2010.07.02 Actual Emergency Hearing Thread

[RR0004]

whah whah whah about them being released to the public .... what about him committing a third degree felony every time he assisted in the letter exhange and other contraband??? All that blah blah blah was for the public's sake and to lighten the consciousness of the felonies he committed. IMO

But...why did they release them before giving them to the defense? Was it because of George's letter...or because of Jose's passing of letters? Or...did the State feel with the last ruling to release docs before the end of August (it was August, right?) that they didn't need to notify the defense? The State has been pretty good about all this...did LB explain? Could this have been the States tit for tat? They're p.o. that motions have gone to the media before being filed so they release the letters straight away? Any insight would be most helpful. I didn't get the chance to see the hearing. TIA

 

[RR0004]

Besides which, no one said the man isn't smart. Training someone is a far cry from letting him near evidence without someone keeping an eye on him. He brought that on himself.

JMO

...and maybe Dr. Lee learned from his mistakes...and teaches "Do as I say, not as I do."

 

[Gypsy Road]

was this brought up earlier...when KC walked in--was she limping? or did she look drugged? She was walking really strangely, like she was hurt. Is that from the fall?

Hum...I didn't notice. Probably because I honestly couldn't get past that shirt she was wearing. I couldn't figure out if it was just too big for her or if she had gained a lot of weight. She looked very "roomy" in the hips. I will have to go back and rewatch the hearing. I don't know if she was drugged, but her expressions were out of the norm today. A lot of jaw clenching going on, but no smiles that I saw.

 

[RR0004]

Here's one of my favorites from today:

"Since then, while I was unavailable, and as well as my co-counsel, not only was over 5000 pages of discovery released, they were released to the media before I or any member of my team had the opportunity to do so."

Freudian slip maybe? LMAO!

Ah...I see now...Jose was on vacation. Pretty clever. Wasn't he "unavailable" for around 10 days?

 

[A_News_Junkie]

During todays hearing I think Jose Baez, Cheney, and the reason Lyons left...is because none of her attorneys get along at all! Lyons wanted Casey to do and act a certain way and Casey either won't or Jose said no. And Jose pointed out in open court today that Cheney didn't have experience to it and basically bad mouthed him in court today and he was not present, it speaks volumes to me. He also was not sure if co-counsel Cheney would be present for the depositions.

While I agree in part with your post -- about the team not getting along....... you misunderstood his comment about Cheney not having enough experience. JB had said they had no idea why the state released the 5000 pages and he said when he called Cheney, Cheney said "I don't have enough experience to know." (Cheney was being facetious and apparently JB thought the joke was good enough to repeat in open court.)

 

[RR0004]

An aside......did anyone else catch LDB's little comment about "offered to come in Tuesday during her annual scheduled leave to help JB with evidence receipts etc....."

In a VERY subtle way she was sort of saying "he wants to whine about things and demand an emergency hearing, force us here to handle a request that he is NOT entitled to receive, totally disrespect the schedule of HHJP yet be allwowed to cry foul when info comes out during once of his multiple periods of unavailability".

I think more than anything.........what offends me about this defense attorney is NOT his flubbing, bumbling through motions, and his turning a continual blind eye to court protocol.........it is his lack of respect for anyone outside his team.

He has no problem being unavailable when it suits him, but he demands "instant gratification" and "immediate attention" when it suits him. No.....not the suits with nifty pocket squares....but the times where he thinks he's "entitled".

There is nothing wrong with asking...but why "ask" when you have already said....your time means NOTHING to me. It's just bad manners. IMO

I'm waking up!! So JB comes back from vacation...his one DP attorney is outta there...his other has taken on another high-profile (and time consuming) case...and he finds out that letters have been released without his knowledge. Wow! He should have stayed on vacation. Saying that the letters were released to embarrass his client is making a judgement...it says to me that HE found the letters embarrassing. How can anyone predict what others are going to think and/or feel about them?

