State wants answers from Baez

[cottoncandy]

Well JB cited "confusion" which means that he is basically saying he's completely incompetent. And probably shouldn't be representing anyone. Or a liar. Either way HHJP is gonna have fun.

Definitely more fun than Cheney will be having. And poor Jose. :laugh::laugh:

 

[nums24]

Don't think anyone asked for anything to be excluded. I think the request was for the defense to be held in contempt. Big difference. That wouldn't delay the trial or be an appealable issue.

I agree with you. They are looking at a monetary penalty. Ya know, out of their own pocket. Which will NOT effect the trial in any way, shape or form. ICA will not be punished, and shouldn't. And tax payers shouldn't pay for it either!

During yesterday's hearing, HHJP said he would exclude testimony of Furton if he needed to based on LDB's explanation of what was said or rather not said during the deposition last Saturday. HHJP said the motion would be heard March 23rd.

 

[Intermezzo]

I wonder exactly who will argue this tho, the last time it was mommie mason who tried to bail out the "young and inexperienced" baez. This time, I am looking forward to the "confused" baez himself standing before Judge Perry.

:great:

Not only Baez but Mason as well, I hope.
In the email to JBP's assistant, Baez said Mason was just as confused if not more...

 

[Jomo]

During yesterday's hearing, HHJP said he would exclude testimony of Furton if he needed to based on LDB's explanation of what was said or rather not said during the deposition last Saturday. HHJP said the motion would be heard March 23rd.

I always feel a little confused about this case. If it isn't about one thing, it is about another. I seriously try to follow and read about all that I can, but it is difficult to keep track of all of the pending issues and overlapping deadlines and things that should have been taken care of but weren't. I haven't taken any notes so I appreciate all of you who have and are much better organized than me on the issues.

I understand that on March 2 JB and co have to answer to not filing the summary to the court and SA of what they are objecting to for the Frye hearing, but when will they be held accountable for not submitting all of the expert reports?

The reason why I ask this is because in the last hearing I heard JB talking about "Furton is willing to write a complete report" and why is the judge even considering allowing it if it is past the deadline?

Did I hear correctly that the points made in the depositions will be summarized (I assume by someone in HHBPJ's office) and any testimony in Furtons report that is new (not previously mentioned in a depo) will not be allowed? Is that why HHBPJ is allowing the late report? Was Furton listed as an expert about the cadaver dogs? Was he depoed on this? If so and this deposition is to be used at trial, why has it not been released to the public? Just like Dr. G's deposition? I thought the rules of discovery meant that things expected to used at trial had to be shared with the SA (and therefore released to the public)?

Is the state objecting to the late reports? Is the March 2 hearing also a status hearing where all of those matters that had been left hanging are to be answered?

 

[Jomo]

Okay, thanks to A News Junkie's uploaded videos of the Feb. 25th hearing :blowkiss: , I have answered some of my "now silly" questions.

Dr. Furton gave a deposition. LDB told the judge that Furton "begged off" on the SA questions relating to the reliability of the canines and claimed that he had not been retained to comment on that issue.

Dr. Furton did submit a "court ordered" report and there was no mention of the canine issues in his report. LDB said that the mention of this expert related to this issue (in an email Feb. 24 THE DAY BEFORE!!!) was a surprise. (JB attempting testimony by ambush?)

JB argued that Furton was listed to testify about the dog issues....

(starting at the 2:06 mark)
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/user/WSANEWSJUNKIE#p/u/4/fBhQjBRtT_s"]YouTube - WSANEWSJUNKIE's Channel[/ame]

I have to watch all of this again!

 

[faefrost]

I always feel a little confused about this case. If it isn't about one thing, it is about another. I seriously try to follow and read about all that I can, but it is difficult to keep track of all of the pending issues and overlapping deadlines and things that should have been taken care of but weren't. I haven't taken any notes so I appreciate all of you who have and are much better organized than me on the issues.

