2010.04.29 Motion to Seal Casey's Jail Logs. Why?

[LambChop]

Defense has already sent a number of people in to KC for visits associated with AL's staff. Problem is if KC continues to spin her tale du jour they are never going to get anywhere. You could send people in there 8 hours a day and unless KC is truthful they will get nowhere. jmo

 

[CaptainKangaroo]

I know that the defense wants special treatment for Casey regarding the sealing of jailhouse logs, etc. I also think it would set a precedent for other defendents.

But, as Hornsby stated, not every defendents logs, visits, etc. are being picked up by the media and televised, so I can see the judge in wanting to move this case forward granting this motion in some limited way. I am not saying he will, but it is possible.

I just hope he will strictly limit what can be sealed if he does grant them anything. He seems to be a very astute Judge, so I think this is a safe bet.

As a footnote to all this, I think the defense needs to worry about bigger problems. Those of us out here "dissecting" the visitor logs, etc. will not wind up on the jury. Or am I being naive?

 

[flourish]

:Welcome-12-june: to our new posters! Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

 

[RR0004]

I'm curious...will this information remain private to everyone? Won't the SA have access to this information regardless? Who cares what the public reads into it? Personally, I don't see how viewing a visitor's log interferes with the defendent's right to a fair trial...but knock yourself out, Baez. I, for one, am content for it to be left to my own imagination.

 

[RR0004]

I know that the defense wants special treatment for Casey regarding the sealing of jailhouse logs, etc. I also think it would set a precedent for other defendents.

But, as Hornsby stated, not every defendents logs, visits, etc. are being picked up by the media and televised, so I can see the judge in wanting to move this case forward granting this motion in some limited way. I am not saying he will, but it is possible.

I just hope he will strictly limit what can be sealed if he does grant them anything. He seems to be a very astute Judge, so I think this is a safe bet.

As a footnote to all this, I think the defense needs to worry about bigger problems. Those of us out here "dissecting" the visitor logs, etc. will not wind up on the jury. Or am I being naive?

Welcome!!

We're always gentle. LOL

 

[CoalCat]

:Welcome-12-june: to our new posters! Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

Flourish, thank you for your warm welcome! I've been reading WS since Caylee was first reported missing, and this site is, by far, my favorite. Thanks again!!

 

[The World According]

I know that the defense wants special treatment for Casey regarding the sealing of jailhouse logs, etc. I also think it would set a precedent for other defendents.

But, as Hornsby stated, not every defendents logs, visits, etc. are being picked up by the media and televised, so I can see the judge in wanting to move this case forward granting this motion in some limited way. I am not saying he will, but it is possible.

I just hope he will strictly limit what can be sealed if he does grant them anything. He seems to be a very astute Judge, so I think this is a safe bet.

As a footnote to all this, I think the defense needs to worry about bigger problems. Those of us out here "dissecting" the visitor logs, etc. will not wind up on the jury. Or am I being naive?

Welcome here!
I didn't realize the prosecutors already said they didn't object to this request to seal the jail logs. If that is certain, the judge may ask for the document to be reworded to be very clear he is granting only very specific things be sealed, kind of like a line item veto. Unlike Baez, the prosecutors seem to know how to pick their battles. No-one visiting Casey would shock the prosecutors. I do remember in the beginning Mrs. Drane Burdick said in court that they were releasing discovery because they were required to do so, they didn't necessarily want to, and if the judge should so order they would be happy not to. I think the words she used were we don't have a dog in this fight. If the defense think they are sneaking anything in the back door, perhaps they didn't notice the new guard dog. LOL!

I agree the defense has bigger worries, the judge basically told them, get ready, and get ready now..we are having a put up or shut up marathon hearing day. I do not believe they have a witness list to produce, unless Mr. Mason indeed does have the experts lining up to volunteer as he claims. The only thing I do know is they better not leave home without it.
__________________Someone noticed that this judge does not call her Miss Anthony, he calls her the defendant.

 

[The World According]

Flourish, thank you for your warm welcome! I've been reading WS since Caylee was first reported missing, and this site is, by far, my favorite. Thanks again!!

Welcome, Welcome, Welcome!!! You got here just when things are starting to get interesting!

 

[CaptainKangaroo]

Welcome here!
I didn't realize the prosecutors already said they didn't object to this request to seal the jail logs. If that is certain, the judge may ask for the document to be reworded to be very clear he is granting only very specific things be sealed, kind of like a line item veto. Like I said earlier, no-one visiting Casey Anthony would shock the prosecutors. I do remember in the beginning Mrs. Drane Burdick said in court that they were releasing discovery because they were required to do so, they didn't necessarily want to, and if the judge should so order they would be happy not to. I think the words she used were we don't have a dog in this fight. If the defense think they are sneaking anything in the back door, perhaps they didn't notice the new guard dog. LOL!

I agree the defense has bigger worries, the judge basically told them, get ready, and get ready now..we are having a put up or shut up marathon hearing day. I do not believe they have a witness list to produce, unless Mr. Mason indeed does have the experts lining up to volunteer as he claims.
__________________

Thank you, TWA and everyone for the warm welcome.:blushing:

 

[Sherbie]

I don't think there is anything surprising in thinking that she will be examined by Psychologists, Psychiatrists. That is par for the course. Why would they want to hide that, it doesn't make sense. Will this information get hidden with all prisoners or just for Casey?

It may be because the visitors will be there in preparation for the death penalty phase and their professional titles and/or a little Googling might give away the defense strategy or allow people time to try to dig up dirt on their expert witnesses.

