Procedure and legal questions

[john's mom]

I have a very real concern that JB is simply not qualified to handle a case of this magnitude. It is an attorney's job to preserve the record on appeal every step of the way pre-trial, during trial and post trial. In order to do that, when you file motions or respond to motions or make objections they are required to be specific--you have to state the LEGAL GROUNDS for each, you have to cite Supporting LEGAL Authority. It is not a judge's job to do your work for you. If you don't do this then the appellate court has no way to judge whether or not the judge made reversible error. To date, the majority of the work coming out of JB's office is caca.

Snipped and bold by me~

Caca.....funny!
Since the majority of work coming out of JB's office is caca, will this alone be grounds for appeal after all is said and done?

 

[ThoughtElf]

Will CA be allowed to attend the Motion hearing Friday?

If so, would BC encourage her not to?

 

[countzero]

Will CA be allowed to attend the Motion hearing Friday?

If so, would BC encourage her not to?

http://www.wesh.com/caseyanthony/18575471/detail.html


Nope, she has to be there. I am glad she will be there and that it will interfere with her schedule of reading, eating, sleeping or whatever she does.

 

[ThoughtElf]

http://www.wesh.com/caseyanthony/18575471/detail.html


Nope, she has to be there. I am glad she will be there and that it will interfere with her schedule of reading, eating, sleeping or whatever she does.

Sorry CountZ, I was asking if Cindy A will be allowed to attend Friday's motion hearing, and if her lawyer, Brad C., will try to keep her away.

(i.e. will we see CA face to face with KC for the first time in months - maybe I will make a new thread.)

 

[bunnyphoenix1]

Will CA be allowed to attend the Motion hearing Friday?

If so, would BC encourage her not to?

I can't see any reason why she would not be allowed to attend. I think BC would discourage her as he wants the spotlight all to himself and will lose some of it if she is there!

 

[3doglady]

I just have to say it, and I know it's been said before...The evidence released is all pertinent to the case, but not all evidence is released to the public. The good stuff, so to speak, will come out at trial. They don't release everything. The doc dumps are not complete for public consumption because the condemning evidence is being withheld for trial.

Sorry but I'm still confused. I thought that all evidence had to be released for discovery for the defense and that the FLA sunshine law allowed the media/public to obtain everything released for discovery. Does the sunshine law allow certain evidence to be withheld and who decides what evidence can be withheld under the sunshine law?

 

[mydailyopinions]

Hopefully someone can explain this to me. In todays news thread, it shows that Baez has filed a motion that is his objection to Casey appearing in court on Friday since she has waived her right. I understand why the SA asked that she be there, due to appeals later on down the road.
Why would Baez complain about the media attention, and how her appearance is being discussed when he plans to seek a change of venue? I don't understand his logic. The Orlando Sentinel article he attached only says how she was in the blue jumpsuit and shackled..
Is this normal for defense attorney's ? Or is this Baez's lack of experience?
http://www.wftv.com/news/18577414/detail.html

 

[impatientredhead]

Hopefully someone can explain this to me. In todays news thread, it shows that Baez has filed a motion that is his objection to Casey appearing in court on Friday since she has waived her right. I understand why the SA asked that she be there, due to appeals later on down the road.
Why would Baez complain about the media attention, and how her appearance is being discussed when he plans to seek a change of venue? I don't understand his logic. The Orlando Sentinel article he attached only says how she was in the blue jumpsuit and shackled..
Is this normal for defense attorney's ? Or is this Baez's lack of experience?
http://www.wftv.com/news/18577414/detail.html

JB is inexperienced and has not mastered picking your battles yet. He would be better served by coaching his client on how to react when your dead daughter, who has yet to be buried, is discussed in court.

 

[bailee]

IMO
Baez is going overboard on these motions.

He best be careful least he become a thorn in Judge S's side

 

[countzero]

JB is inexperienced and has not mastered picking your battles yet. He would be better served by coaching his client on how to react when your dead daughter, who has yet to be buried, is discussed in court.

:clap::clap::clap:

 

[countzero]

I can't see any reason why she would not be allowed to attend. I think BC would discourage her as he wants the spotlight all to himself and will lose some of it if she is there!

BC is a quick learner of sorts. Betcha that was the one thing that CA didn't count on, someone else trying to steal her thunder.

 

[AZlawyer]

OK, there seems to be a lot of confusion about the interaction between the Sunshine Law and the disclosure rules and what can/cannot be withheld from the defense/the public.

