2011.01.06 Baez Slapped with Formal Sanction

[ThinkTank]

bbm
I went back to that link and it won't open for me either now...:doh: apologies

ThinkTank do you have a link to Finnel's Motion...just asking..I will go look as well.

bbm
Seems so..
Yet, I don't believe it is the State availing itself to the provisions that rule but, JBP has given a timeline to file notices, docs etc...I don't know how that affects the rule 3.202 (c) which says
" Defendant shall give notice of intent to present expert testimony not less than 20 days before trial'
http://www.ninthcircuit.org/programs-services/court-resource-center/downloads/CrimRulesUpdate.pdf
----------------------------

Just found this...about the Constitutionality of 3.202
http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/downloads/234/everhart.pdf

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/6947242...ial-Penalty-Phase-Discovery-Response-Redacted
First page - Finnell talks about Rule 3.202 not applying.....

 

[Intermezzo]

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/6947242...ial-Penalty-Phase-Discovery-Response-Redacted
First page - Finnell talks about Rule 3.202 not applying.....

rule 3.202(a)
Notice to Intent to Seek Death Penalty
The provisions of the rule only apply in those capital cases in which the State gives written notice of its intent to seek the death penalty within 45 days from the date of arraignment.
Failure to give timely written notice under this subdivision does not preclude the State from seeking the death penalty

rule 3.202 (c)
" Defendant shall give notice of intent to present expert testimony not less than 20 days before trial'


Oct 14, 2008 Grand Jury Indictment..
Oct 28, 2008 Arraignment
Somewhere between Oct 28 and Nov 5 the DP is on the table, I assume...
Nov 5, 2008 Report argues against death
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...06_1_casey-anthony-death-penalty-anthony-case
Dec 5, 2008 Death Penalty Removed
Dec 11,2008 Remains and more evidence found
April 9, 2009 Death Penalty back on..

Okay, let me give this a try....

The State, according to the rule, can seek the DP...
Finnell is arguing that rule 3.202 does not apply....
Well IMO Yes and NO
The rule 3.202(c) applies to EXPERT witnesses in the Penalty Phase it does not mention non-expert penalty phase witnesses...which is who she lists in the Motion...

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/6947242...ial-Penalty-Phase-Discovery-Response-Redacted

 

[JSR]

I have a feeling they won't be filing any reports and will challenge the judge's ruling that he can compel the defense to produce any reports. I think Mason feels he complied with his idiotic summary in his motion for reconsideration.

What happens next if that is what they are trying to do?

I suspect they might try and appeal His Honor's original Order mandating a WRITTEN report. It appears the defense just doesn't want any written report detailing their experts opinions. The State will find out their opinions but via depositions. And it might come down to the State needing to depose these experts more than once to get all the information they need. Which is a rotten thing to do since it's just costing the State more money when all that's needed is a service to the State of a written report. It will be interesting to see if His Honor sets up another motion hearing soon and before the next status hearing.

 

[JSR]

Casey signed and the Defense filed a Notice of Intent to Participate in Discovery on October 15, 2008 does that not mean anything?

http://billsheaffer.wordpress.com/
May 25 2010
The general rule in Florida is, pretty much without exception, when the Defense files its Notice of Intent to Participate in Discovery, pursuant to the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, both the State and the Defense are then obligated to timely provide all evidence in the possession of each, to one another, as set forth and defined by Rule 3.220 Fla. R. Crim.P. This duty to disclose is ongoing, up to commencement of trial. If either party breaches that duty, the Court has a broad range of sanctions it can impose on the offending partying, including, but not limited to, exclusion at trial of the witness or evidence not properly disclosed.

BBM

It does mean something. But I believe the defense is trying to find a loophole about what is actually required and the language of the rule. The defense is "claiming" that they have no expert reports to turn over. It's my opinion they are lying. At the bare minimum they were verbally told of their opinions, but I do think some of their experts did provide a written report. The defense is debating the specific obligations they are required to comply with, in their mind they have no obligation to turn over a written report and that they can't be made to make a report to hand over to the state. And that seems to be what they're sticking to.

It seems they don't want to show their hand, or they don't know what their hand is and do not want to be tied down to anything so they can change things at any time.

 

[sumbunny]

I'd have thought that Jeff Ashton would have filed something with the court regarding the defenses lack of providing the report that was due on January 18th.

IIRC it only took a day the last time Baez missed his deadline.

Whats going on?

 

[LambChop]

I'd have thought that Jeff Ashton would have filed something with the court regarding the defenses lack of providing the report that was due on January 18th.

IIRC it only took a day the last time Baez missed his deadline.

Whats going on?

$$$$$$$$$ or maybe the experts just did not like what the defense team had to say about what they are really planning on discussing during their testimony at trial. Could it be that defense is guilty of a little "creative writings"??? Sounds like they've got NADA. jmo

 

[sumbunny]

What I meant to say is. Why isn't Jeff Ashton asking for sanctions again?

The million dollar question!

 

[ThinkTank]

What I meant to say is. Why isn't Jeff Ashton asking for sanctions again?

The million dollar question!

Maybe because the Judge already wrote what the next sanction/penalty will be if the Defense does not comply with the Order to provide the Expert info - which is: "Opinions that are not expressed in a written report or at depositions taken during discovery will not be allowed at trial"?

Maybe the Judge will just not allow any Defense Expert testimony at trial, that was not provided to the State as ordered.

That does not help the State prepare for depositions of the Defense Experts though.

 

[sumbunny]

Not only does it not help the state prepare for depositions of expert witnesses. It also doesn't help the upcoming frye hearing scheduled for march.

