2010.07.15 Defense motion to protect phone call of Robin Lunceford

[doogiesgirl]

Exclusive: Did Casey's pen pals lie?

http://www.cfnews13.com/article/news/2010/july/123866/Exclusive:-Did-Caseys-pen-pals-lie

<snipped>

Her name is Robin Lunceford and she claims that former pen pals of Casey Anthony lied to Orange County detectives.

"She'd sit in front of the whole dorm and would brag how she's lying,&#8221; said Lunceford.


Video Report: http://www.cfnews13.com/video?clip=...newsvideo/cfn/caseyexclusive_071720100946.flv

My visceral reaction watching this RL interview is that I do not believe her. And.....she's scary IMO.

MOO

 

[doogiesgirl]

Well we all know one thing, if he didn't know then, he sure knows now!!:crazy: such a nincompoop

BBM

I like knucklehead :crazy:

MOO

 

[Omachka]

As I understand it, this is still an ongoing investigation. (Is that correct?) If that is the case, then no...not yet. Once the investigation is complete and if charges are filed, then I would assume it would be subject to public disclosure.

Well, unless HHJP grants JB's request to seal it....:waitasec: Honestly, I am not sure at what point it would be subject to the Sunshine Laws. My understanding is that if it is a current investigation into a criminal matter, that it would not be made public until the investigation was complete and charges were filed in re. Robin Lunceford. But since JB as requested it be sealed in re. the State v. Casey Anthony, I am not sure...

We need rhornsby. I am sure he could shed some light. Plus, he loves the jailhouse snitches.

I think you are correct about the fact that they won't have to release an ongoing investigation to the public but what I mean is that this case is probably being investigated in Miami (Dade County) so it would be under the control of a whole different SA office and/or judge. When it becomes ready to be released and if she is in fact prosecuted for skirting the prison rules about outgoing phone calls, wouldn't JB have to prevent it's release in both places to keep this out of the media completely?

 

[Mrs G Norris]

My visceral reaction watching this RL interview is that I do not believe her. And.....she's scary IMO.

MOO

Absolutely....don't believe her either. She's just trying to get something out of the situation and can't believe the media bothered with her.

 

[Mrs G Norris]

OK....Help me remember if forensics on the computers did or did not in fact show searches of missing childrens sites. BEFORE June 15, 2008.

Since the "Olivia" party associated with the Baby Lollipops case was released in January of 2008 that story would have been refreshed in the media. Does make you wonder if in fact KC found this story......thought hey here's an idea......AND wondered if hmmmmmmmmmmm

Yup...she was looking at missing children sites in the year leading up to Caylee's murder:

"Digging through Casey's Internet history, Eyewitness News discovered evidence she was surfing missing children web sites months before Caylee disappeared. She visited one more than a year ago. Ironically, now Caylee's picture takes center stage on that same site."

http://www.wftv.com/news/17567178/detail.html

 

[Gypsy Road]

I don't believe RL either. And also, I think she is one scary chick!

Refresh my memory, but Maya didn't seek the media out, did she?

 

[whiteangora]

My visceral reaction watching this RL interview is that I do not believe her. And.....she's scary IMO.

MOO

I just saw the video and all I can say is, if JB thinks this woman is going to get on the witness stand and sway a jury......GOOD LUCK!

 

[Katprint]

But, Baez also said in the motion even though he knew the call originated from a Correctional Institution, it is still not reasonable to assume it's being recorded because inmates can call their attorney without it being recorded, counselors sometimes let inmates use their cellphone, or inmates obtain contraband cellphones. Well, we know Baez is not Lunceford's attorney so the first assumption is out. If Baez assumed either of the other two were occuring didn't he have the responsibility to report the infraction? I don't think any of his arguments are going work.

If there is something on the tape along the lines of a warning that the call is being recorded or the little beeps that many systems make to inform/remind the parties about their call being recorded, immediately followed by Baez saying something like, "Are you calling me from jail/prison? I can't talk to you on the phone - it might be being recorded! I will come there and meet with you in one of the private attorney rooms." then there might be a privilege argument. Otherwise, a "should have known" standard is probably going to be applied.

There is a strong argument that Baez had constructive knowledge that the call was being recorded if Baez' receptionist/secretary/associate who answered the phone call heard the correctional institution warning about the phone call being recorded. Certainly all confidentiality privileges were waived as to everything said after Baez had actual knowledge that the call was being recorded but failed to terminate the call thus impliedly consenting to the further recording.

So, unless he can convince Judge Perry that the call is "work product" I think it's going to be released.

Generally, work product needs to be kept confidential; the "privilege" is against involuntary disclosure.