I understand that on March 2 JB and co have to answer to not filing the summary to the court and SA of what they are objecting to for the Frye hearing, but when will they be held accountable for not submitting all of the expert reports?

The reason why I ask this is because in the last hearing I heard JB talking about "Furton is willing to write a complete report" and why is the judge even considering allowing it if it is past the deadline?

Did I hear correctly that the points made in the depositions will be summarized (I assume by someone in HHBPJ's office) and any testimony in Furtons report that is new (not previously mentioned in a depo) will not be allowed? Is that why HHBPJ is allowing the late report? Was Furton listed as an expert about the cadaver dogs? Was he depoed on this? If so and this deposition is to be used at trial, why has it not been released to the public? Just like Dr. G's deposition? I thought the rules of discovery meant that things expected to used at trial had to be shared with the SA (and therefore released to the public)?

Is the state objecting to the late reports? Is the March 2 hearing also a status hearing where all of those matters that had been left hanging are to be answered?

I don't believe HHJP actually allowed the late report from Furton. I think Furton has already given a report and testimony regarding a specific matter, and been deposed by the state over it. But JB is now seeking to sneak in another report from him in order to spread or creep his area of expertise to in cover the dogs. HHJP isn't buying it. But simply wasn't outright saying so at a money hearing. He made it pretty clear that he would review all transcripts and reports filed with the court and any testimony not covered in them was absolutely out. I took it as a pretty clear message that he will not be allowing Dr. Furtons new materials. I'm not sure that it sunk in with JB however.

HHJP will confront and deal with this sort of issue with KC present.

 

[NoNameLeft]

During the status hearing, when Judge Perry said expert opinions not offered in a report or deposition would be disallowed during testimony, Mr. Ashton specifically asked if this also included the pre-trial hearings. And at that time the Judge said it didn't apply to the pre-trial hearings. To me that sounds like Dr. Furton is allowed to testify about the K9 issue in March, but he can't offer that opinion during trial. :waitasec:

 

[P1569]

During the status hearing, when Judge Perry said expert opinions not offered in a report or deposition would be disallowed during testimony, Mr. Ashton specifically asked if this also included the pre-trial hearings. And at that time the Judge said it didn't apply to the pre-trial hearings. To me that sounds like Dr. Furton is allowed to testify about the K9 issue in March, but he can't offer that opinion during trial. :waitasec:

Yes CJPerry did state that during that status hearing. But also what was stated in the last hearing is that during Dr. Furton's deposition he was specifically asked by LDB if he was going to testify to the canine issue and Dr. Furton replied by stating he was not retained by the defense for this. So in other words Dr. Furton imo cannot know be persuaded by Baez now to submit a report for this issue. Dr. Furton will not be testifying to this motion per CJPerry because it is not that he didn't submit a report about the issue, imo it is because the good doctor stated that he wasn't retained by the defense to do so in his deposition. mo

 

[Intermezzo]

Okay, thanks to A News Junkie's uploaded videos of the Feb. 25th hearing :blowkiss: , I have answered some of my "now silly" questions.

Dr. Furton gave a deposition. LDB told the judge that Furton "begged off" on the SA questions relating to the reliability of the canines and claimed that he had not been retained to comment on that issue.

Dr. Furton did submit a "court ordered" report and there was no mention of the canine issues in his report. LDB said that the mention of this expert related to this issue (in an email Feb. 24 THE DAY BEFORE!!!) was a surprise. (JB attempting testimony by ambush?)

JB argued that Furton was listed to testify about the dog issues....

(starting at the 2:06 mark)
YouTube - WSANEWSJUNKIE's Channel

I have to watch all of this again!

bbm

IMO. YES! any which way he can do it and if no one calls him on it then all the better for him.

 

[Lera213]

I bet you 10 to 1 that the Judge will allow it, as long as SA office can depo him once again and in timely manner, like this week.

 

[faefrost]

I bet you 10 to 1 that the Judge will allow it, as long as SA office can depo him once again and in timely manner, like this week.

