several interviews, here are a couple of links to get you started. The first one is the WS thread link titled 'George Anthony Interview 7/24/08". There are links in that thread to transcripts and/or recordings.

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74549"]http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74549[/ame]



The next link is to GA's 8/4/08 recorded interview.

http://www.cfnews13.com/uploadedfile...nthoneyOne.WMA


Both are very good, telling interviews.

Sorry for the OT, mods. Just wanted to keep my word and supply those links.

Back to the Grand Jury testimony chat now.

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

I doubt GA's Grand Jury testimony will be released. What we probably will get to hear, if and when GA takes the stand at the murder trial, if he deviates from what he said initally, the SA will say the discrepancies, IMO..The truth should never change, it's the lies one has to remember and remembering the lies is going to be an uphill battle for him, IMO...one lie has to cover another lie and another and another...so, IMO, GA needs to start manning up, unless he wants to be a guest at OCJ...JMHO


Justice for Caylee

 

[The World According]

George has given several interviews, here are a couple of links to get you started. The first one is the WS thread link titled 'George Anthony Interview 7/24/08". There are links in that thread to transcripts and/or recordings.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74549



The next link is to GA's 8/4/08 recorded interview.

http://www.cfnews13.com/uploadedfile...nthoneyOne.WMA


Both are very good, telling interviews.

Sorry for the OT, mods. Just wanted to keep my word and supply those links.

Back to the Grand Jury testimony chat now.

Thank you very much for these. It is very interesting to review the evolution of his accounts. I do believe that by the time the trial gets here, mom and pop will be divorced. Apart from Cindy, George's story will come full circle Caylee being his priority and the save Casey at all costs mode will have subsided. (imo)

 

[ThinkTank]

The State asked Judge S. for permission to have George's GJ transcript in order to look for a specific discrepancy, and was granted. Judge S. ignored the Defense's request to receive a copy of the transcript at the same time the State got it. This GJ testimony has not been released to the public.
The Florida Sunshine Law is fairly clear. GJ testimony is exempt from the Sunshine Law. No release to the media/public. None

Sept 20, 2009
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=89239"]Motion for George's Grand Jury transcript - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]
Motion for George’s Grand Jury transcript

State motion:
http://media.myfoxorlando.com/photo...motions/1/lg/motions_filed_091709_Page_20.htm

Baez motion:
http://media.myfoxorlando.com/photo...motions/1/lg/motions_filed_091709_Page_21.htm

Oct 6, 2009
Judge Strickland’s ORDER
http://www.wftv.com/pdf/21218532/detail.html


http://www.wesh.com/news/21041514/detail.html
POSTED: 2:25 pm EDT September 21, 2009

State: George Anthony Contradicted Self

State Files Motion For Transcript Of Anthony's Testimony

ORLANDO, Fla. -- The state has requested a copy of George Anthony's testimony before a grab jury last October because it says Anthony contradicted himself in a later deposition.
George Anthony, whose daughter Casey is awaiting trial on murder charges in her daughter's death, "testified at deposition in a manner that, to the recollection of the undersigned, was materially inconsistent with his grand jury testimony on some points," the motion filed by Assistant State Attorney Jeffrey L. Ashton said.

 

[ThinkTank]

The Defense is asking Judge Perry, on Tuesday, to reconsider the Defense Motion, and Judge S. Order regarding George's GJ testimony transcript.
IMO the case law which the Defense cites, does not include Grand Jury testimony, which is in a different classification of secrecy, than any other Hearing transcript.
In the Defense Motion, it states that George allegedly gave conflicting testimony in his deposition in the "civil case" - Zenaida lawsuit. I had thought they were talking about conflicting testimony in George's depo which he gave the State - so, now I know better.
I also did not know that the State had decided that the conflicting statements were not material? I wonder if the State really did make that determination?