Sometimes confidential/privileged mail is misaddressed/misdelivered or fax numbers are misdialed or other mishaps occur which cause confidential/privileged documents or information to be accidentally disclosed. Such accidental disclosure generally does not "waive" the privilege.

Baez still has a couple of problems, however. Let's say the phone call was indeed privileged either as "work product" or a "attorney-(prospective)client communication." Florida Statute 934.08(4) states: No otherwise privileged wire, oral, or electronic communication intercepted in accordance with, or in violation of, the provisions of this chapter shall lose its privileged character, provided that a communication otherwise lawfully intercepted pursuant to this chapter is not privileged when such communication is in furtherance of the commission of a crime." I'm betting that Ms. Lunceford was committing a crime either by her efforts to evade the jail's telephone monitoring system, or (my speculation here) that she offered to Baez to sell her testimony which would be a crime on her part even if Baez did not accept her offer, or that some other obstruction-of-justice type criminal conduct occurred during the telephone call.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

 

[Gypsy Road]

I just saw the video and all I can say is, if JB thinks this woman is going to get on the witness stand and sway a jury......GOOD LUCK!

Amen, Sister! AMEN!

 

[Omachka]

If there is something on the tape along the lines of a warning that the call is being recorded or the little beeps that many systems make to inform/remind the parties about their call being recorded, immediately followed by Baez saying something like, "Are you calling me from jail/prison? I can't talk to you on the phone - it might be being recorded! I will come there and meet with you in one of the private attorney rooms." then there might be a privilege argument. Otherwise, a "should have known" standard is probably going to be applied.

There is a strong argument that Baez had constructive knowledge that the call was being recorded if Baez' receptionist/secretary/associate who answered the phone call heard the correctional institution warning about the phone call being recorded. Certainly all confidentiality privileges were waived as to everything said after Baez had actual knowledge that the call was being recorded but failed to terminate the call thus impliedly consenting to the further recording.


Generally, work product needs to be kept confidential; the "privilege" is against involuntary disclosure.

Sometimes confidential/privileged mail is misaddressed/misdelivered or fax numbers are misdialed or other mishaps occur which cause confidential/privileged documents or information to be accidentally disclosed. Such accidental disclosure generally does not "waive" the privilege.

Baez still has a couple of problems, however. Let's say the phone call was indeed privileged either as "work product" or a "attorney-(prospective)client communication." Florida Statute 934.08(4) states: No otherwise privileged wire, oral, or electronic communication intercepted in accordance with, or in violation of, the provisions of this chapter shall lose its privileged character, provided that a communication otherwise lawfully intercepted pursuant to this chapter is not privileged when such communication is in furtherance of the commission of a crime." I'm betting that Ms. Lunceford was committing a crime either by her efforts to evade the jail's telephone monitoring system, or (my speculation here) that she offered to Baez to sell her testimony which would be a crime on her part even if Baez did not accept her offer, or that some other obstruction-of-justice type criminal conduct occurred during the telephone call.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

Thought you all might be interested in what Richard Hornsby has to say on this issue. :dance:

This Call is Being Recorded

 

[beach]

Thought you all might be interested in what Richard Hornsby has to say on this issue. :dance:

This Call is Being Recorded

Thank you Omachka!!! :blowkiss:


Love Hornsby's blog on this!


Oopsie Jose. Uh oh...AGAIN. Not looking so good for you. :shakehead:

No work product privilege and Judge Perry doesn't have jurisdiction to even grant his request. lolol

 

[I Din Doot]

RHornsby is great !!

 

[Dear Prudence]

Richard's blog regarding this motion is a must-read. He breaks it down and explains the issues very well with links for backup. Thank you Mr. Hornsby!

I thought his last two sentences were very interesting:

"Ironically though, even if Ninth Judicial Circuit Chief Judge Perry were to throw Jose Baez a bone and grant him some relief, Judge Perry does not have jurisdiction over the Lowell County Annex located in Marion County of the Fifth Judicial Circuit.

Thus a public records request there would require the Lowell County Annex to release any phone calls of Robin J. Lunceford from May of 2010. (hint, hint)"

 

[ZsaZsa]

Richard's blog regarding this motion is a must-read. He breaks it down and explains the issues very well with links for backup. Thank you Mr. Hornsby!

I thought his last two sentences were very interesting:

"Ironically though, even if Ninth Judicial Circuit Chief Judge Perry were to throw Jose Baez a bone and grant him some relief, Judge Perry does not have jurisdiction over the Lowell County Annex located in Marion County of the Fifth Judicial Circuit.

