2010.07.15 Defense motion to protect phone call of Robin Lunceford

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jose could be boxing with a straw man on this one-Not sure what makes him think that the state will even give much weight to Maya or RobinA, as they are both convicted felons. JB seems to believe that everything the state releases in discovery is the next cornerstone of their argument...not so, I think, they just need to turn over what they have to him and the public, as Judge P stated, because the trial could be compromised if something comes up later and the state did not hand over info to the defense.
If the state did not gather the info from Maya and Robin, JB surely could have, and he could have used them to his advantage (especially if they are liars as he claims). But LDB doesn't need to play the games JB needs to play, she has a solid case-with or without these two ladies-Robin's letters are more a study in human interest than she is a lifeline for the state...Maya is a bit different, but I still don't see LDB and JA using her to support the testimonies of the detectives and the forensic evidence.
Keep on fightin the dopey fight, JB. Waste of paper, I say.

Hi, Just Jayla. I agree with all of your post, except one part. I believe that the State will definitely use Robin A to introduce the letters Casey wrote to her. I believe they will at least introduce the letter to Robin wherein Casey tells a brand new Zanny the Nanny story, and actually tells her she knows she didn't take Caylee, Paraphrasing, "I can't blame her (Zanny) for not coming forward, getting arrested, and having to sit here with me for something she didn't do." JMO
 
I haven't been able to read the complete thread on this, so please forgive me if this has already been mentioned.

JB states in his motion, "While it became known that Robin Lunceford was calling from a Correctional Institution, the undersigned counsel was never made aware the call was being recorded ......"

So doesn't that blow his argument right out of the water? He MAY not have received the notification at the beginning of the call (maybe his secretary neglected to mention it to JB when she transferred the call to his cell?), but he KNEW the caller was an inmate at a correctional facility, hence, calls WOULD be recorded, as he knows from his own client, KC Anthony.

IMO, he has no valid argument that he was not aware the call was being recorded.

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.

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

Judge P did say it was up to Lawson Lamar to decide whether recording and therefore releasing the call constituted a felony, IIRC. Um, yeah, good luck with that Baez!
 
IMHO, I think what is so awful on that call is it incriminates Jose Baez. He obviously knew he was talking to an inmate so he should have assumed it was being recorded. If he spoke during that conversation as if he thought it was private and not being recorded, then he knew it was being forwarded through a 3rd party.


I have not had a chance to read links, but fwiw, I think the SA probably found out about this through whatever agency is investigating Robin Lunceford's illegal phone calls. just a thought...


regarding the bold/red that I used to highlight the quote - If that's the case, would this call be subject to the Sunshine law in that other case? Would be interesting to see if JB is trying to stomp out this fire somewhere else as well. That would explain why LDB hasn't heard that recording yet... maybe it's in possession of a different SA?
 
If this is discovery would he not have to release it anyway?
 
regarding the bold/red that I used to highlight the quote - If that's the case, would this call be subject to the Sunshine law in that other case? Would be interesting to see if JB is trying to stomp out this fire somewhere else as well. That would explain why LDB hasn't heard that recording yet... maybe it's in possession of a different SA?

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. :D
 
Usually when you are investigating a matter you do not comment. JB has made comments about this so if he feels it will help his client what is the problem with releasing it???? And shouldn't a proper investigation be done by LE since they are the only ones who have access to the prison? So what's the hold up???? jmo
 
RR, I did find one reference to that business card allegation...


DeForest added that investigators found no evidence that Hernandez was helping the prosecution, which Baez alleged.

“Besides lying to investigators and disgracing the department, Hernandez was also fired for asking Jose Baez for his business card,” DeForest reported. “She had planned to pass that card on to inmate Robyn Adams with hopes that Jose Baez would become Robyn Adams’ attorney as well. And that’s also a violation of jail rules.”
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/en...hony-whine-to-this-judge-not-a-good-plan.html
 
My thoughts on all these inmates:

I don't think the SA has to rely on testimony from any of them.

That's all, folks :)



.
 
I haven't been able to read the complete thread on this, so please forgive me if this has already been mentioned.

JB states in his motion, "While it became known that Robin Lunceford was calling from a Correctional Institution, the undersigned counsel was never made aware the call was being recorded ......"

So doesn't that blow his argument right out of the water? He MAY not have received the notification at the beginning of the call (maybe his secretary neglected to mention it to JB when she transferred the call to his cell?), but he KNEW the caller was an inmate at a correctional facility, hence, calls WOULD be recorded, as he knows from his own client, KC Anthony.

IMO, he has no valid argument that he was not aware the call was being recorded.

