2011.01.05 Hearing TES Volunteer Computer Subpoena

[Turnadot]

Prosecutors reach an agreement with the blogger for an "in camera" review of stuff and everything is kept private. The blogger can even sit in the room while the review takes place.

*snipped with respect*

JJ is the blogger who posted the photos.

Let me ask you this: Who was the photographer?

 

[The World According]

http://www.wftv.com/news/20490968/detail.html
HERE ARE THE DIFINITIVE PHOTOS, IMOhttp://www.wftv.com/slideshow/news/20480714/detail.html
This was when the defense thought Joe Jordan WAS the defense case!

"There is substantial evidence that we've found ... that the body or remains of Caylee Anthony was placed there after Casey Anthony was locked up," attorney Todd Macaluso argued. "It proves that somebody else placed the remains in the area."

The attorney for EquuSearch, Mark NeJame, said the request was too broad and would create "a tremendous chilling effect" on volunteers for future searches.

Miller held a press conference Thursday with attorney Mark Nejame to show some of the photographs he took in the area where Caylee Anthony's body was later found (photos released) in an attempt to disprove the defense's theory that the body was dumped after Casey was jailed.

WFTV legal analyst Bill Sheaffer says it'll be a hard sell to a jury that the mystery killer took great pains to keep secrets until November, after EquuSearch left, then killed Caylee and went to the area which posed the greatest risk of getting caught to hide her body, Caylee's neighborhood, where the media and law enforcement were often focused.

"Not only does it not raise reasonable doubt, it just defies logic. So the defense is gonna have a problem in that area," Sheaffer said

 

[krisskross]

Jurors are more likely to find something to be "reasonable doubt" in a capital case than a non-capital case, notwithstanding dp qualifications. Separately....as far as death penalty qualified juries, a juror may say she would be *able* to impose a death penalty but the reality is she'd be so reluctant to do so that she'd end up looking for "reasonable doubt" in tenuous places. It's just human nature. My definition of giving someone the benefit of the doubt is going to be very different than someone else's. This skirmish is not worth the risk. Prosecutors will work it out. They have a strong case. Some here might like to punish Baez for his sucky lawyering, lies, whatever but the prosecutors will take a longer view and go for the big prize.

But there are two distinct parts to the trial, the finding of guilt or innocence before having to deliberate on her punishment.

 

[NJ Lawyer]

In some very small - in fact teensy weensy - heck no - a minute speck in my mind, I pity Baez and Mason and understand there current defense strategy of rushing after every tumbleweed blowing freely on the landscape. And on the other side of the ledger, they have a huge amount of evidence that simply cannot be refuted.

I clipped just this section of your post b/c I didn't want to address the part about whether Baez knew his
client was guilty (I realize defense counseling is necessary but I find it so distasteful I don't even want to go there). Anyhow, I think you are spot on - all they can really do is chase after tumbleweeds. In my view, the evidence will be strong against Casey and from a legal standpoint, the case isn't even that interesting b/c I think a conviction is so likely. Truthfully, I joined this site years ago NOT for the legal ramifications of this case but b/c of the search for Caylee. Yes, I sat watching the Anthony house on that webcam and mapped out every search area on Google and got caught up in that lady's post about having found stuff at that graveyard. Caylee drew me to this case - that poor little baby. Her life, her death and the failure of anyone in her family to do right by her.

 

[whiteangora]

Quote from Leila
Registered User Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southern California
Posts: 10,726


http://www.wftv.com/video/26171628/index.html#

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sourc...hxtYFYQjRZ_7hQ

From your link above.................

"Richard Crique works in a mortuary. He is one of the searchers that spent days looking for Caylee. He told investigators about one of the first times he searched near the area where Caylee's remains were found.

"It just hit me. I got a whiff of something that didn't belong there," said Crique. But he told detectives that water kept him and other volunteers = from doing a thorough search. "Describe the water," said one of the investigators."It was clear. About knee deep," said Crique."