 

[sleutherontheside]

But...why did they release them before giving them to the defense? Was it because of George's letter...or because of Jose's passing of letters? Or...did the State feel with the last ruling to release docs before the end of August (it was August, right?) that they didn't need to notify the defense? The State has been pretty good about all this...did LB explain? Could this have been the States tit for tat? They're p.o. that motions have gone to the media before being filed so they release the letters straight away? Any insight would be most helpful. I didn't get the chance to see the hearing. TIA

BBM
I have two thoughts on this question......First....JB going on national TV and claiming that the defense did not oppose release of letters ( between KC and inmates )because there was nothing there other than the writings of a girl locked up for 23 hours a day. (Note he mentioned the 23 hours again today.)

Now JB knew the family was writing (because he facilitated illegal passage of many letters as indicated by KC and CA) you can bet your car he knew. He was free to request copies of those letters and likely should have.

SO......how can he argue that letters KC wrote to an inmate that contain "inflammatory" info are OK but letters that the general public and her own family wrote are private??????? HE CAN'T. He just wanted to let some letters slide in order to claim "protection" was warranted on others. He wanted to leave the door open to say her "privacy" was violated.

THe info in those jail letters between KC and inmates is "nothing" according to JB.....but the letters from her family are now valuable????? WHY??

Second....Because the letters from KC's family will be useful in his mitigation or "choked mitigation" efforts. He didn't care that KC spouted off garbage and incriminating statements to another inmate....he cared about what they can use in mitigation. Now he can claim mitigation was thwarted by lack of privacy.

He is trying to back his way into a valid argument but he seems to be unable to back straight in. Navigational and directional errors may backfire on him.

JMO.

 

[A_News_Junkie]

I think it wise to refrain from any discussion about possible minors, on this thread.


Also......
There are lots of great threads already active in the forum that pertain to specific topics being discussed. Mitigation, ineffective counsel, privacy...etc......let's be sure to discuss on the appropriate threads so discussion doesn't get lost in hearing details.

AGREE!!!!!!!!!! If the lawyers or anyone brings a child or questionable child in the court, I think that should be off limits for discussion.

 

[DaughterAlice]

I've been in the UK for too long, that sounds so funny to me!

I've been in Florida too long, it makes TOTAL sense to me! (re. the need for a/c)

 

[21merc7]

JB already had access to the letters. He just did not read them. End of comedic act 2 in Court today.

 

[gamom]

I just had a "DUH" moment....JB is so pizzed about those letters showing that he/KC are refusing the Anthonys, not just the mere fact that the "media" will broadcast everything. That just can't fly anymore....and he has to come up with a new spin so it won't sound like his innocent client is throwing her parents under the bus.

A bigger DUH moment is, Jose STILL has not read the letters. If he did, he would have never brought up that his client can not see her parents, since we ALL now know that ICA is REFUSING to see her parents. GA stated he was going to go...he showed up and was DENIED by ICA.

JB looked silly bringing up that claim again. NOT to mention it did not score any brownie points from JP since he has already ruled on the motion regarding taped visits.

 

[sleutherontheside]

I'm waking up!! So JB comes back from vacation...his one DP attorney is outta there...his other has taken on another high-profile (and time consuming) case...and he finds out that letters have been released without his knowledge. Wow! He should have stayed on vacation. Saying that the letters were released to embarrass his client is making a judgement...it says to me that HE found the letters embarrassing. How can anyone predict what others are going to think and/or feel about them?

Unless said party is aware of the validity or relevency of specific statements contained within said letters...........Hmmmmmmmmm

Almost as if he was mad because the release of the letters might have sullied some of his mitigation arguments.

I just can't rationally explain (note use of rationally) why letters to the inmates were OK in his book but the others were NOT.

 

[texaslb218]

I was so embarrassed for JB today that I couldn't watch parts of it. Can you imagine the pillow talk that goes on in the judge's house. "Honey, you just wouldn't believe what I saw and heard today! In all my years..." Uh, uh, uh, giggle, uh, uh, giggle.