Thus a public records request there would require the Lowell County Annex to release any phone calls of Robin J. Lunceford from May of 2010. (hint, hint)"

I feel an email to Kathi Belich coming on....:innocent:

 

[chefmom]

I feel an email to Kathi Belich coming on....:innocent:

Or, I wonder if Muzikman could get us a copy? :dance:

 

[Steely Dan]

Or, I wonder if Muzikman could get us a copy? :dance:

I have a feeling NG's people are all over this right now.

 

[Steely Dan]

I feel an email to Kathi Belich coming on....:innocent:

OT but this is funny! I'm sure it's been posted before but I just found it.

http://www.wftv.com/video/24243769/index.html

Casey Anthony: WFTV defends Kathi Belich’s style
Caylee and Casey Anthony, Orlando, WFTV — posted by halboedeker on July, 13 2010 4:01 PM

WFTV-Ch. 9 has posted fascinating raw footage of Cheney Mason lashing into veteran reporter Kathi Belich today.

Mason, an attorney for Casey Anthony, ripped the persistent Belich by saying, “I’m worried about you always bothering me.” He called her questions “too stupid.” Mason said he’d have to talk to Belich’s boss if she didn’t back up and leave him alone.

And that’s not all. Mason called her boss “stupid.” When Belich said she had obviously struck a nerve, Mason replied, “You are a nerve.”

So what does Belich’s boss have to say?

“I don’t know what all the hubbub is about,” WFTV news director Bob Jordan said. “Kathi was polite. Her questions were relevant and on point. His demeanor speaks for itself — as does Kathi’s.”

What about Mason’s complaint that Belich is bothering him?

“Kathi personifies the traits I look for in a dogged reporter,” Jordan said. “She’s not intimidated. She’s professional, polite.”

And what of Mason’s threat that he’d talk to Belich’s boss?

“Put my number in the paper. He can call me,” Jordan said.

In response to the question about Henry Lee it seems the obvious response would be; "Well, every witness has a problem in their past but that doesn't mean that all of their work should be dismissed. I think the problems Henry has had in the past have actually made him more careful and therefore his work is even more trustworthy."

 

[beach]

Or, I wonder if Muzikman could get us a copy? :dance:

It has to be requested from Marion County, so I doubt MM can help us this time.

 

[Dear Prudence]

OT but this is funny! I'm sure it's been posted before but I just found it.

http://www.wftv.com/video/24243769/index.html

Casey Anthony: WFTV defends Kathi Belich&#8217;s style
Caylee and Casey Anthony, Orlando, WFTV &#8212; posted by halboedeker on July, 13 2010 4:01 PM

WFTV-Ch. 9 has posted fascinating raw footage of Cheney Mason lashing into veteran reporter Kathi Belich today.

Mason, an attorney for Casey Anthony, ripped the persistent Belich by saying, &#8220;I&#8217;m worried about you always bothering me.&#8221; He called her questions &#8220;too stupid.&#8221; Mason said he&#8217;d have to talk to Belich&#8217;s boss if she didn&#8217;t back up and leave him alone.

And that&#8217;s not all. Mason called her boss &#8220;stupid.&#8221; When Belich said she had obviously struck a nerve, Mason replied, &#8220;You are a nerve.&#8221;

So what does Belich&#8217;s boss have to say?

&#8220;I don&#8217;t know what all the hubbub is about,&#8221; WFTV news director Bob Jordan said. &#8220;Kathi was polite. Her questions were relevant and on point. His demeanor speaks for itself &#8212; as does Kathi&#8217;s.&#8221;

What about Mason&#8217;s complaint that Belich is bothering him?

&#8220;Kathi personifies the traits I look for in a dogged reporter,&#8221; Jordan said. &#8220;She&#8217;s not intimidated. She&#8217;s professional, polite.&#8221;

And what of Mason&#8217;s threat that he&#8217;d talk to Belich&#8217;s boss?

&#8220;Put my number in the paper. He can call me,&#8221; Jordan said.

In response to the question about Henry Lee it seems the obvious response would be; "Well, every witness has a problem in their past but that doesn't mean that all of their work should be dismissed. I think the problems Henry has had in the past have actually made him more careful and therefore his work is even more trustworthy."

It cracks me up every time I watch it again or read the transcript of Mason saying "You are a nerve!"

Hahahahahaha, what does that even mean? It sounds so much like every 7-year old I have ever known when they get mad and don't know how to respond.

Geez, Mason, when you don't know what to say keep your mouth shut.

I think that's going to be my new response to everyone that ticks me off.....You are a nerve!

 

[ThinkTank]

It has to be requested from Marion County, so I doubt MM can help us this time.

True ... however ... any person from anywhere in the world can make a public records request of any court clerk (corrections institution). You do not have to be a resident of the State of Florida to make a public records request of any court clerk in Florida. The request can be made by mail. The requester's name and address would then become public info as well, though.