I actually don't think so. The judge had already previously hinted that matters involving the dogs are established law and are not subject to Frye review. Which means that the training certification and handling of the individual dogs have to be challenged, and not the science of the dogs. And none of JB's experts appear to be vets or dog handling or training specialists or anyone expert to testify on dog certification.

I think HHJP is going to in many ways cut the defense off at the knees in this next hearing. There is an extremely good chance that he will strike any of their Fry motions or requests save the air testing from the trunk. Which then just leaves them with experts having to make their case in front of the jury itself, but limited by what reports and depositions have been submitted. Heck even the air testing challenge may be struck as the deadline for outlining what they were seeking to challenge was missed. HHJP may let it in and then let the appeals chips land where they may, gambling that the appeals courts do not tend to look favorably on failure due to missed deadlines in such matters.

Tuesday will truly be a make or break day for the defense, and all early indications are they are already entering into it well weighted towards the break side.

 

[Intermezzo]

Okay, thanks to A News Junkie's uploaded videos of the Feb. 25th hearing :blowkiss: , I have answered some of my "now silly" questions.

Dr. Furton gave a deposition. LDB told the judge that Furton "begged off" on the SA questions relating to the reliability of the canines and claimed that he had not been retained to comment on that issue.

Dr. Furton did submit a "court ordered" report and there was no mention of the canine issues in his report. LDB said that the mention of this expert related to this issue (in an email Feb. 24 THE DAY BEFORE!!!) was a surprise. (JB attempting testimony by ambush?)

JB argued that Furton was listed to testify about the dog issues....

(starting at the 2:06 mark)
YouTube - WSANEWSJUNKIE's Channel

I have to watch all of this again!

JBP asks Baez "to enlighten us to what she just said that he(Furton) was not listed as being some kind of K9 expert"
Baez response...."IF my memory serves me correctly.aaah..the response that we filed as it relates to Dr Furton included K9..aaaah the fact that he would testify to K9 alerts..."

Dr Furton stated in Deposition to LDB he was not retained for K9 issues and has not written a report about it
JBP says at the 5:30 mark in the hearing that if an expert offers "surprise" testimony, if it is not in the depo's it will likely to be stricken...equally applies to both sides

 

[Lera213]

We will see but I think the Judge will be very accomidating to the Defense, so JB won't have any arguments on Appeal.

At any rate, I noticed that Ashton was the one who schooled JB this time. LOL

 

[Novice Seeker]

And to add insult to injury, Baez still hasn't complied with the order. Why is he just ignoring what he needs to bring up at the Frye Hearing? Does he not know the true meaning of it? :loser:

This man is just doing as he pleases, has no reasonable defense or he would have at least handed in what was needed, even after the deadline..I wonder if Baez is "begging" to be taken off this case. It's too big and way too complicated for him, IMO....JMHO


Justice for Caylee

IMO as to JB's continued disregard of following anything HHJP has ruled on is because JB's deceit, games, confusion, claimed ignorance toward every aspect of the legal system is being allowed. Seriously, JB has been playing this game since Aug. 08 and the ONLY time he has been held accountable was with a fine of $500.00+.

Look at the number of complaints that have been lodged against JB to the bar association. One of the complaints was submitted by JS. What has the Florida Bar done? The bar determined that JB had done nothing inappropriate. The explaination given is that perhaps what JB may have done is unethical but not illegal.

So in a nutshell, the reason JB continues making a mockery of OUR legal system is because he is being allowed to. IMO.


Novice Seeker

 

[Intermezzo]

http://www.wesh.com/casey-anthony-extended-coverage/27038138/detail.html (ARTICLE)

"In his own motion to strike the request, Baez accuses prosecutor Jeff Ashton of asking the court to require the defense "filings that are not required by any rule, case law or statute in order to assist him in the preparation of his case."

Baez's Motion to Strike States motion for Rule to Show Cause

http://www.wesh.com/pdf/27038010/detail.html

 

[AZlawyer]

http://www.wesh.com/casey-anthony-extended-coverage/27038138/detail.html (ARTICLE)

"In his own motion to strike the request, Baez accuses prosecutor Jeff Ashton of asking the court to require the defense "filings that are not required by any rule, case law or statute in order to assist him in the preparation of his case."