Also, even though it's incumbent upon the defense to prepare ahead of time for all possible outcomes, they may argue that the general public wouldn't understand that and, instead, would glean from the visitor list that even her own team believes she'll be convicted -- she really must be guilty!

From the defense perspective, allowing the public to see who is visiting might increase the perception of guilt and/or impair their ability to use their experts during trial. I think they really don't want the public (especially those of us on sites like this one) to have the opportunity to give the state ammunition by picking apart the defense's witnesses...and you know we will! :dance:

I don't think the judge will allow them to keep the jail visitors secret; if he did, the next logical step would be also allowing them to keep secret from the public the witness list (or certain names thereon) that they're eventually gonna have to provide the state. If I'm not mistaken, I think for any witness to be kept secret, it would have to be for the benefit of the witness (threat of harm, etc.), not because the defense wants to play hide-the-ball.

 

[ZsaZsa]

Whenever the Defense asks for something to be kept secret it has the immediate effect of making that information essential to all us no life bloggers as CA calls us. Apart from those of us who are following this case closely, I doubt the general public accesses prison visitor logs very often. But they will now.
They should really learn to keep quiet and much less attention would be paid. They are the only source of all the publicity. Wonder how long it will be before JB and CM bring it up during a media interview?

 

[sleutherontheside]

Here's a thought........AL has a trick she uses for expert witnesses. She pays for a one time consult......and thus eliminates that expert as an option for the prosecutor. Perhaps.......their high profile experts for hire (those willing to exchange services for various citrus products and free publicity) don't want bad press for the next 372 days?

 

[ZsaZsa]

Here's a thought........AL has a trick she uses for expert witnesses. She pays for a one time consult......and thus eliminates that expert as an option for the prosecutor. Perhaps.......their high profile experts for hire (those willing to exchange services for various citrus products and free publicity) don't want bad press for the next 372 days?

Don't you think that after almost 2 years the SA probably already has their expert witness list neatly organized?

 

[sleutherontheside]

Don't you think that after almost 2 years the SA probably already has their expert witness list neatly organized?

For the most part....yes.......but given that there are depositions yet to be taken and that the defense has held close to the vest a number of their witnesses........there is always room for the possibility that additional folks need to be called.

It is also helpful to know who the experts are...in order to properly prepare for the cross.

 

[mitzi]

I'm curious...will this information remain private to everyone? Won't the SA have access to this information regardless? Who cares what the public reads into it? Personally, I don't see how viewing a visitor's log interferes with the defendent's right to a fair trial...but knock yourself out, Baez. I, for one, am content for it to be left to my own imagination.

ITA...you know what they say....what you can imagine is usually waaaaaaay worse than the facts. :dance:

 

[mitzi]

Welcome!!

We're always gentle. LOL

and we love newbies...the more the merrier...WELCOME, Captain!

 

[elementary]

The defense seems is going to try to ask for everything Judge Strickland shot down,to be heard , again...and ruled on again. They want the jail records, including the visits sealed. That has been asked and answered now they are trying to word this motion very cleverly that it would be all encompassing. Trouble is...they are not that clever.
The prosecution couldn't give a hoot who visits, we could sit here and guess at list for God's sake! Why hasn't Mason or Lyon or Kenney-Baden told the newbie, Baez that the majority of their plan is quite predictable, and there is no reason to try to secrete the obvious?


I do hope the judge will shoot this down, but if he allows it, it matters very little from what I can tell. I am not a lawyer. The only reason I want it shot down, is that I don't think murdering her baby, and selling photos of her for hundreds of thousands of dollars should get her any special treatment.
I just keep hearing Andrea saying...if you don't like something, file a motion! It is hard to take the defense seriously, even now with Cheney.
The defense wants do overs. This is not nursery school and we are not on Hope Springs Drive Mr. Baez, you are playing with the big kids now.:furious:
PS: At the next hearing Mr. Baez ,please DO bring your file. I don't think this judge is going to stand for the I don't have it, but I can supply it to the court argument when he told you precisely what was to be heard!!

The vagueness of the motion is so all-encompassing that I wonder if it could also include videoed visits from anyone, which means they could sneak in their demand to have the As' taped visits sealed from public view, something they failed to get in the past. It certainly doesn't say that the motion covers professional visits alone, unless I'm missing something.

WHEREFORE, the Defendant prays this Court enter its Order directing the administration of the Orange County Jail to ensure the confidentiality of all records of whatever description including, but not limited to, sign-in logs regarding contact or visits from any persons with the Defendant herein.

 

[zoey]

The vagueness of the motion is so all-encompassing that I wonder if it could also include videoed visits from anyone, which means they could sneak in their demand to have the As' taped visits sealed from public view, something they failed to get in the past. It certainly doesn't say that the motion covers professional visits alone, unless I'm missing something.

WHEREFORE, the Defendant prays this Court enter its Order directing the administration of the Orange County Jail to ensure the confidentiality of all records of whatever description including, but not limited to, sign-in logs regarding contact or visits from any persons with the Defendant herein.

think you do have a good point there...that is interesting.

 

[JBean]

quick reminder that if you cannot link your facts or the link is only available by pm or if you are not allowed to link the site, then please don't post the information here .
Hope that made sense LOL.
gracias.

 

[passionflower]

IIRC JB said that there would be a PERRY MASON moment.
Could something in KC logs be a big surprise like a Perry Mason moment for JB????