I am so embarrassed. I also agree with a previous post that was wishing for better representation for CA. I wish we were cursing the defense presentation rather than laughing in mortification. I don't want any mistakes by either side.

 

[sleutherontheside]

Out of that entire hearing....these are the points that stuck out to me.

JB called for an "emergency hearing" for a matter that was clearly not of an emergecy nature. (Think the boy who cried wolf.)

JB seemingly scheduled experts to visit and "examine" evidence on the specific dates that key members of the prosecution would NOT be local and available.

JB failed to "properly notice" the OCSO though they would be an instrumental party in facilitating the inspection of evidence.

JB slipped and said "test" when he was only asking to inspect evidence. HHJP caught that rather quickly indeed.

JB opened the door when he mentioned Henry Lee and the Spektor trial. Almost as if he was recalling conversations with co-counsel but slipped by using those references in court.

JB continually referencing work product.......meaning JB anticipated a discussion with "experts" as to strategy. WHy not just mention confidentiality. Work product implies their "strategy".

JB "FAILING" to recognize that HHJP was sending him a message. Almost as if he was intent on getting his own "message" out there once again.

There are more, but those ring very loudly to me.

 

[21merc7]

sleutherontheside;

yep, and more.

 

[gamom]

George also went on National Television on June 15th with Cindy and when asked about the abuse allegations George said they were untrue and that "it hurts, but he still loves and supports his daughter."

I'm confused why he isn't attending hearings when he is willing to go on National Television and still stand by Casey.

IMO, because he wants the world to think he supports her and he does not want to be the one that sends her to the chair. However, I feel that he can not bare to see her face to face because he knows he won't be able to put on a happy fake face in front of her. He is hurt and angry. Just as his letter to her said and he knows the camera will pick it up in court.

 

[ZsaZsa]

I did my best to transcribe what Baez was saying after the motion decision was made.

JB: The last status hearing in which I was unable to attend, the court, I did have the opportunity to later view it, thanks to our friends with the cameras, and I noticed the court made inquiries and nothing was mentioned as to any new discovery that was coming out. Since then, while I was unavailable, and as well as my co-counsel, not only was over 5000 pages of discovery released, they were released to the media before I or any member of my team had the opportunity to do so. Included in these 5000 pages are letters to my client from member, from people all across the country, people who I have no idea how they relate to a capital case of murder. I don’t understand the state’s intention of releasing this, what I consider very private correspondence that is not of any type of security risk to not only the public but making it a part of this case and so I, of course, I even asked co-counsel, and he doesn’t have enough experience to come up with a conclusion, either.

HHJP: When you say co-counsel, since there’s numerous co-counsel, which…

JB: Mr. Mason

HHJP: Okay.

JB: Who charmingly responded, “I don’t have enough experience to be able to figure that one out.” Many of these, many of these letters were written back as far as a year or two ago, and unfortunately, this is in violation of Judge Strickland’s order that anything the state had in it’s possession must be turned over within ten days to the defense, including this issue is one sworn statement of a Debbie Polosano (sp) who we took her deposition a week earlier. It would have been nice to have her sworn statement to the lead detective in this case prior to that. In addition to that, numerous other items, numerous other items that have absolutely no relevance to this case, Judge, and I bring this to the court’s attentions for two reasons, I’m sure you want to know, first off, the situation where we are set with deadlines, there’s a court order that requires them to turn over things within ten days of doing so, and we still get things that were issued two years ago. This has been going on, and been an ongoing process for a very long time. We’ve complained about it, obviously…

HHJP: Have you filed a motion for sanctions?

JB: Only on one occasion, Judge, and, no I have not-

HHJP: Okay.