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/38831947/05062010-Motion-to-Reconsider-Prior-Motions

DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN PRIOR RULINGS BY DISQUALIFIED JUDGE

May 6, 2010
34 page Motion

excerpts from Motion:
re: George's Grand Jury testimony transcript

b. Motion for Production of Grand Jury Testimony of George Anthony filed by the state of Florida on September 16, 2009 and joined in by the defense, and the Order of the Court dated October 6, 2009.

page 4
12. As to the Motion for reconsideration regarding the Grand Jury Testimony, it was the prosecution in this case, Mr. Jeffrey Ashton, who filed a Motion of September 6, 2009. He, presumably in good faith, alleged that Mr. George Anthony had given materially inconsistent testimony in a deposition (civil case) regarding his prior Grand Jury testimony. A copy of Mr. Ashton's Motion is attached hereto as "Exhibit B" for the convenience of the Court.

13. The Motion was joined in by counsel for the defense, with a simultaneous request for the defense to be provided with that same testimony that was being sought and, ultimately, given to the state of Florida.

14. The Court entered its Order on October 6, 2009, without making provisions for production to the defense, "Pending further Order of the Court".

15. While the Court did reference Florida Statute 905.27, regarding secrecy, he apparently did not do a balancing test or weigh the policy behind confidential proceedings versus the Constitutional Rights of the accused. As stated by the United States Supreme Court a long time ago:
"It is unconscionable to allow the Government privileges to deprive
the accused of anything which might be material to his defense. This
principal is applicable in this case and the Trial Court's Order
depriving the Defendant access to the dependency hearing tape
constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law and a
miscarriage of justice, which cannot stand."

United States v. Reynolds, 345 U.S.1, 73 Supreme Court 528, 97 Law Ed 727 (1953). This declaration was cited with approval, and forcibly so by the 5th District Court of Appeal in the case of Powell v Foxman, 528 So.2d 91 (Fla. 5 DCA 1988). Accordingly, both the 5th District Court of Appeal and the United States Supreme Court have recognized clearly that otherwise privileged matters lose their protection when outweighed by the Defendant's Constitutional Right to cross examine.

16. The Defendant must not be relegated to a decision made by the prosecution, as to whether or not that which they sought, because of their good faith belief of inconsistent statement, should not now be disclosed, because they decided (apparently) that the differences were not material. This should be a matter for the defense to decide.

(clip)
page 16 - copy of State's MOTION FOR TRANSCRIPTION OF GRAND JURY TESTIMONY - Sept 17, 2009

 

[beach]

Thanks for clearing that up, ThinkTank!

When I posted earlier, I hurriedly scanned the defense's Motion for Reconsideration. I saw on pg. 1, paragraph 2 (b) where the defense joined into the SA's 9/16/09 motion on 10/6/09. I then fast-forwarded to the attached Exhibit B on pg. 16. I did not read the entire motion for reconsideration again to see where JS had already granted the SA's motion. From what I recalled earlier, the bulk of that motion was just pages & pages arguing about their rights to the TES docs.


It will be interesting to see if HHJP grants this request. I am thinking he probably will. I am fiercy protective of the secrecy of GJ witnesses testimony. However, I understand the SA request if they have reason to believe he lied under oath, either in his GJ testimony or civil depo. Sworn testimony in conflict, is just that. I just know if it is granted, the defense better keep they traps shut for once IF and until it is brought up at trial.

 

[ThinkTank]

Thanks for clearing that up, ThinkTank!

When I posted earlier, I hurriedly scanned the defense's Motion for Reconsideration. I saw on pg. 1, paragraph 2 (b) where the defense joined into the SA's 9/16/09 motion on 10/6/09. I then fast-forwarded to the attached Exhibit B on pg. 16. I did not read the entire motion for reconsideration again to see where JS had already granted the SA's motion. From what I recalled earlier, the bulk of that motion was just pages & pages arguing about their rights to the TES docs.


It will be interesting to see if HHJP grants this request. I am thinking he probably will. I am fiercy protective of the secrecy of GJ witnesses testimony. However, I understand the SA request if they have reason to believe he lied under oath, either in his GJ testimony or civil depo. Sworn testimony in conflict, is just that. I just know if it is granted, the defense better keep they traps shut for once IF and until it is brought up at trial.

