Procedure and legal questions

[ZubenElSchemali]

I'm hoping someone with a legal background will address these questions. Isn't it highly inflammatory for a judge to make a statement that something he isn't going to allow the public to see is highly inflammatory against the defendant? He could have accomplished judging this video not appropriate to be released without that comment and based on the means under which it was obtained, couldn't he?

If the defense has uncovered potential violations and could ask for sanctions, is it appropriate for the judge to refuse to hear the evidence in a hearing and rule without that hearing that has been requested?

If the judge is made aware through a deposition that an officer was ordered by another LE agency to observe and record what goes on between an attorney and his client, is he obligated to take any sort of action? The same question would apply to the SA office.

Thanks,
Connie

 

[MaedchenX]

I'm hoping someone with a legal background will address these questions. Isn't it highly inflammatory for a judge to make a statement that something he isn't going to allow the public to see is highly inflammatory against the defendant? He could have accomplished judging this video not appropriate to be released without that comment and based on the means under which it was obtained, couldn't he?

If the defense has uncovered potential violations and could ask for sanctions, is it appropriate for the judge to refuse to hear the evidence in a hearing and rule without that hearing that has been requested?

If the judge is made aware through a deposition that an officer was ordered by another LE agency to observe and record what goes on between an attorney and his client, is he obligated to take any sort of action? The same question would apply to the SA office.

Thanks,
Connie

I would think, and I am certainly no legal mind, that the judge is required to give a legal rationale for his ruling. In this case that the public would likely react so strongly that it would be unfairly predjudicial to the defendant before trial. What is he going to say, 'I won't allow the release of this video because it is a Tuesday'? Again, I really have no idea myself, but hope that any judge is required to be transparent with the reasoning for his ruling. I would hate to find out that judges are able to make a ruling of any kind without explanation or justification whether to those he has ruled against or the general public, in any case.

ETA: I don't think that Judge Strickland's observation of the video as "highly inflammatory" is revealing as to what is contained upon it. He is merely stating that there this could incite a visceral emotional response for those that view it, such as anger, or for others perhaps pity, that would outweigh whatever value it may have at the present time.

Hopefully one of our legal eagles can clarify.

 

[whiteangora]

I'm hoping someone with a legal background will address these questions. Isn't it highly inflammatory for a judge to make a statement that something he isn't going to allow the public to see is highly inflammatory against the defendant? He could have accomplished judging this video not appropriate to be released without that comment and based on the means under which it was obtained, couldn't he?

If the defense has uncovered potential violations and could ask for sanctions, is it appropriate for the judge to refuse to hear the evidence in a hearing and rule without that hearing that has been requested?

If the judge is made aware through a deposition that an officer was ordered by another LE agency to observe and record what goes on between an attorney and his client, is he obligated to take any sort of action? The same question would apply to the SA office.

Thanks,
Connie

I was wondering when the judge would get thrown into the bag of what some misconstrue as 'the bad guys'. Let's see, that bag is getting mighty full, we have OC Sheriffs, OC Detectives, FBI, State Attorney, Jail workers, Oak Ridge Labs, ............who'd I leave out?:waitasec:

 

[ClockWatcher]

I was wondering when the judge would get thrown into the bag of what some misconstrue as 'the bad guys'. Let's see, that bag is getting mighty full, we have OC Sheriffs, OC Detectives, FBI, State Attorney, Jail workers, Oak Ridge Labs, ............who'd I leave out?:waitasec:

Anthropologist, botanist and the pizza delivery guy.
:blowkiss:

 

[Bittiness39]

Truth be told, we wouldn't be hearing about the highly inflammatory tape that will harden the jury pool against that "sweetheart" KC if her "galactically stupid" attorney hadn't fought the gag order in the first place.

 

[beach]

I'm hoping someone with a legal background will address these questions. Isn't it highly inflammatory for a judge to make a statement that something he isn't going to allow the public to see is highly inflammatory against the defendant? He could have accomplished judging this video not appropriate to be released without that comment and based on the means under which it was obtained, couldn't he?

If the defense has uncovered potential violations and could ask for sanctions, is it appropriate for the judge to refuse to hear the evidence in a hearing and rule without that hearing that has been requested?