JB: I’ll leave it at that before I make any other comments. That’s one issue, Judge, now, the other issue is these relevance arguments that, that we plan on raising, well, let me say on my first issue: We’ve got 5000 pages now which must be reviewed thoroughly, and if we’re going to follow our obligations, specifically under the ABA guidelines for capital cases, these people either need to be spoken to, we need to figure out what relevance they have to this case, how the state plans on using it against our client in any way, shape, or form, and, undoubtedly, the current deadlines that are set just simply aren’t going to work if this is the manner in which we must proceed. Now, if the state is going to contend that, “Well, we’re just turning things over, we don’t really plan on using it.” Then we’ve got another issue of, of attempting to embarrass our client by submitting things to the public, private matters to the public that aren’t a security issue. I understand that when the jail receives things, they review the mail, they check it for contraband, they see if there’s any escape plans or anything like that and that should be the end of it. I know the court has relied on the separation of powers between the, between the court and the jail, however, separation of powers doesn’t seem to play a factor or role in this case when every time we turn around, the jail is colluding with law enforcement to make their case for them. There’re those that can argue whether they have a case to begin with, but the, you have the issue of the jail sending one, one high-profile inmate to go talk to another, to, to bring out discovery, you have, you have these, these issues where the jail is taking, by request of law enforcement, my client to be told that her daughter is deceased, by allo…, by making her watch the news and videotaping it, and then you have situations where now her mail is, is being disclosed…

HHJP: Mr. Baez….

At which point Baez goes on, 'Give me another moment, Judge, blah, blah, blah...', HHJP responds with his "Bear in mind...." speech.

I took mercy and left out all the 'ah's', 'uh's', and dramatic pauses.

What on earth is he whining about - "It would have been nice to have her sworn statement (before they deposed her) "- he is referring to Debbie Polisano's interview with LE.
Well Baez, here it is, all you have to do is look -
http://www.wesh.com/download/2009/0121/18530509.pdf

 

[Lanie]

What on earth is he whining about - "It would have been nice to have her sworn statement (before they deposed her) "- he is referring to Debbie Polisano's interview with LE.
Well Baez, here it is, all you have to do is look -
http://www.wesh.com/download/2009/0121/18530509.pdf

Is this from a January, 2009 document dump?

Thank you so much, I knew I had read that before when I came across it, so I only skimmed it, and I was pretty sure it was from a long time ago. When he brought that up, I was so hoping the state would call him on it, and say, "Excuse me, but that interview was released to you back in (whenever)", but I know in RL they have a lot of other cases they are working on, and it was very unlikely they would be able to pull that out of thin air.

I wonder if Baez even reads the discovery he is constantly crying about and filing motions to receive.

 

[debbie0604]

Besides which, no one said the man isn't smart. Training someone is a far cry from letting him near evidence without someone keeping an eye on him. He brought that on himself.

JMO

I didn't hear him say "what" he (Dr. Lee) was training these people in doing.... Anyone know? JB could have just been saying that... I don't trust him.

 

[sleutherontheside]

sleutherontheside;

yep, and more.

The thing is...... and what people may misunderstand......is that I crave a hearing where JB does well and where he seems to be on top of things. I would like to see him demonstrate an image of capability and knowledge.

I want to see a fair trial. I want to see both side argue with gusto, so that when a verdict is read it leaves no questions or doubts looming in the public arena.......a trial where each side has proven their case and done so with respect for the other side.

I think I enjoyed diving into AL's methods and teachings so much because it helped me understand her reasoning and her thought process. It is far more valuable to "understand" than to just argue an opinion.

I just can't "get" anything from JB thus far. He "seems" eratic and confused and disorganized. BUT.....I do leave open the possibility that his actions ARE part of his process. People talk about book smart and street smart. IMO.....There's just not enough info to make a determination yet.

I have said before and will say again....... regardless of which side dictates the topic at hand..............it is a facinating look at the legal system.

One can learn much from this case. I suspect it will be used in legal education in the future.

What a great group of minds there are here at WS. I enjoy the company and debate!!!!