I hear ya ..... I wonder though, if it will be up to Judge Perry to look at the specific portions of the Grand Jury testimony to see if the Judge agrees with the State, in that the conflicting statements are "not material" ... and then render the Defense motion a moot point. Why would the Defense still need a copy of George's GJ testimony transcript, if there are no conflicting statements being raised by the State at this time? I would think that the Defense needs to present an extra good reason for wanting the GJ testimony ... and just saying "well, the State got it ... so the Defense wants it too" would not cut it. I do not know how this all works, legally.

 

[beach]

I hear ya ..... I wonder though, if it will be up to Judge Perry to look at the specific portions of the Grand Jury testimony to see if the Judge agrees with the State, in that the conflicting statements are "not material" ... and then render the Defense motion a moot point. Why would the Defense still need a copy of George's GJ testimony transcript, if there are no conflicting statements being raised by the State at this time? I would think that the Defense needs to present an extra good reason for wanting the GJ testimony ... and just saying "well, the State got it ... so the Defense wants it too" would not cut it. I do not know how this all works, legally.

BBM

I dunno. And, I should know how because I am a paralegal. lol This is a very unique situation for me. I haven't seen GJ testimony released often....or even requested that it be released very often. I am totally curious about what basis HHJP would use when considering to grant or deny the defense request. My first thought was 'will he ask the SA if they found good cause and plan on using it to impeach GA if necessary at trial?' As you suggest, he could personally review the alleged statements in conflict, but as officers of the court, the SA has to answer him truthfully. Problem is, the SA may not know if they are even going to need to introduce those statements until trial - depending on how GA answers. I know that sounds confusing, but I honestly don't know. I posed the question in the Verified Attorney thread hoping that AZ or another one of our attorneys can shed more light on what to expect.

I just want to say again, that is some darn good digging you did to find that he had already granted the SA's motion but failed to address the defense's joint request. I can't believe that slipped by so many of us.

 

[AZlawyer]

I hear ya ..... I wonder though, if it will be up to Judge Perry to look at the specific portions of the Grand Jury testimony to see if the Judge agrees with the State, in that the conflicting statements are "not material" ... and then render the Defense motion a moot point. Why would the Defense still need a copy of George's GJ testimony transcript, if there are no conflicting statements being raised by the State at this time? I would think that the Defense needs to present an extra good reason for wanting the GJ testimony ... and just saying "well, the State got it ... so the Defense wants it too" would not cut it. I do not know how this all works, legally.

If the SA really did decide that the differences were immaterial, and therefore does not plan to use the transcript for cross-examination of George, I don't see what legal basis the defense would have for asking the judge to second-guess that decision. The judge can't MAKE the SA cross-examine someone on a certain point. And if the SA won't be using it at trial, I don't see what basis the defense has for violating grand-jury secrecy.

 

[Chiquita71]

From Today's Current News
Thank you AngelWhoCares
BBM Emphasis added by me.

http://www.wftv.com/news/23752570/detail.html

The judge did not override the previous rulings by Judge Stan Strickland.
(more at link)
(skip)
To keep sealed Casey's father's grand jury testimony that helped get Casey indicted for murder.

Judge Perry diplomatically told the defense to get moving already with its work on the case. :dance:

:twocents:
Sorry if this has been covered, I didn't know "it was being said/reported" that George's Grand Jury testimony "helped get Casey indicted for murder."

 

[Cayleefan]

I wonder if Cindy can see the grand jury testimony? Probably not. I'm guessing, whatever George tells her that he said, is all she can go on. I would love to know everything. Will that ALWAYS remain private? Does anyone know?

 

[steadychick]

Did anyone else besides George testify at the Grand Jury? Why did they not have Cindy testify? Makes me wonder if George really did see/know something that hasn't been revealed.

