2011.01.25 Defense Requests More Time to Submit Expert Reports

[Numbers]

Originally Posted by ThinkTank
In the Defense Motion for extension of time to comply with order for Expert witness reports, filed Jan 25, 2011 - the Defense writes about Dr. Werner Spitz --
"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."



IMO - it depends on how much the Prosecutors choose to bring to Judge P's attention, via a Response filed to the Defense Motion for extension of time. Will the Prosecutors inform the Judge of all of the misrepresentations in the Defense Motion? Will the State point out how ludicrous it is for the Defense to claim that they do not already have some type of notes or report from all of the Experts?

Bottom line ... judging from past rulings by the Judge ... he will allow some extension of time .... (not that I personally agree with that decision)

I just hope the Judge will address the fact that the Defense keeps writing in Motions that certain Defense Experts will not testify, or have been "withdrawn" ... when they have NOT "officially" been withdrawn, and must continue to be considered Expert witnesses who the State must depose, until the Defense officially files an Amended Defense Witness List to remove any witnesses.

By not addressing the motion yesterday, Judge Perry already *has* granted - or allowed - an extension. Tacit approval and all that.

 

[LambChop]

Found it! Check it out, he could teach Jose Baez the facts of life!

If I were the defense, I would concentrate on trying to find experts to keep the K9 and air samples out; because, all of the troubled would be witnesses they muster up to say Suburban was dry will not mediate against those two. If the K9 information and air samples come in.....it is over, imo.

I think it is already over. SA knows it, JB knows it and we all here at WS know it. Why KC doesn't get it beats me. jmo

 

[faefrost]

By not addressing the motion yesterday, Judge Perry already *has* granted - or allowed - an extension. Tacit approval and all that.

Not exactly. Remember that the judge does not have to take direct action. It is simply that anything that has not been submitted by or about these expert witnesses prior to today will not be allowed at trial, unless the judge acts on the last minute defense motion to extend that. As of today I suspect that the SA could simply walk away from the witnesses that they have not received reports on, opt not to depose them because they did not get sufficient discovery, and all they would be able to testify about at trial would be their resume's and curriculum vitae. BOY WOULDN'T THAT BE A BIT OF A SURPRISE FOR JB AND COMPANY?

 

[ZsaZsa]

Not exactly. Remember that the judge does not have to take direct action. It is simply that anything that has not been submitted by or about these expert witnesses prior to today will not be allowed at trial, unless the judge acts on the last minute defense motion to extend that. As of today I suspect that the SA could simply walk away from the witnesses that they have not received reports on, opt not to depose them because they did not get sufficient discovery, and all they would be able to testify about at trial would be their resume's and curriculum vitae. BOY WOULDN'T THAT BE A BIT OF A SURPRISE FOR JB AND COMPANY?

:clap::clap::clap:

 

[Novice Seeker]

I think this was the first time I heard JB say the cadaver dog was either "1-for-2 or 0-for-2" and I thought, "what the heck does he mean by that"?? :waitasec: Then I realized that he actually believed that decomp from any given body could only be found in ONE PLACE :loser:, so if the dog found decomp in TWO places it was clearly wrong--or, as Cindy said (operating perhaps under the same misconception) "inconsistent."

:shush: he might hear us.


Novice Seeker

 

[cyberborg]

By not addressing the motion yesterday, Judge Perry already *has* granted - or allowed - an extension. Tacit approval and all that.

I would suspect that HHJP will give the Defense until at least this Friday COB (1/28) to see if they do file anything late ... as usual. He will then act on the Motion to extend. IMO.

 

[NoNameLeft]

Ashton said in the Jan 14th Hearing that he had to cancel some scheduled depositions of Defense Experts, but did not say specifically which ones. Dr. Logan was set for depo Jan 18th. Baez says in his Jan 25th Motion for more time, that anticipates being able to comply with the Court's Order "prior to his deposition".... so, that implies that Dr. Logan has not been deposed by the State yet, not done on January 18th, as scheduled.

There has not been any official Notice of a new date for deposition of Dr. Logan, filed with the Clerk - and no Notice of cancellation of the Jan 18th deposition filed with the Clerk.

I was just watching that part of the status hearing and here's what was said by Jeff Ashton about the upcoming depositions of defense experts:

"Your Honor, at this point there are two scheduled - one next week and one the week after*, that were continuations of depositions previously held. We have not scheduled the other ones until we receive the reports.

The first report we should receive - it's technically a Sunday, so I assume Tuesday morning. My hope is to set that deposition fairly... shortly thereafter. And as we receive the reports we'll very quickly set the depositions. Based on the supplemental information provided in the Motion For Reconsideration, assuming that the reports are consistent with that, those depositions should be very very short. So we should be able to get going very quickly once we get the reports."