Other searchers have also stated there was water in the area where Caylee's remains were eventually found.The second search done by Texas Equasearch in early November tried to search that area and called off the search as they almost lost one of their ATVs. I remember Tim Miller being interviewed on the last day of the search and saying how they had hoped to search that area but it was too dangerous to attempt it with that much water there. There was no way Tim Miller could have known then that a little more than a month later, the water would have receded and Caylee's remains were found there. There's too many people who've stated the area where Caylee's remains were eventually found was under water for several months.



JB is so obsessed with the remains site, I think he's basing his entire defense on something that didn't happen. He wants to present to the jury that sometime after Casey was in jail, someone placed Caylee's remains where they were found. But, he has no way of proving that was the case, and the facts suggest that Caylee's remains were likely placed there in mid to late June 2008 and remained there until their discovery on Dec. 11, 2008. It's like JB is trying to put a square peg in a round hole. "
__________________

I agree Leila.

The jury is going to hear from Tim Miller, the jury is going to be shown many photos that depict the magic spot as Judge Perry calls it, thoroughly under water. Others like Danny Ibison and Richard C. are going to further testify that they could not search, as they had to abort their attempts as the area was knee deep in water.
OK that is a very, very clear idea that will remain in the jury's mind, the PHOTOS.
Then if someone else gets on the stand and claims they did not think the area was under water, or Jose tries to work that into his opening and or closing statements. He may as well be asking of the hardworking, taxpaying members of the jury, are you going to believe me or your lying eyes?

They are going to of course believe what they saw with their own eyes, a swamp like area in the photo.
This would be like asking the Scott Peterson jury members , after listening to Amber Frye's columnious tapes, are you going to belive me or your lying ears?

If it looks like water from the ground and areal photos.....it was water, even a child on a jury would not be convinced otherwise.

As usual, the defense brings up matters that absolutely work against their claims. They just never learn. The last time they did this, Jose brought up Henry Lee as a reason the judge should allow the defense experts to be alone with the evidence.....they wound up with not only
OCSD being in attendance, but also
staff from the state's attorney office and
for the entire day to be videotaped!!!

Defense expert Bill Sheaffer summed it up, with the age old, "Be careful what you wish for; because you just might get it".

The jury may not know what to make of Joe and his letter he sent in to authorities. I n the words of my late Grandmother, "I don't know what possessed him to do such a thing". I believe Mr. Miller is going to be very compelling for them. If the jury hears from Mr. Miller, Baez is not going to be in need of another expert, he is going to be in need of a miracle.

The only thing that Baez said that is true, imo, is that Joe did insert himself front and center by sending in that letter. The domino effect that letter started is astounding. Looking back on it now I am sure he regrets how flippant his decision to write was and what a poor understanding he had of the ramifications of what if he is wrong had.
Whenever my husband and I are arguing, and I know he has got me on something, how I stall for a second to think up my next point, is I always say....honey....what if you are wrong? Then we both laugh and it is squashed.
In criminal law, what if you are wrong is a much more present and real question that demands an answer....that is for Mr. Mason, for his edification this morning.
I wish Joe would have held on to his letter and just asked himself that one simple question.

I like to close with you just can't make this stuff up,so, does anyone recall Jose actually did ask someone; reporters maybe, are you gonna believe me or your lying eyes?

I do remember JB saying that, possibly to the press, but I thought he said. "Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes".
I don't remember the 'lying' eyes part, maybe I'm suffering from Mason syndrome?

 

[Turnadot]

But there are two distinct parts to the trial, the finding of guilt or innocence before having to deliberate on her punishment.

*side bar*

Jurors don't find people innocent, do they?

I thought they could find someone "not guilty", which essentially means the prosecution didn't meet the burden of proof, but says nothing about the defendant being innocent.

I'm not a legal eagle though, so someone correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[NJ Lawyer]

But there are two distinct parts to the trial, the finding of guilt or innocence before having to deliberate on her punishment.

You can tell a juror on the verdict phase of the trial "don't worry/concern yourself with the punishment phase" but...they are still going to be skittish about the ramifications of convicting someone, and prosecutors will want to get rid of as many possible "reasonable doubts" as they can. This seems like an easy one to avoid.

