2011.01.06 Baez Slapped with Formal Sanction

[logicalgirl]

So don't mind my random posts.

Just hop in and use a whole bunch of icons - move around all the threads commenting here and there - you'd be surprised how fast the numbers go up :floorlaugh:

 

[NoNameLeft]

During the sanctions hearing they also discussed the 'ocean of motions' by the defense. At one point Judge Perry asks Mr. Mason if the defense has anything to add or can the court just rule when receiving the State's response. CM has something to add and hands copies of a case to LDB and the clerk. I can't quite hear what he is saying: Florida Supreme Court, ... vs State, ... 846 Southern Second 502 Florida Supreme Court 2003.

Anyway, while Mason does this, you can hear Jeff Ashton ask Linda Drane Burdick if this is his case and she confirms that. They whisper some more to each other and Ms. Burdick then responds and tells the court they are familiar with the case and will address it in their response.

My question is, do we know what case they are talking about? If not, could someone be so kind to listen to this exchange and post here what Mason says. Thanks in advance!

Click here for Part 3, starts @ 10:00 mark and the conversation lasts about 40 seconds.

 

[P1569]

During the sanctions hearing they also discussed the 'ocean of motions' by the defense. At one point Judge Perry asks Mr. Mason if the defense has anything to add or can the court just rule when receiving the State's response. CM has something to add and hands copies of a case to LDB and the clerk. I can't quite hear what he is saying: Florida Supreme Court, ... vs State, ... 846 Southern Second 502 Florida Supreme Court 2003.

Anyway, while Mason does this, you can hear Jeff Ashton ask Linda Drane Burdick if this is his case and she confirms that. They whisper some more to each other and Ms. Burdick then responds and tells the court they are familiar with the case and will address it in their response.

My question is, do we know what case they are talking about? If not, could someone be so kind to listen to this exchange and post here what Mason says. Thanks in advance!

Click here for Part 3, starts @ 10:00 mark and the conversation lasts about 40 seconds.

Here you go (this is what I got from his mumble) jmo
@ 10:00 You don’t have anything in addition other than what you placed in the four corners of the motion so once they respond I get a response I can rule? CM: With the addition your honor I would have your honor look at our citation Miller versus State and this is for the State, eight forty six southern second nine o two Florida State Supreme Court two thousand and three and a copy for you. LDB: Were familiar with that we can address that in our response

 

[Tulessa]

A restraining order? :waitasec:



BBM

If I had a nickel for every time I've said that to a wom.......ummmm nevermind.

Post of the year!!:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

 

[AZlawyer]

During the sanctions hearing they also discussed the 'ocean of motions' by the defense. At one point Judge Perry asks Mr. Mason if the defense has anything to add or can the court just rule when receiving the State's response. CM has something to add and hands copies of a case to LDB and the clerk. I can't quite hear what he is saying: Florida Supreme Court, ... vs State, ... 846 Southern Second 502 Florida Supreme Court 2003.

Anyway, while Mason does this, you can hear Jeff Ashton ask Linda Drane Burdick if this is his case and she confirms that. They whisper some more to each other and Ms. Burdick then responds and tells the court they are familiar with the case and will address it in their response.

My question is, do we know what case they are talking about? If not, could someone be so kind to listen to this exchange and post here what Mason says. Thanks in advance!

Click here for Part 3, starts @ 10:00 mark and the conversation lasts about 40 seconds.

Here you go (this is what I got from his mumble) jmo
@ 10:00 You don’t have anything in addition other than what you placed in the four corners of the motion so once they respond I get a response I can rule? CM: With the addition your honor I would have your honor look at our citation Miller versus State and this is for the State, eight forty six southern second nine o two Florida State Supreme Court two thousand and three and a copy for you. LDB: Were familiar with that we can address that in our response

Menna v. State, 846 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 2003)?

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/pre2004/ops/sc01-2174.pdf

 

[AZlawyer]

Menna v. State, 846 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 2003)?

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/pre2004/ops/sc01-2174.pdf

FYI the case is about evidence of consciousness of guilt. The basic holding is that, if the behavior of the accused could just as easily be interpreted as motivated by something other than consciousness of guilt, the evidence should not come in at trial.

This particular case was about the defendant's refusal to allow a test for gunpowder on her hands. The evidence didn't come in, because you could interpret her refusal as the desire of an innocent person to have legal counsel present before agreeing to anything.

 

[NoNameLeft]

Thanks so much for transcribing the mumble and explaining that particular case! You guys and girls rock! :rocker:

ETA: The State's reply addresses the consciousness of guilt at page 7 of their motion. Click here to read it.

 

[denjet]

FYI the case is about evidence of consciousness of guilt. The basic holding is that, if the behavior of the accused could just as easily be interpreted as motivated by something other than consciousness of guilt, the evidence should not come in at trial.

This particular case was about the defendant's refusal to allow a test for gunpowder on her hands. The evidence didn't come in, because you could interpret her refusal as the desire of an innocent person to have legal counsel present before agreeing to anything.

Thanks AZ ... it all makes perfect sense when YOU explain it ! :thumb:

So, Mason sited that case in response to the judge bringing up the motion to suppress the tattoo ... so I'm guessing we'll be hearing more about this given the many, many things KC did that showed consciousness of guilt ?

 

[AZlawyer]

Thanks AZ ... it all makes perfect sense when YOU explain it ! :thumb:

So, Mason sited that case in response to the judge bringing up the motion to suppress the tattoo ... so I'm guessing we'll be hearing more about this given the many, many things KC did that showed consciousness of guilt ?