If the judge is made aware through a deposition that an officer was ordered by another LE agency to observe and record what goes on between an attorney and his client, is he obligated to take any sort of action? The same question would apply to the SA office.

Thanks,
Connie

I'm a paralegal, however not in FL. Your first question, in particular, is directly related to the Sunshine Law. It is my guess that JS was obligated (or at least, felt compelled) to offer some explanation as to why he was sealing the video since that action conflicts with the Sunshine Law.

Question #2 - the defense can make any motion they would like and the Judge can choose to grant or deny a hearing. He can rule without granting a hearing if he thinks it is a waste of the court's time and resources.

Question #3 - depos are not file-stamped court records, per se. ie., you don't 'file' a depo with the clerk's office. They can be 'attached' to a Motion to support the body of the Motion. see response to Question #2.


If there is a FL legal eagle hanging around, I welcome you to rip me apart. lol sooo, take my knowledge for what it is worth.

 

[aprilshowers]

I'm so sorry if this has been asked, but I'm not feeling well, and can't read all the posts.

Will the jury be allowed to watch the video of her reaction in jail?

If not, why?

Thank you

 

[Marina2]

I'm hoping someone with a legal background will address these questions. Isn't it highly inflammatory for a judge to make a statement that something he isn't going to allow the public to see is highly inflammatory against the defendant? He could have accomplished judging this video not appropriate to be released without that comment and based on the means under which it was obtained, couldn't he?

If the defense has uncovered potential violations and could ask for sanctions, is it appropriate for the judge to refuse to hear the evidence in a hearing and rule without that hearing that has been requested?

If the judge is made aware through a deposition that an officer was ordered by another LE agency to observe and record what goes on between an attorney and his client, is he obligated to take any sort of action? The same question would apply to the SA office.

Thanks,
Connie

text bolded and colored by me.

Judge Strickland cited case law, Florida Freedom Newspapers vs. McCrary, 520 So.2d 32 (Fla. 1988) and applied the three part test referenced in that case. His ruling is based on the media's right to access vs. the defendant's right to a fair trial. The way in which the video was obtained was not the basis for his ruling so that words to this effect would not be included. The comments made by the judge were necessary to explain why he felt the video met the criteria of the three part test. He stated that the court is "loathe to shield any public record" and gave his valid reasons for doing just that.

 

[OneLostGrl]

I was wondering when the judge would get thrown into the bag of what some misconstrue as 'the bad guys'. Let's see, that bag is getting mighty full, we have OC Sheriffs, OC Detectives, FBI, State Attorney, Jail workers, Oak Ridge Labs, ............who'd I leave out?:waitasec:

haha. I'm with ya. It's all kinda silly really. Like Cindy blaming everyone but her daughter.. the whole world must be out to get the Anthony's.

 

[beach]

I'm so sorry if this has been asked, but I'm not feeling well, and can't read all the posts.

Will the jury be allowed to watch the video of her reaction in jail?

If not, why?

Thank you

That won't be determined until trial and only if the SA opts to move the court to show the video. If that does happen, I believe JS will allow it. It might show 'consciousness of guilt'... at least, I think he will let the jury interpret whether it does or not.

 

[ZubenElSchemali]

I'm a paralegal, however not in FL. Your first question, in particular, is directly related to the Sunshine Law. It is my guess that JS was obligated (or at least, felt compelled) to offer some explanation as to why he was sealing the video since that action conflicts with the Sunshine Law.

Question #2 - the defense can make any motion they would like and the Judge can choose to grant or deny a hearing. He can rule without granting a hearing if he thinks it is a waste of the court's time and resources.

Question #3 - depos are not file-stamped court records, per se. ie., you don't 'file' a depo with the clerk's office. They can be 'attached' to a Motion to support the body of the Motion. see response to Question #2.


If there is a FL legal eagle hanging around, I welcome you to rip me apart. lol sooo, take my knowledge for what it is worth.