 

[The World According]

I will NEVER understand why a certain blogger is allowed to attend every hearing as if he's a journalist. After all the trouble he has caused, he should not be allowed in the court room. Seems like it's just asking for more trouble.

Thank you for the good laugh this morning!!
Some folks in the gallery are brilliant, others are , how shall I put this...troubled, ( please don't make me name them ). We take our average citizen as we find them, it is a public hearing, no IQ or emotional intelligence exam required at entry. :floorlaugh:

As with all things in life, just grin and thank God and your lucky stars as in wow..., my troubles are FEW!

 

[whiteangora]

I will NEVER understand why a certain blogger is allowed to attend every hearing as if he's a journalist. After all the trouble he has caused, he should not be allowed in the court room. Seems like it's just asking for more trouble.

Lets just hope he has the good sense to stay away from Judge Perry.

 

[Turnadot]

You can tell a juror on the verdict phase of the trial "don't worry/concern yourself with the punishment phase" but...they are still going to be skittish about the ramifications of convicting someone, and prosecutors will want to get rid of as many possible "reasonable doubts" as they can. This seems like an easy one to avoid.

Yeah, I agree with you there, and I'm a little concerned now.

But how to avoid it?

If it wasn't JJ's camera...

I mean, I suppose they could ask the blogger (JJ) who took the photos and hunt the person down, but can the Court compel the photographer to turn over their camera if the photographer doesn't want to volunteer it?

 

[krisskross]

*side bar*

Jurors don't find people innocent, do they?

I thought they could find someone "not guilty", which essentially means the prosecution didn't meet the burden of proof, but says nothing about the defendant being innocent.

I'm not a legal eagle though, so someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Legally, you are probably more knowledgable than me. I just hear the term guilt/ innocence phase bandied around alot, even by those in the legal fraternity.
:blush:

 

[LambChop]

Jurors are more likely to find something to be "reasonable doubt" in a capital case than a non-capital case, notwithstanding dp qualifications. Separately....as far as death penalty qualified juries, a juror may say she would be *able* to impose a death penalty but the reality is she'd be so reluctant to do so that she'd end up looking for "reasonable doubt" in tenuous places. It's just human nature. My definition of giving someone the benefit of the doubt is going to be very different than someone else's. This skirmish is not worth the risk. Prosecutors will work it out. They have a strong case. Some here might like to punish Baez for his sucky lawyering, lies, whatever but the prosecutors will take a longer view and go for the big prize.

We all agree here that TM's testimony will be very powerful. Then there is the fact that JB is reluctant to the point of being in contempt of court to turn over the expert reports. Now why would that be? Is it possible that these reports do not favor his client and he is trying to buy time until they can find another suspect from the TES searchers. Because that is what appears to be happening here. I think JB's attack the other day against JJ in court was not very wise on his part when we all know JJ was put right smack in the middle of this by defense's PI and their witness LB. JJ did not "insert himself" into this case as much as defense pulled him in kicking and screaming. I can't believe JB is mistakenly misleading the court with his statements as much as it is deliberate misinformation he is just throwing out there. Not going unnoticed by the judge and don't you think this will backfire on JB big time? Keeping in mind we all know (though most hate to admit) that JB needs to do his job to defend his client but misrepresenting facts before the court should not go unpunished. And thanks for staying on and posting, by-the-way. jmo

 

[Turnadot]

Legally, you are probably more knowledgable than me. I just hear the term guilt/ innocence phase bandied around alot, even by those in the legal fraternity.
:blush:

Ha, ha...no way.

That's why I'm asking about, because I'm clueless.