Baez's Motion to Strike States motion for Rule to Show Cause

http://www.wesh.com/pdf/27038010/detail.html

Yeah, it wasn't required by any rule, case law or statute, just by a COURT ORDER so he felt free to disregard it.... :banghead:

 

[Intermezzo]

Yeah, it wasn't required by any rule, case law or statute, just by a COURT ORDER so he felt free to disregard it.... :banghead:

Yes, my thoughts exactly...

Of major concern, IMO, is the Failure to follow a Judge's Court Order.

IMO, it has little to do with Ashton and Baez....but everything to do with Baez FAILING to follow Chief Judge Belvin Perry's Court Orders. AGAIN.

IMO The Defense is thumbing their nose at Judge Perry's Orders.

:twocents:

-----------------------
Page 5

"Mr Ashton has no legal authority to make such a request, and to require the Defense to shift its focus from the pre-trial preparation of a death penalty case to assist the Prosecutor in defending a Frye challenge results in a considerable prejudice to Miss Anthony and the Defense of her life.

This is especially devastating to a Defense that is outspent and out-manned in every aspect of this case"
------------------
There we have it AGAIN :deadhorse:
THWARTED by money and staff..:boohoo:
:twocents:

 

[Jomo]

I love the last part where JB claims that JA has made him waste so much time responding to frivolous motions that he doesn't have time to prepare for trial.

Which is really the pot calling the kettle black. Wasn't LDB saying that if the defense had just called the her, she would have stipulated to a bunch of those dumb (oops...unnecessary) motions relating to mentions of sex talk and stuff like that. JB wasted a whole bunch of time using his copy/paste technique in those rediculous motions!

There really is just too much to quote out of this motion to strike to believe!

Another major point that JB has been whipping :deadhorse: is that his motion on the Frye issues was very clear... He just doesn't get that they REALLY WERE NOT CLEAR. This is the base of his arguments!!!!

Again, AZ got us to the real point that JB's argument about it not being a rule of law, but that a court order is a rule of law, is very clear.

I think that HHJBP did the right thing by issuing the order to outline the arguments for a Frye hearing. If one side doesn't understand what the other side is saying, it is his job to cut to the chase and make sure the arguments are clear before wasting the court's and witnesses' time for nothing.

WOW!!! He really just doesn't get it.

p.s.
I think the whole team doesn't get it and I actually believe that this motion was not written by JB...It kind of sounds like him, yet not. Maybe it was Medina who wrote it.

 

[CarolinaMoon]

And, of course, he had a chance to slip a little :anguish: about how he's "accommodated" Mr. Ashton by working TWO Saturdays! He's working 24/7 to defend his client and Ashton is picking on him! :trout:. :banghead:

 

[belle3]

Yes, my thoughts exactly...

Of major concern, IMO, is the Failure to follow a Judge's Court Order.

IMO, it has little to do with Ashton and Baez....but everything to do with Baez FAILING to follow Chief Judge Belvin Perry's Court Orders. AGAIN.

IMO The Defense is thumbing their nose at Judge Perry's Orders.

:twocents:

-----------------------
Page 5

"Mr Ashton has no legal authority to make such a request, and to require the Defense to shift its focus from the pre-trial preparation of a death penalty case to assist the Prosecutor in defending a Frye challenge results in a considerable prejudice to Miss Anthony and the Defense of her life.

This is especially devastating to a Defense that is outspent and out-manned in every aspect of this case"
------------------
There we have it AGAIN :deadhorse:
THWARTED by money and staff..:boohoo:
:twocents:

omg. is....this.....dude.....serious??? why are we not, as taxpayers, allowed to know how the 200,000+ dollars were spent while they sit there wahwahwahing about how they are outspent. no. this cant be justice. how can this be justice?? The thwartnification of the defense is on a whole different level that i just do not understand.