* These were Dr. Bock on January 24 and Dr. Huntington on January 28

Click here to watch. It's Part 2 of the Status Hearing on January 14, and this is said starting @ the 7:53 mark

No depositions for the week of the hearing. So Dr. Logan's deposition was already canceled at that point. Probably right after the sanctions hearing on January 3 - at least that's how I interpret Mr. Ashton's comments. If we assume Baez spoke to Dr. Logan at that time, it would be rather far fetched that he only mentioned the cancellation and not the need for a report. Especially since the reason for canceling was Dr. Logan's report.

 

[Purple Iris]

:waitasec: Wait a minute, this happened in December, and Jose is just NOW bringing it up a month later? Not, say, at the last status hearing, or any hearing since December 24th? Either he wasn't told until now, or didn't want to use this as an excuse until he absolutely had to. Surely he was contacted shortly after the first surgery about Dr. Spitz! Well, unless like the other experts, Dr. Spitz wasn't returning his calls...

If Spitz is trying to ignore Baez, then, I sure wouldn't want Baez on my hospital "visit list".

He'd be the last person actually that I would feel needs to know that I'm laid up in the hospital.

Can you imagine being in the hospital, probably in critical condition from the sounds of it, and have this fool come breezing in trying to talk you into something when you're heavliy medicated!!??

 

[faefrost]

Originally Posted by ThinkTank
In the Defense Motion for extension of time to comply with order for Expert witness reports, filed Jan 25, 2011 - the Defense writes about Dr. Werner Spitz --
"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."



IMO - it depends on how much the Prosecutors choose to bring to Judge P's attention, via a Response filed to the Defense Motion for extension of time. Will the Prosecutors inform the Judge of all of the misrepresentations in the Defense Motion? Will the State point out how ludicrous it is for the Defense to claim that they do not already have some type of notes or report from all of the Experts?

Bottom line ... judging from past rulings by the Judge ... he will allow some extension of time .... (not that I personally agree with that decision)

I just hope the Judge will address the fact that the Defense keeps writing in Motions that certain Defense Experts will not testify, or have been "withdrawn" ... when they have NOT "officially" been withdrawn, and must continue to be considered Expert witnesses who the State must depose, until the Defense officially files an Amended Defense Witness List to remove any witnesses.

That's sort of where the huge amount of mystery will come into play until the next major hearing. Because as much as I really hate to seem pessimistic, realistically given the nature of his injuries and his advanced age, the chances of Dr. Spitz giving so much as 1 word of trial testimony in this case are slim to none. he will be lucky to be out of skilled nursing care by summer.

So how exactly will the defense be addressing this with the judge? How will the judge react to a delay for a witness that odds are will never be able to testify? how will the judge react to the fact that at this late stage of things there are no depositions of the witness on the record or sworn testimony? As much as you want to preserve the defendants rights, I assume courts deal with the unavailability, temporary or permanent, or witnesses all of the time. And I suspect that this does not in any way slow the process or delay the states interests in justice?

 

[beach]

That's sort of where the huge amount of mystery will come into play until the next major hearing. Because as much as I really hate to seem pessimistic, realistically given the nature of his injuries and his advanced age, the chances of Dr. Spitz giving so much as 1 word of trial testimony in this case are slim to none. he will be lucky to be out of skilled nursing care by summer.

So how exactly will the defense be addressing this with the judge? How will the judge react to a delay for a witness that odds are will never be able to testify? how will the judge react to the fact that at this late stage of things there are no depositions of the witness on the record or sworn testimony? As much as you want to preserve the defendants rights, I assume courts deal with the unavailability, temporary or permanent, or witnesses all of the time. And I suspect that this does not in any way slow the process or delay the states interests in justice?

Bringing Macushla's similar question & AZ's proposed solution over from the verified attorney thread for reference.

What happens if Dr. Werner Spitz is not well enough to testify at the trial? If a worst case scenario occurs and Dr. Spitz is 'no longer with us', would this be a huge problem for the defense in that Caylee's remains were cremated so another Forensic Pathologist would only be able to look at photos to form an opinion. Would the Defense be granted a continuance to give them time to find another expert and have that doctor examine both Dr. Garavaglia's report and Dr. Spitz report or notes if there is no report.

I am concerned about this because I can't see any way for the trial to go forward if one the defenses experts can not testify. What would be the options for everyone involved?

If I were HHJP, I would tell the defense it should not take long for a new expert to get up to speed, considering there is no body for him to examine. He would have to go from Dr. G's report and Dr. S's notes, recordings, etc.