 

[faefrost]

Yes, Baez speculated. His testimony sucked. He should have known A, B and C a year ago. Etc. But in keeping the "big picture" in mind (which includes the inevitable appeals of what I HOPE will be a conviction of Casey), my overall thoughts are:

We can analyze the sufficiency of Baez's subpoena, it's breadth, it's legality and more generally whether he sucks as a lawyer (he's not brilliant - he's a local yokel who hangs at the jail to get clients). And on that basis decide whether his motion, as drafted, should be denied. It's fun to analyze all this and heck, that's what WebSleuths is for. But in the grand scheme of things, all it means is that appellate lawyers will agree with us and say "Yeah, that subpoena and motion totally sucked" and "WebSleuthers were right - Baez's response (he accused JJ of pointing to a map) was lame", etc. They'll argue ineffective assistance of counsel. They will say a crucial part of the defense was the question of how long the body was at the Suburban Drive spot and, through Baez's screw-ups, the question was never fully explored. Baez should have asked at the deposition, he knew about it at that point, etc. etc. But he didn't and that hurt Casey's defense. The risk of having a conviction overturned is so easily addressed at this point. Prosecutors reach an agreement with the blogger for an "in camera" review of stuff and everything is kept private. The blogger can even sit in the room while the review takes place. Plus, the whole process saves time and money - why? Because the case will no longer include:

(1) Three days of trial with Baez submitting blog posts by JJ to the jury and suggesting JJ omitted photos of the body location which JJ suggested he searched but didn't photograph. At summation, Baez will tell the jury they can't convict if there is any reasonable doubt and in my experience, some jurors find the most RIDICULOUS things to constitute "reasonable doubt" (especially if they are against the death penalty).

(2) Appellate arguments based on failure of defense counsel to fully explore an issue that was crucial to Casey's defense.

Who cares if Baez didn't do a good job with his overly broad subpoena and whether he screwed up at the JJ dep by not asking some questions? Prosecutors, and probably JJ too, want Casey Anthony to be convicted so probably, they'll get together on agreeing to some reasonable review of JJ's stuff to avoid (1) and (2) above. It won't hurt prosecutors and if it's a limited review with JJ present, it won't hurt JJ too much. I think the parties will be smart and arrange this.

Because of the above, I just don't see the point in arguing that Baez isn't entitled to A, B or C because his subpoena is overly broad, or he should have asked such and such question at such and such time, or whatever. Yes, you can dig up old stuff showing Baez knew A, B and C (or should have) one year ago but.....the State isn't prosecuting Baez, it's prosecuting Casey Anthony and assuming a conviction is obtained, Baez's scew-ups will benefit Casey in the end. Her appellate lawyers will not be boneheads like Baez. They will be brilliant lawyers from huge law firms with pro bono sections that do death penalty appeals. Which is why you will sometimes see prosecutors helping the defense (if it won't hurt the prosecution's case). Let's face it - with all Casey's antics, the trunk of the car, coffin flies, partying, lying to LE....there isn't much of a defense here. Baez doesn't have much to work with so defense has decided on "location of body" as one of a handful of possible defenses, and therefore prosecutors will want to make sure defense can't complain about not having evidence to support its (ridiculous) defense.

I think HHJP is taking a little gamble on this one as you say. But it is an extremely minor one. he telegraphed this the previous hearing when he stated that "he was not afriad of trying the case twice" as a warning to those who were seeking to abuse concerns about appeals to accomplish inappropriate goals now. And that's what JB was doing here. he submitted a very broadly framed demand for a search of pretty much everything and anything in JJ's life. While his stated purpose was looking for pictures which might be exculpatory, it was pretty clear to all involved that he was looking for writings, blog posts and personal opinions with which he might use to accuse or undermine the witnesses credibility. He was being disengenius with the court and HHJP called him on it. He left the ruling without prejudice so they are free to file a less broad request that does not include the fishing expedition. HHJP knew exactly what JB was up to and nailed him on it.

While the defense can raise a valid appeal based on the exclusion of eculpatory evidence. In order to do so the evidence in question must actually exist and it must in fact be exculpatory. It must be something that would have had a clear chance of changing the juries decision.

HHJP made a decision of informed and calculated risk. The defense was clearly taking inappropriate and unethical liberties by using the leverage "you don't wan't to risk an appeal", and had been doing so for awile, and had been warned several times regarding it. In this case HHJP cut them off and basically said go for it. See if you can sell this to an appeals court.