 

[believe09]

Our clue to his testimony is that SA says his deposition did NOT diverge from the his testimony at the grand jury....just a clue, but it might be enough to put it all together.

 

[believe09]

Did anyone else besides George testify at the Grand Jury? Why did they not have Cindy testify? Makes me wonder if George really did see/know something that hasn't been revealed.

I wonder if it had to do with the smell of the car or the subsequent cleaning of the car.

 

[faefrost]

Did anyone else besides George testify at the Grand Jury? Why did they not have Cindy testify? Makes me wonder if George really did see/know something that hasn't been revealed.

Just speculation, but the GJ is not a trial. The SA will only bring in just enough to get an indictment, preferably with minimal controversy.

With GA the SA could get the info they wanted. GA was well familiar with the rules of testifying under oath, and could be prodded to put forth some of his earlier statements to LE concerning the smell, and his initial contact with the vehicle. He was also supposedly the last person besides KC to see the victim.

Whereas bringing CA into the grand jury would be like lobbying in a hand grenade. An unpredictable explosion or rage and absurdity that really wasn't needed. The SA had everything they needed from CA on the 911 tapes. There was no reason to risk her going off on tangents about pizza etc.

 

[The World According]

It was ordered to be released to the State by the judge on October 6, 2009. In his order, the judge states that the gramd jury secrecy will remain until further order of the court.

So, I guess we won't get to see it any time soon.

Judge's order: http://www.wftv.com/pdf/21218532/detail.html

Thank you CarolinaMoon. Mr. Ashton pointed out in the hearing just that exact thing, that the State may not use it in any manner due to that exact Grand Jury secrecy being in effect until if as and when the court should order otherwise. So , if I understand that correctly, Mr. Ashton was permitted to review it to refresh his memory, period. After examination of it, Mr. Ashton filed a report, a notice that he did not have any basis for asking for it to be released. At that point the defense could have filed a motion, requesting to review it in camera ( in private with the judge ). He will not be using it to impeach George, he cannot even discuss it with anyone that wasn't in the grand jury hearing.. http://www.wftv.com/video/23758968/index.html

What I love about Judge Perry is he has already researched the matters being heard at the hearings scheduled, he ...as Judge Strickland would say, is then able to "Rule and Roll. In fairness to Judge Strickland, this judge's schedule it entirely different than his, and therefore there is a reasonable expectation he has the time to do so.

My guess is that George testified to the smell that in his experience was human decomposition,
how Casey fought to not have him near the trunk the day that she surprised him at home after the gas cans incident,
that he had not seen or heard the voice of his granddaughter since the 16th of June , 2008,
he had come to understand everything his daughter told the family, nearly every single thing was a lie
and he certainly had never met or talked to or even viewed Casey on a call from the would be Zanny the Nanny.

George did venture very far afield from that in the civil depo. It will not be necessary, imo to pull up grand jury testimony to compare and contrast if George gets on the stand in the murder trial with any altered memory . The reason is there is a wealth of other recorded, under oath statements he made that align with the grand jury testament. For example, he was under oath relaying these very things to detectives and federal officers. Therefore, we do not need to try to breach the sacrosanct grand jury testimony.
I am hoping that the defense will understand that now that Mr. Ashton has expressed on the record at the hearing that he cannot and will not be seeking to use the grand jury testimony to impeach George. They pick the wrong battles. In the words of Mr. Nejame, that description is being overly generous.

The matter is now decided, the judge has ruled. Judge Strickland's order will stand. I doubt the defense will let go of this bone, even so, as very very often they continue to argue matters that have been ruled on.

My posts are my opinion only. I listened very carefully to what Mr. Ashton said, and what Mr. Mason was apparently misinformed about. This matter imo, is moot now. Minute 20 is where this section is. Mr. Mason is mixing up the civil suit with George's state subpoenaed depo. That is ironic, because Mr. Mason stated on the record here that he feels Judge Strickland was not understanding things in this matter. Pot, kettle, hello.View attachment 9414