If Dr. S had been deposed (he hasn't been deposed, has he?) they could just present his deposition to the jury.

 

[The World According]

I'm still trying to figure that one out. Apparently no one has ever told JB that defense expert witnesses, particularly scientific experts are not supposed to be part of the defense team. They aren't supposed to be part of any team. They are supposed to be a part of any "team". They are supposed to come in and give the impression that they are impartial independent witnesses who have a solid expert opinion on their small piece of the case. They are not supposed to be collaborating with other defense witnesses beyond the actual handling of the evidence in question. Putting them all together in one place to talk about the case undermines their credibility and believability. They are not their to investigate the case or give the whole picture. That is the defense attorneys job. They should not be seen as operating as a group in order to all end up on the same page.

You have zeroed in on the problem! Indeed this is lost on him. He went so far as to say that he brought all the experts there on the same day to present a united front. It was very obvious they didn't come expecting to get any work done, as they arrived without equipment, for the most part. Nevertheless; even for Jose, to announce that he brought them all there for show.....
Wow, you just can't make this stuff up!
In the words of Richard Hornsby, it's just so blatant!

 

[The World According]

I think, as usual, the term "submit" here can be translated as "desperately search for last-minute, unsuspecting, potential candidates who might possibly agree in a moment of weakness to risk their reputation to be an expert defense witness while dealing with a hot mess of a lead attorney and his massively unsypmathetic client before they, too, change their minds"

:great:
Yes, you and Mr. Ashton concur!
http://www.wftv.com/video/26354520/index.html
Watch part 1 of 2 of the Casey Anthony murder case status hearing held on Friday, January 14. (01/14/11)

This my friends is Mr. Ashton mopping the floor with the defense.

 

[Paintr]

I wonder when we'll hear HHJP's response to this motion? Before the status hearing on the fourth? :waitasec:

ETA Will the SA file an objection to this motion? Perhaps the SA will ask for more sanctions?

 

[Paintr]

And still no answer to the motion from Mr Baez....not from the SA and not from HHJP. If it wasn't -30* here under two feet of snow,:coldout:, I would hear crickets.

 

[hannahsnana]

I wonder when we'll hear HHJP's response to this motion? Before the status hearing on the fourth? :waitasec:

ETA Will the SA file an objection to this motion? Perhaps the SA will ask for more sanctions?

I wonder the same thing. The silence is deafening!!!

 

[P1569]

I wonder when we'll hear HHJP's response to this motion? Before the status hearing on the fourth? :waitasec:

ETA Will the SA file an objection to this motion? Perhaps the SA will ask for more sanctions?

jmo But I do think that CJPerry will not respond to this motion until open court at the status hearing with the SA Ashton's response right there and then.

The defense is on court record stating that they wanted 30 days and was turned down by CJPerry. Then the defense submitted on Wednesday, January 5th 20 days for all reports to be submitted. Now back on Monday, January 3rd Sanction hearing CJPerry told the defense to call their experts and tell them that the court has you on a very loose string.

I do not see anyway that CJPerry will extend the reports for Reichs or Logan for another 45 days. As for Dr. Spitz report he could just tell the defense to have him submit the notes that were taken on December 24, 2008 and that will do for his report since he is ill. Also that this must be done by noon Monday, February 7th. jmo

 

[Paintr]

So Mr Baez managed to gain a few more days just because there was no one who responded to his motion. I wonder if HHJP will address the extention during today's hearing?

 

[faefrost]

So Mr Baez managed to gain a few more days just because there was no one who responded to his motion. I wonder if HHJP will address the extention during today's hearing?

He gains nothing unless the judge rules in his favor on this latest motion. Until then the deadline has come and gone. Nothing submitted after that date may be used at trial.

 

[nums24]

Bombshell!!

WFTV was able to find Dr. Barry Logan, the report is from TODAY!!!!!

Watch the video in the article, Dr. Logan is quoted:

http://www.wftv.com/news/26750580/detail.html

WFTV bought a powder called "Charge" from Pipe Dreams 2 on North Orange Blossom Trail and sent it to Wuestoff Labs in Melbourne, and then bought "Bliss" from the G-Spot on Colonial Drive and sent it to NMS Labs in Pennsylvania.

Both labs found the same stimulant, MDPV, which is known to cause psychosis, spike heart rate, and trigger heart attacks.

"There have been deaths associated with it," said Dr. Barry Logan, NMS Labs.

I think Judge Perry needs to see this news report ASAP!!!!

 

[suepitzl]

What is this flipping "attorney" trying to do? He will IMO be disbarred.