Well we all know one thing, if he didn't know then, he sure knows now!!:crazy: such a nincompoop
 
Usually when you are investigating a matter you do not comment. JB has made comments about this so if he feels it will help his client what is the problem with releasing it???? And shouldn't a proper investigation be done by LE since they are the only ones who have access to the prison? So what's the hold up???? jmo

Well everything they have wanted to suppress so far has been incriminating or embarrassing- I suspect this is one or the other for Baez... something he does not want made public, right?
 
Well everything they have wanted to suppress so far has been incriminating or embarrassing- I suspect this is one or the other for Baez... something he does not want made public, right?

I'll bet the farm on it.

And I really, really want to see it now.
 
Yes...I saw that too. So nothing before July? The story about the guard is months old...yet this is the first time we heard about the business card?

Didn't KC get referred to JB by an inmate? I wonder if she was given a card of his? :waitasec:
 
Didn't KC get referred to JB by an inmate? I wonder if she was given a card of his? :waitasec:

I don't have the link handy as I am on my iPad, but Richard kinda/sorta questioned this in one of his blogs. Verrrrrry interesting reading for all.
 
I don't have the link handy as I am on my iPad, but Richard kinda/sorta questioned this in one of his blogs. Verrrrrry interesting reading for all.

Yeah he wondered at the speed with which JB was representing KC and started the ball rolling. It happened so fast that it was leading him to wonder of JB had been contacted prior to July 16th.
 
Usually when you are investigating a matter you do not comment. JB has made comments about this so if he feels it will help his client what is the problem with releasing it???? And shouldn't a proper investigation be done by LE since they are the only ones who have access to the prison? So what's the hold up???? jmo

Good questions.
When JB does not want the public to know something, he asks for a SIDEBAR to go talk to the Judge in private. With this matter, JB announced in open court, for the CAMERAS, that he wanted the phone call from this Inmate sealed. He said just enough for the cameras, to let potential jurors know that Inmate Maya D's testimony AGAINST Inmate Anthony is not to be trusted.

He wants the phone recording sealed ... while at the same time ... leaking out just a hint of info to make potential jurors question the Prosecution's witness, Inmate Maya D. and Inmate Robin A..
 
I just can't buy the idea that Casey would share the info about the chloroform.There's just no substantiation that the State can put forward (that we know of). I can't begin to think like a criminal, but IMO there must be something in it for her to share this info with LE. Maybe I've watched too many crime shows. LOL
oxoxoxo

I actually found MD believable but I agree with you about the chloroform. Somehow I just can't buy that KC went so far as to tell MD that she used chloroform on Caylee.

And can I just add that JB's lack of "good common sense" never ceases to amaze me.

:cow:
 
I think the sticky point here is that the actual call was made to another party who then forwarded it on to Jose (by way of his assistant). So the first person received the notification, but from there the only thing that may have identified the caller was the person identifying herself and what the call was in regards to. For the assistant to have forwarded the call to Baez, I would imagine they received pertinent info...such as name, location, and relationship to Casey (ie., fellow inmate). SOMETHING had to perk the assistant's interest to forward the call. I also wouldn't imagine them doing that if they hadn't already called Baez (on another line) to relay the caller's info. Now, if Baez wasn't smart enough to ask a) how did the person get his number, and b) where they were calling from, then bad on him. I remember reading recently about the guard who was let go. She supposedly had also asked for Baez's business card. I find something fishy with all that (see below). Somehow I see the two-the passing of cards and the phone call- interconnected. I think Baez should be very worried.

ETA: above post heavily edited.

ETA: I went back to find the article that TWA had posted about the firing of the guard, but couldn't find it. The guard I referred to was the same one who passed the letters. And according to the excerpts I've found about her firing, the guard was the one who supposedly asked Baez for his business card to pass on to Robyn. Now, I have a problem with that. Mainly...I don't think she would ask an attorney for his card out of the blue. I don't care what her relationship was with Robyn...knowing that Robyn was friendly with Casey why would there be a need to ask Baez? Why wouldn't Casey get Robyn the info way back when? Maybe I have the timing off...but I definitely think there is something WAY OFF here. Does anyone remember hearing about the guard and the business card before July 4th? Because it was news to me.

BBM

Wow, is that true??? I didn't catch that info. If that is correct, something does smell a little fishy there. Hmm........:waitasec:

MOO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
176
Guests online
1,012
Total visitors
1,188

Forum statistics

Threads
626,018
Messages
18,519,026
Members
240,919
Latest member
SleuthyBootsie
Back
Top