2011.01.06 Baez Slapped with Formal Sanction

Status
Not open for further replies.
IIRC the SAO agreed to the 10/20 days. They may have a *lot* to say about any further delay, depending on for what date their next round of depositions is scheduled. If Baez's requested delay will force the SAO to push back the depos, Judge Perry might not look too kindly on granting the extension.

I'm hoping you're right ... it's getting too close for the state to complete depositions of experts ... very important depositions and the defense is stonewalling ... I wondered if the state could file an objection ... I hope that's what happens and Ashton can tell the judge about their scheduled depositions ... makes me wonder if any of these depositions fall on Jose's "week of inavailibity" ...
"There's always nights and weekends, Mr Baez!"
 
OMG!! HHJP said absolutely not 30 days..and gave them 20
now they want a total of 65 days from the original order of 20 days!

Whhhaaaaaat????
 
That's about the size of it ... Jose just wants an extension to the extension of the extension of the original deadline of Nov 30th if I have that right?
So he was sanctioned in an effort to remedy the problem, tried to have the sanction reversed and got shot down ... so what does he do? ... still doesn't comply ...
Please, please Judge Perry, it's time for the $500 fine a day ... otherwise this will just continue ...
How many times does the same issue have to be revisted ... cough it up Jose !! :maddening:

Your right, the dollar fine or rather the costs to the State was not the main sanction, the ruling that experts produce reports was as you state the chosen remedy J Perry imposed to level the playing field.

I can't imagine any compelling reason as to why ALL the reports should not be forthcoming. But guess we need to see the motion. Is he asking for a delay on one, two or ALL of the listed experts? If its ALL, clearly some jickery pokery is still going on. J Perry is a smart man.
I dont think he would be intimidated into not imposing the $500 a day fine. Because that still doesn't hurt Casey only her attorneys.
 
HHJP won't let the deposition dates stand. I'm sure he would also in turn give the State a short reprieve in taking the depositions so that they may adequately prepare for said depositions. With that said, it seems unlikely at the rate things are getting pushed back that the original trial date slated for May 2011 will go as planned.

Mark my words, I'll be surprised if the May 2011 trial date stands. HHJP is between a rock and a hard place. I don't envy him.


:waitasec: But what about the non-refundable deposit?!
 
Am I wrong in thinking that until the defense formally removes the expert witness from the witness list, their reports/deposition/testimony etc is never moot? So unless or until they remove Dr. Lee from the witness list the state still has the right and obligation to depose them and expect report results, etc? The same for the "consultant only" experts?
 
Which one is moot?

ETA: Oh I see...Dr. Lee. Is this the first official word from them that he would not be testifying?
 
HHJP: I'm not giving you 30 days.
JB: Then how about you give me 20 and then I ask for an additional 45?

My three year old twins don't understand the rules of bargaining either, but they're three years old, they don't have law degrees, and nobody's life and freedom depend on them doing things right.
 
" i. The Defense has a good faith basis and has supporting documentation which has been disclosed to the prosecution and is available to the court to examine under seal as to why Dr. Werner Spitz's report is not complete."

Huh?

Spitz forgot how to use a pencil again?


And apparently Logan won't answer their calls.
 
OMG an extra 45 days for Spitz and and Logan!!!!! Are they high?

So they asked for 30, got 20, now they want another 45 which means even though they were told no to 30 they know have the cajones to ask for what amounts to 65? ANd didn't HHJP originally offer 10 or 15 which was when they wanted 30?
 
""Lee's report has become moot," the defense said." <--------- so that implies there is a report (that was not turned over).........can't the state demand the report anyway as reciprocal discovery?

I sure hope so!! They have lost their minds with this filing!
 
grasping at straws, grasping at straws. the defense is crumbling right beneath our eyes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
84
Guests online
548
Total visitors
632

Forum statistics

Threads
627,040
Messages
18,536,873
Members
241,171
Latest member
Tr0j4n
Back
Top