I thought Dr Furton will be present at this frye hearing as well.
I have a feeling the defense is attempting to stall until after the frye hearing to give any kind of information on what he plans on testifying to.

 

[JSR]

I'd have thought that Jeff Ashton would have filed something with the court regarding the defenses lack of providing the report that was due on January 18th.

IIRC it only took a day the last time Baez missed his deadline.

Whats going on?

But that doesn't mean he hasn't contacted chambers privately, with the defense fully aware of said contact. Sometimes the docket doesn't always reflect what's going on behind the scenes.

 

[Psmith]

BBM

It does mean something. But I believe the defense is trying to find a loophole about what is actually required and the language of the rule. The defense is "claiming" that they have no expert reports to turn over. It's my opinion they are lying. At the bare minimum they were verbally told of their opinions, but I do think some of their experts did provide a written report. The defense is debating the specific obligations they are required to comply with, in their mind they have no obligation to turn over a written report and that they can't be made to make a report to hand over to the state. And that seems to be what they're sticking to.

It seems they don't want to show their hand, or they don't know what their hand is and do not want to be tied down to anything so they can change things at any time.

(Bold added)

Defense seems to insist on keeping State in the dark about their case, despite it being contrary to statute and Judge's Perry's recent admonitions against "trial by ambush." I guess Baez is relishing his future speech to the jury when he presents his "Aha! moment," just like Perry Mason did on tv. :wink:

In a somewhat similar fashion, Defense has nothing and doesn't want to show they have nothing, but lives in hope that inspiration will come at the right moment. Too bad the trial date is set. tick-tock. jmo

I don't know whether a particular witness or combination of witnesses need constrain the Defense to any one course. They could spin things anyway they want?

 

[Psmith]

What I meant to say is. Why isn't Jeff Ashton asking for sanctions again?

The million dollar question!

At this rate of missed deadlines/noncompliance, the State Attorney's Office is going to need one of those handy-dandy "blank check" forms similar to the one Baez attached to his latest request for additional JAC funds.

It would be captioned "___ (fill in number) Motion for Sanctions for Failure to Comply with Order," then have ________ (fill in date) and a check box (granted/denied).

I would guess Ashton is simply waiting to bring down the hammer again with a list of multiple defiances. jmo

 

[sumbunny]

funny you should mention the bottom of Baez's motion.

I wondered if it was customary that all requests had similar fill in the blank areas on them, or is it just a very simple way for Baez to completely understand if his motion was denied or accepted.

God knows he doesn't understand what the judge ruled on in the past.

 

[sumbunny]

http://www.wesh.com/r/26561291/detail.html

Perry Won't Reconsider Defense Sanctions

"Judge In Case Against Casey Says Defense Was Never Held In Contempt"

http://www.wesh.com/pdf/26561606/detail.html (can read it here)

 

[Psmith]

funny you should mention the bottom of Baez's motion.

I wondered if it was customary that all requests had similar fill in the blank areas on them, or is it just a very simple way for Baez to completely understand if his motion was denied or accepted.

LOL!

God knows he doesn't understand what the judge ruled on in the past.

It truly is baffling! I wonder if it might also be that he refuses to accept reality--stuff like laws and rules--since it goes against "his reality" of carte blanche?

 

[strawberry]

http://www.wesh.com/r/26561291/detail.html

Perry Won't Reconsider Defense Sanctions

"Judge In Case Against Casey Says Defense Was Never Held In Contempt"

http://www.wesh.com/pdf/26561606/detail.html (can read it here)

OMG toooo funny...they didn't even know what was being done to him and called it the wrong thing on appeal. :floorlaugh:

 

[sumbunny]

Next time the defense might need to insert their little fill in the blank at the bottom and put


SANCTION?_________ NO SANCTION?_________ CONTEMPT?__________ NO CONTEMPT_________

might clarify it a little bit better for them

ETA: I'm starting to question CM's ability to act as a defense lawyer for Casey. He should know better after all his years in practice.
Maybe he requires Casey's Mitigation psychologists to evaluate his mental reasoning. MOO (sorry for the snark)

 

[ZsaZsa]

Things that make you go hmmm... So Baex didn't understand HHJP's sanction.
That means CMason didn't either, since he wrote the objection.
:floorlaugh:

 

[sumbunny]

Sadly CM says in his motion (paraphrasing) "It's because Baez is a newbie that he made this terrible mistake"

What is CM's excuse?

 

[cyberborg]

(Bold added)

Defense seems to insist on keeping State in the dark about their case, despite it being contrary to statute and Judge's Perry's recent admonitions against "trial by ambush." I guess Baez is relishing his future speech to the jury when he presents his "Aha! moment," just like Perry Mason did on tv. :wink:

In a somewhat similar fashion, Defense has nothing and doesn't want to show they have nothing, but lives in hope that inspiration will come at the right moment. Too bad the trial date is set. tick-tock. jmo

I don't know whether a particular witness or combination of witnesses need constrain the Defense to any one course. They could spin things anyway they want?

The Defense are taking a dangerous route but, if they basically have nothing then maybe they have little to lose and everything to gain.

By playing with the rules of Reciprocal Discovery and claiming there are no written reports it seems like the Defense are using this as a 'smoke screen' but may also afford them an opportunity for an appeal ... thus creating a major distraction and delay.

It seems like this is new territory, not to have any expert reports to share and being compelled to write a synopsis together with topics the expert will cover -- else it is excluded from trial unless discovered in depo.

Sounds like CM playing games to upset the apple cart and take the SA off their stride.