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

[beach]

Thanks for the info ... technically, KC is not convicted of the crime that is keeping her at the jail, but she is a convicted felon on other charges ... and I'm not sure, but I thought she got time served for the fraud convictions ... regardless, in the Bent case, the defendants were minors that were charged as adults and it pertained to the defendant talking to his family ...
I'm just not sure the Bent case is applicable ...

ITA that it's interesting that Jose hasn't fought harder for her to talk to her parents ... and that it's deliberate on Jose's part to keep them separated which could be because of the inevitability of KC's hostility towards them coming out or maybe because her parents may try to talk some sense into her about her baffoon of a lawyer and the strategy he's taking ... :boohoo:

I agree that upon first glance the fact that the petitioners in Bent are minors is a major difference. That was the first thing that jumped out at me. The ruling does reference the fact that they are minors, but that was not the basis for the decision of the appellate court. The decision is 4 pages of details addressing how FL's Public Record Act is to be applied - exactly how a public record is defined and what constitutes abuse of the Public Records Act. The way the decision reads, it can be cited and will apply to both minors and adults, imo. However, ONLY to the phone calls in re. the Anthony case. The jail logs do constitute public records, imo.

just my interpretation of the ruling.

 

[Kentjbkent]

Kentjbkent, just what the hay does and can a notary have to talk about with and to a jailed person for 10 hours????? Clothes, hair, bras, snacks, twizzlers, bean dip, what????

Any clue .... seriously ... I hope the SAO is checking this one out extensively.

On a side note, wonder what ICA did about missing a meal or two with that visit. Second thought, don't care.

Might be that unpublished paper (which I understand has since been published?) she wrote having to do with child ? :waitasec:

http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=allison_cochran

 

[chefmom]

Not true! Attorney Client privilege ONLY exists between the client, the attorney, and by extension the attorneys direct employees. So PI's, Expert Witnesses, Administrative Assistants, Paralegals, etc. Having a third party present, such as some sort of media deal maker, breaks the privilege. The jail can listen in. The SA can depose the third party, overall it is a bad thing to do. I would suspect that trying to sneak an unprivileged third party into the jail under the cover of attorney client privilege is something that could result in JB getting disbarred, arrested and jailed.

Ahhh! I forgot that another persons presence voided privilege! Very interesting to note! So, if anything like this has happened, in all likelyhood, the jail and SA are aware. Thanks!

 

[faefrost]

I agree that upon first glance the fact that the petitioners in Bent are minors is a major difference. That was the first thing that jumped out at me. The ruling does reference the fact that they are minors, but that was not the basis for the decision of the appellate court. The decision is 4 pages of details addressing how FL's Public Record Act is to be applied - exactly how a public record is defined and what constitutes abuse of the Public Records Act. The way the decision reads, it can be cited and will apply to both minors and adults, imo. However, ONLY to the phone calls in re. the Anthony case. The jail logs do constitute public records, imo.

just my interpretation of the ruling.

They could probably make a reasonable argument to keep purchases of personal and health and hygiene related materials from the commissary off of the public records list as well. It really doesn't make sense that the public can request and scrutinize her bra and underwear purchases unless it directly relates to the crime. But I agree that the visitor logs are very clearly textbook public records. No way will a challenge based on bent take them off the table.

 

[Star12]

It is really vague, but it does reference a difference between convicted inmates and those accused awaiting trial. Casey is a convicted felon.

I must say after reading it again, I totally concur with AZ. JB could have used this and had a really good argument with case law backing him up to win the debate in re. private phone calls between Casey and her family, particularly her parents.

IMHO, the only private phone call I see might be the first one ("...a huge waste..."). The others were visitations which happened to occur on jail-supplied telephonic equipment to facilitate safe, secure visitations, so were intrinsically the same as a face-to-face visitation.

Also, at the time of those visitations, KC was not convicted of anything - she was at that time an accused inmate.

And Bent has not yet had a final ruling....

And even further, the decision, were it final, would not act retroactively, would it? Just wondering...

 

[beach]

IMHO, the only private phone call I see might be the first one ("...a huge waste..."). The others were visitations which happened to occur on jail-supplied telephonic equipment to facilitate safe, secure visitations, so were intrinsically the same as a face-to-face visitation.

Also, at the time of those visitations, KC was not convicted of anything - she was at that time an accused inmate.

And Bent has not yet had a final ruling....

And even further, the decision, were it final, would not act retroactively, would it? Just wondering...

Right. If JB had included a request for private phone calls between Casey & her parents in his motion and cited Bent as case law issued from a higher court, he would have stood a decent chance at having that request granted, imo. It would have only been applicable to calls after his request would be granted. Nothing retroactive. Can't unring that bell.

I am curious to see if he brings up the phone calls when he argues his motion in open court even though he did not include it in his request. He is famous for arguing stuff that he doesn't include in his motions.