Florida Rule Crim. Procedure 3.220 (disclosure to defense): http://www.cobblawfirm.com/Rules_Discovery.htm

Handbook for Law Enforcement re: Sunshine Law (public records disclosure):
http://myfloridalegal.com/webfiles.n...008LEGuide.pdf

It seems to me that, pursuant to Rule 3.220, the state would have to turn over to the defense lots of the documents we are assuming are being withheld--for example, any written statement or summary of an oral statement from Annie, who is on the state's witness list. In addition, based on the Handbook for LE compliance with the Sunshine Law, p. 37, it seems to me that once a document is identified as having to be turned over to the defense, it also has to be turned over to the public (with rare exceptions that I don't think apply here).

Is anyone aware of any orders from this judge limiting release of information to the public or to the defense? If not, I don't see how the state could be withholding any "bombshell" documents for use at trial.

 

[MADJGNLAW]

I am confused. The judge ordered for Casey to be in court on Friday. Then Baez files a motion stating that it is within Casey's right not to attend pre-trial hearings. My question is this. If it is within her right and the judge orders her to be in court, are her rights being violated?

 

[ThoughtElf]

I am confused. The judge ordered for Casey to be in court on Friday. Then Baez files a motion stating that it is within Casey's right not to attend pre-trial hearings. My question is this. If it is within her right and the judge orders her to be in court, are her rights being violated?

I am far from a lawyer, but in a previous discussion we had, and in review of excellent case law references posted by an attorney, plus their follow-up answers, my understanding was that ultimately the Judge does have the right to make KC attend the hearings.

ETA: Tried to find the thread/specific posts - haven't yet. Might have been 'Defense Team - what now #5'. Still looking.

 

[MADJGNLAW]

I am far from a lawyer, but in a previous discussion we had, and in review of excellent case law references posted by an attorney, plus their follow-up answers, my understanding was that ultimately the Judge does have the right to make KC attend the hearings.

Thank you :blowkiss:

 

[DotsEyes]

The State can not withhold any "bombshells" from the defense. It would constitue reversible error.

If JB doesn't like the fact that inmate KC showed up to a televised court proceeding in shackles and a blue prison ensemble, then he should request that she be allowed to appear in some of her own clothing and that the shackles be removed from her hands while in court. I know he is in fear of her being seen by the public because her every move, expression or lack thereof will be discussed ad nauseum. But hey that is what happens when you kill your baby, people talk.

 

[jnTexas]

I am far from a lawyer, but in a previous discussion we had, and in review of excellent case law references posted by an attorney, plus their follow-up answers, my understanding was that ultimately the Judge does have the right to make KC attend the hearings.

ETA: Tried to find the thread/specific posts - haven't yet. Might have been 'Defense Team - what now #5'. Still looking.

I hope you are right. I think the Judge is trying keep out the possiblty of an appeal. He wants her to see how this circus show is going before the trial starts. I

sure wish he would bring up who has the custody of the remains and why the victim has not been laid to rest. Is that with in his court?

 

[mydailyopinions]

The State can not withhold any "bombshells" from the defense. It would constitue reversible error.

If JB doesn't like the fact that inmate KC showed up to a televised court proceeding in shackles and a blue prison ensemble, then he should request that she be allowed to appear in some of her own clothing and that the shackles be removed from her hands while in court. I know he is in fear of her being seen by the public because her every move, expression or lack thereof will be discussed ad nauseum. But hey that is what happens when you kill your baby, people talk.

If the state is holding information because the investigation into the evidence they have is ongoing..such as waiting for results, followup statements, or continuing to have leads come in on such evidence, doesn't this excuse them from turning it over to the defense? Wouldn't their work have to be completed first?

 

[SoCalSleuth]

No one knows for sure that they are passing notes back and forth to or from her family. That is speculation so far, and we don't know it is a fact.
It is possible, I guess, but not proven fact, so not much anyone can do about it. I suppose the guards could ask to see these notes, make sure they are not to or from the Anthonys, but then that would be a breach of attorney/client privilege, so they can't or won't do that.
As for Baez spending so much time at the jail, do we really know that? Or does he just stop by for an hour or so every day? That would not be unusual, considering that he is prepping her for trial and preparing his case. IMO, it is the media who is reporting this, and they are not always truthful.

Yes we do know because KC asked her parents during a videotaped visit whether they received the letters she wrote each of them and then gave to JB to give to them. They replied in the affirmative.

 

[SoCalSleuth]

If the state is holding information because the investigation into the evidence they have is ongoing..such as waiting for results, followup statements, or continuing to have leads come in on such evidence, doesn't this excuse them from turning it over to the defense? Wouldn't their work have to be completed first?

They can't hold onto documents which they have just because their investigation is ongoing or they want a supplemental statement. If they have a forensic report in they have to turn it over. If they have a statement from someone on their witness list they have to turn it over. They do not have to turn anything over that is not yet completed or hasn't been put in written form. For instance, if they took notes of their interview with Annie they don't have to turn those over. If they wrote those notes up into a report then they have to turn it over.