Thank you Peace. Wouldn't there be a less prejudicial word to choose than inflammatory though? I refer to the thread, "Motion to Delay Judge's ruling on the Video" from the point where the judges order was made public, forward, as an example of what I mean. Most are assuming the tape shows more than came out in the interviews and depos and that it would convince everyone of her guilt before trial commences. I think his words did more to inflame opinion than the video ever could. My opinion of course. I would think if there is any hint that the attorney client privilege was violated, medical or anything else that is just cause to keep it from the public view. But he chose not to even address those issues.

You seem to be saying the judge has the power to ignore allegations made, not hear them. So, my next question would then be, would that give the defense and open door to go over his head, ask for him to be removed from the case because he refused to address the complaint regarding attorney client privilege and the Sheriff's office ordering this observation?

Thanks again.

 

[Gma Kat]

I'm hoping someone with a legal background will address these questions. Isn't it highly inflammatory for a judge to make a statement that something he isn't going to allow the public to see is highly inflammatory against the defendant? He could have accomplished judging this video not appropriate to be released without that comment and based on the means under which it was obtained, couldn't he?

If the defense has uncovered potential violations and could ask for sanctions, is it appropriate for the judge to refuse to hear the evidence in a hearing and rule without that hearing that has been requested?

If the judge is made aware through a deposition that an officer was ordered by another LE agency to observe and record what goes on between an attorney and his client, is he obligated to take any sort of action? The same question would apply to the SA office.

Thanks,
Connie

OMG! I thought the same thing! By telling us the video is highly inflammatory and may prejudice the jury pool AGAINST KC is akin to saying the video makes her look as guilty as she appears. Only it's the JUDGE saying it!!!!!!! This case is beyond CWAZEY!!!!!!!!!:crosseyed:

 

[beach]

Thank you Peace. Wouldn't there be a less prejudicial word to choose than inflammatory though? I refer to the thread, "Motion to Delay Judge's ruling on the Video" from the point where the judges order was made public, forward, as an example of what I mean. Most are assuming the tape shows more than came out in the interviews and depos and that it would convince everyone of her guilt before trial commences. I think his words did more to inflame opinion than the video ever could. My opinion of course. I would think if there is any hint that the attorney client privilege was violated, medical or anything else that is just cause to keep it from the public view. But he chose not to even address those issues.

You seem to be saying the judge has the power to ignore allegations made, not hear them. So, my next question would then be, would that give the defense and open door to go over his head, ask for him to be removed from the case because he refused to address the complaint regarding attorney client privilege and the Sheriff's office ordering this observation?

Thanks again.

Nooooo, not what I meant at all! I guess I wasn't very clear on that. I hesitate to be very specific because I have not read all of the Defense motions in regards to violation of atty/client privilege or even suppressing the video. Has Baez filed a specific motion in re. violation of that privilege? or just included that fact to support in re. suppressing release of the video? It gets kinda technical here.

in re. the word 'inflammatory' - i understand your concern, however, i don't know what word he could have used other than that, honestly. he pretty much had to explain WHY it would affect KC's right to a fair trial - that it would 'inflame' a potential jury pool. I went to Thesaurus.com and didn't see much else that sounded any better, yet conveyed the reason for his decision.

 

[beach]

I would think if there is any hint that the attorney client privilege was violated, medical or anything else that is just cause to keep it from the public view. But he chose not to even address those issues.

--respectfully snipped

okay, i get what you are saying here now...

any perceived violation of atty/client privilege would have happened after she viewed the televised report. altogether a seperate legal issue

as for HIPAA violations, I'm not sure. I would venture to guess that he didn't feel her medical privacy rights had been violated.

 

[Marina2]

OMG! I thought the same thing! By telling us the video is highly inflammatory and may prejudice the jury pool AGAINST KC is akin to saying the video makes her look as guilty as she appears. Only it's the JUDGE saying it!!!!!!! This case is beyond CWAZEY!!!!!!!!!:crosseyed:

Text bolded by me.

Probably not nearly as bad as if the public actually viewed the video. A picture is worth....

The judge's order necessitated an explanation for sealing the video.

It's a classic case of "You can't have your cake and eat it too."

Considering the inflammatory nature of the video, I think JB would much rather the public hear the judge's comments than have the video available for viewing.