 

[krisskross]

Ha, ha...no way.

That's why I'm asking about, because I'm clueless.

In the country of my birth, Scotland, :seeya: we have three possible verdicts.
Guilty, Not Guilty and Not Proven.

 

[logicalgirl]

In the country of my birth, Scotland, :seeya: we have three possible verdicts.
Guilty, Not Guilty and Not Proven.

Interesting! We do in Canada also. Have three that is. Guilty, Not Guilty, and Oh Lord we'll see you back here in a couple of months, also known as a Mistrial.:waitasec:

 

[NJ Lawyer]

...JB is reluctant to the point of being in contempt of court to turn over the expert reports. Now why would that be? Is it possible that these reports do not favor his client..

Not a big mystery there. Of course the reports aren't favorable to his client. Truth, logic and reason are not on the side of JB's client.

I think JB's attack the other day against JJ in court was not very wise on his part when we all know JJ was put right smack in the middle of this by defense's PI and their witness LB.

In my view, all of this *stuff* is just speculation (did JJ insert himself into case or not; did Kronk want fame; do George and Cindy know what happened; was dissing JJ in court stupid or mean?) and will fall by the wayside when Casey is convicted. To ensure a conviction, I'd want to squash as many "reasonable doubt" points that I could and would therefore encourage all parties to hand over stuff (in camera) as liberally as possible. As a prosecutor, I would give in and even HELP the defense on this point as much as I could b/c it wouldn't be time consuming and the results wouldn't hurt my case. Truth would be on my side and it would help towards a conviction.

Keeping in mind we all know (though most hate to admit) that JB needs to do his job to defend his client but misrepresenting facts before the court should not go unpunished.

He can be sanctioned at some later point. You punish the lawyer, not the client. At this point, I would be as deferential as possible to Baez's defense so we don't hear him (or Casey's appellate lawyers) whine later on. I'm sure JJ and the photographer and everyone else can work together towards this larger goal.

 

[Turnadot]

Going back to your opinion that HHJP should have granted the subpoena, NJ.

I feel like you're making these brilliant posts and I'm missing something that is glaringly obvious, and I appreciate you coming back and trying to explain.

I'm going to try and articulate my concerns.

1) JJ blogged photos as a result of his search there with a group of other people.

2) Someone snapped the photos, though it was not established in court that JJ was the photographer.

As an aside, I don't recall whether JJ claimed to have been the photographer. He might have done, and I might have said he did, but to be perfectly honest, I don't remember, because it's been a while.

Forget Baez's overly broad motion, or him failing to ask JJ certain questions in the deposition; it doesn't matter, you're absolutely right.

This brings me to:

3) When asked by HHJP, Baez could not answer in the affirmative that JJ was the photographer.

Based on 3, I can't agree with you that HHJP should have granted the defense their subpoena.

What wrong turn did I take?

Again, I defer to your legal knowledge, here.

 

[NJ Lawyer]

He left the ruling without prejudice so they are free to file a less broad request

I think that's a key feature of the ruling and one that I'm happy about, from a prosecution standpoint. I would have liked to have seen the judge clarify that, while the scope was broad, and Baez needs to be more specific and provide background for a review, he isn't required to "prove" the existence of anything. In any event, as a prosecutor I would craft something to try and close the "loophole" my opponent will argue exists when we get to trial. I'm speaking here of the "body location" issue which seems to be the only one left for defense to argue (how pathetic is that?) All other points I would stick to my guns (for example.....of course Casey's partying during Caylee's absence needs to get into court. I'm not going to let a possible appellate argument get in the way of insisting on those type of issues.)

 

[krisskross]

Interesting! We do in Canada also. Have three that is. Guilty, Not Guilty, and Oh Lord we'll see you back here in a couple of months, also known as a Mistrial.:waitasec:

LOL

Didn't Canada largely adopt a system based on British Common Law?. Lots of similarities. That said, Scotland is the only UK country to have a Not Proven verdict.