Notice, though, that the SA did not talk about "consciousness of guilt" with respect to the tattoo. Instead, they talked about "state of mind." The tattoo might not show that she was afraid to get caught because she did something wrong ("consciousness of guilt"), but might show that she was happy about something that, as she said to Lee, was "Caylee related" ("state of mind").

IOW, when one's daughter has been kidnapped, one would expect a "state of mind" of panic and stress and trying to FIND one's daughter, not a "state of mind" of relaxation, partying, and memorializing the life of one's daughter.

 

[faefrost]

Notice, though, that the SA did not talk about "consciousness of guilt" with respect to the tattoo. Instead, they talked about "state of mind." The tattoo might not show that she was afraid to get caught because she did something wrong ("consciousness of guilt"), but might show that she was happy about something that, as she said to Lee, was "Caylee related" ("state of mind").

IOW, when one's daughter has been kidnapped, one would expect a "state of mind" of panic and stress and trying to FIND one's daughter, not a "state of mind" of relaxation, partying, and memorializing the life of one's daughter.

is there a greater chance that whole "consciousness of guilt" argument or prior case would disallow the jailhouse surveillance video of her finding out about the remains site on the TV?

 

[AZlawyer]

is there a greater chance that whole "consciousness of guilt" argument or prior case would disallow the jailhouse surveillance video of her finding out about the remains site on the TV?

Yes! Good point. From what we know about that video, there's an obvious alternative explanation that, as an innocent mother, she naturally assumed that the dead child found by her house was Caylee. Much the same way that I assume any car accident in the same city where my daughter is driving probably involves her.

 

[A_News_Junkie]

Menna v. State, 846 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 2003)?

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/pre2004/ops/sc01-2174.pdf

:banghead: Sounded like Miller v. State to me too, but neither that, nor the case above appear in their answer..........
http://www.wesh.com/pdf/26541157/detail.html
PAGE 10 is the Tattoo reply

I am able to find a Miller v. State cases but the other case numbers don't match as I search it in Google Scholar - FL cases.......
Ideas, AZ?

Whatever case it was, I think that when she states:"The defendant is mistaken to suggest the State is offering the tattoo to show defendant's character or lack thereof." <---- that is what the mystery case was about.

So did I just take dirt and make mud?

 

[denjet]

Notice, though, that the SA did not talk about "consciousness of guilt" with respect to the tattoo. Instead, they talked about "state of mind." The tattoo might not show that she was afraid to get caught because she did something wrong ("consciousness of guilt"), but might show that she was happy about something that, as she said to Lee, was "Caylee related" ("state of mind").

IOW, when one's daughter has been kidnapped, one would expect a "state of mind" of panic and stress and trying to FIND one's daughter, not a "state of mind" of relaxation, partying, and memorializing the life of one's daughter.

OK, that explains why it seemed like the case didn't quite fit with what they were arguing ... the hearing to hear these motions is going to be something ... IMO all of KC's activities during those 31 days will all end up coming into trial ... I just don't see how they can keep them from trial ...

 

[NoNameLeft]

Yes! Good point. From what we know about that video, there's an obvious alternative explanation that, as an innocent mother, she naturally assumed that the dead child found by her house was Caylee. Much the same way that I assume any car accident in the same city where my daughter is driving probably involves her.

Sorry AZ, but I'm confused now. To me this sounds like disallowing that video because of the consciousness of guilt wouldn't apply, since Casey's attorney could argue just what you said. :waitasec:

 

[denjet]

Thanks so much for transcribing the mumble and explaining that particular case! You guys and girls rock! :rocker:

ETA: The State's reply addresses the consciousness of guilt at page 7 of their motion. Click here to read it.

Wow, I'm really, really liking LDB's motions ... so professional and well-cited ... Everytime I read her arguments, I think .. the state is going to wipe the floor with Baez and Mason ... :clap:

 

[A_News_Junkie]

Here you go (this is what I got from his mumble) jmo
@ 10:00 You don’t have anything in addition other than what you placed in the four corners of the motion so once they respond I get a response I can rule? CM: With the addition your honor I would have your honor look at our citation Miller versus State and this is for the State, eight forty six southern second nine o two Florida State Supreme Court two thousand and three and a copy for you. LDB: Were familiar with that we can address that in our response

CM: With the addition of eh your honor I call attention to the Florida State Fortification (?) Board certification (?) Miller vs State MENNA v state <----------- Okay, now I hear it.

Uggggggh - this is why I wish the judge would tell JB and CM they must have their mic on when addressing the court.

Does CM have loose dentures? Just asking......:innocent:

 

[AZlawyer]

Sorry AZ, but I'm confused now. To me this sounds like disallowing that video because of the consciousness of guilt wouldn't apply, since Casey's attorney could argue just what you said. :waitasec:

No, Casey's attorney would argue what I said and the video WOULD be disallowed because the consciousness of guilt argument wouldn't apply. :waitasec:

Wait. I'm confusing us both. I think the video of her learning where the remains were will be disallowed. I think the Florida Supreme Court has made the issue unnecessarily complicated, but in layman's terms the reason it should be kept out is that both innocent AND guilty mothers might react with overwhelmed and somewhat crazy behaviors if they believed their daughter's body had just been found.

 

[NoNameLeft]

LOL AZ, yes of course! Excuse my stupidity! What was I thinking... (in a backwards sorta way it made sense then) Quick, let's get back OT and forget this ever happened. :innocent:

Man, did Baez deserve that sanction. I hope he gets at least one more before this trial is over.