Is there any way that JB could have forseen the way the order would be worded and thus, decide against the motion? I guess that's where years of experience may have helped him. He would have known how the order would sound. Or, did he expect this and decide it is still better than the alternative?

 

[Bittiness39]

Thank you Peace. Wouldn't there be a less prejudicial word to choose than inflammatory though? I refer to the thread, "Motion to Delay Judge's ruling on the Video" from the point where the judges order was made public, forward, as an example of what I mean. Most are assuming the tape shows more than came out in the interviews and depos and that it would convince everyone of her guilt before trial commences. I think his words did more to inflame opinion than the video ever could. My opinion of course. I would think if there is any hint that the attorney client privilege was violated, medical or anything else that is just cause to keep it from the public view. But he chose not to even address those issues.

You seem to be saying the judge has the power to ignore allegations made, not hear them. So, my next question would then be, would that give the defense and open door to go over his head, ask for him to be removed from the case because he refused to address the complaint regarding attorney client privilege and the Sheriff's office ordering this observation?

Thanks again.

You seem to be very knowledgeable about the legal matters pertaining to this particular case. Do you think it might be difficult to recuse a judge when the defense was so flat out against the gag order that the prosecution requested? FYI, I am a law school grad myself.

 

[beach]

Text bolded by me.

Probably not nearly as bad as if the public actually viewed the video. A picture is worth....

The judge's order necessitated an explanation for sealing the video.

It's a classic case of "You can't have your cake and eat it too."

Considering the inflammatory nature of the video, I think JB would much rather the public hear the judge's comments than have the video available for viewing.

Is there any way that JB could have forseen the way the order would be worded and thus, decide against the motion? I guess that's where years of experience may have helped him. He would have known how the order would sound. Or, did he expect this and decide it is still better than the alternative?

I betcha if AL asserts herself since she is technically lead counsel now we'll be seeing more well-thought out strategies and less minutae about things that don't matter so much when it comes to the big picture. If things don't change, it will speak volumes to me about who is driving that train.

 

[Marina2]

You seem to be very knowledgeable about the legal matters pertaining to this particular case. Do you think it might be difficult to recuse a judge when the defense was so flat out against the gag order that the prosecution requested? FYI, I am a law school grad myself.

LittleBitty, I have a question about gag orders (protective orders?). When a gag order is in place, does it deny the public access to any or all records via the Sunshine Law? Or, can an individual still acquire them through the SA office? Thanks.

 

[ZubenElSchemali]

Thank you peace. I understand better now. I went back and reread the amended motion and see that he asks for the court to seal the videotape based on a violation of her 4th, 5th 6th and 7th amendment rights including interfering with her right to council. I thought I remembered him asking for sanctions earlier and perhaps that was in the original or just stated in court. But this amended motion doesn't ask for anything other than sealing the video. But I was wondering if when the judge becomes aware of violations if he is obligated to do something. I thought if an attorney became aware of a law being broken they were obligated to report it. If she was kept from her attorney under false presences, that is a clear violation of her rights as is taking notes on a meeting between attorney and client, I would think, even if he didn't believe it was a violation of her medical rights.

ETA: I also noticed Baez used the word inflamatory himself. But I am more concerned with the judges wording at this point. It could be said that the way the whole thing was orchestrated was meant to create an inflammatory video, especially by accidentally releasing the interviews that clearly left out the abnormality of the order and their personal feelings about being told to do this, along with their observations. If it isn't ok for the accused to lie it isn't ok for them to lie either.

 

[Bittiness39]

LittleBitty, I have a question about gag orders (protective orders?). When a gag order is in place, does it deny the public access to any or all records via the Sunshine Law? Or, can an individual still acquire them through the SA office? Thanks.

To be fair, I am a law school grad from Texas mind you, we don't have the sunshine law here. However, it is my understanding that a gag order (in the typical sense) functions as an umbrella for all documents related to the impending trial. Most times, the public is not given access to all of the collected evidence until the night before the trial. If that. I would defer to anyone knowledgeable about Florida law...hope that helps. I would like to be more informative. Sorry. :blowkiss: