2011.01.25 Defense Requests More Time to Submit Expert Reports

[faefrost]

But wait.....doesn't this call into play whether these experts actually AGREED to be defense witnesses as opposed to being contacted initially as a "consultant"?

As I am understanding it after reading AZLawyers posts in the legal thread, as well as the quotes by Hornsby posted by TWA, the defense may have originally contacted these experts on a consultation basis to see what they have to say before making a determination that they would serve the defense well as a "defense expert"?

Is it possible that these experts were originally contacted for consultation but after review and verbally stating that they did not find anything contradictory in prosecution expert reports, they did NOT agree to testify as a defense witness, but Baez, with his limited knowledge, listed them as witnesses anyway...hence the current problem with getting them to return Baez' calls?

I thought I read earlier that as a defense attorney, if you consult with an expert whose opinion AGREES with the prosecution, you do NOT want a written report that will be turned over in discovery and used in trial against your client...so initial oral consultation between expert and defense attorney of findings is first step before retaining expert?

TWA had some brilliant postings about this just up above in this thread from earlier today. But the gist of it comes down to this. Yes you can verbally consult with experts and get their opinions. And yes you can play cagey and not get a written report, especially if you are fearful or concerned that the experts opinion is not in synch with what you need for the case or your defense strategy. You pay the expert as a consultant or in some way contract them. This locks them up from giving a counter opinion. AND THEN YOU WALK AWAY FROM THEM. YOU DO NOT PUT THEM ON YOUR WITNESS LIST. The witness list is for those people you expect to be giving favorable testimony at trial. These are the ones you will subject to cross examination and these are witnesses that damned well better be prepared to put their views findings and opinions in writing. That whole "no reports please" strategy. That's for much earlier in the process.

And there's the problem. JB slacked off for TWO YEARS. he never bothered to sit down and work out what his actual expert witness strategy was for 2 bloody years. So when the due date for the defense witness list came, passed, came again and was finally demanded by the judge, he just threw up all of the names of his consulting experts. With the assumption that like general witnesses it was a meaningless list of names that can be changed at any time. So now he finds himself at an impasse. he has experts listed on his witness list that he probably never reached an agreement with for testimony. He has reciprocal discovery of those witnesses being demanded that he never made arrangements to actually get from them. He is facing contempt orders for all of this nonsense. And he rather obviously has no back up plan.

 

[logicalgirl]

He should join the cast of Jersey Shore, he would fit right in.. just when you think they can't get any more disgusting.....

There - you've nailed it - like THAT! :floorlaugh:

 

[Soju]

Since Jose has this undeniable hangup about getting all the experts together to hold hands and sing campfire songs, I'm guessing his unique opportunity is the conference. I wonder if he'll ask if ICA can go, too!! !

bbm

I know, right? it's a unique opportunity to go to a place of interest, for sure!

I agree with sumbunny, too. The lack of response is eerie. Something has to happen today, no? If Perry doesn't grant this motion today, then the defense hasn't complied, right? What the heck is going on here?

 

[lauriej]

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5908855&postcount=156"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - List of Motions **NO DISCUSSION HERE PLEASE**[/ame]

12/16/2010 Notice of Taking Deposition(s) Via Skype / Webex
State taking deposition of Defense Expert Dr. Barry Logan on January 18, 2011

..how can baez possibly state in his motion that "the undersigned has made multiple attempts to reach" him, apparently to no avail------when they had him right there via skype last week??

 

[sumbunny]

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - List of Motions **NO DISCUSSION HERE PLEASE**

12/16/2010 Notice of Taking Deposition(s) Via Skype / Webex
State taking deposition of Defense Expert Dr. Barry Logan on January 18, 2011

..how can baez possibly state in his motion that "the undersigned has made multiple attempts to reach" him, apparently to no avail------when they had him right there via skype last week??

I thought the SA canceled that depo?

 

[RR0004]

Oooh apparently they have some. Dr Lee's report has become a "moot" point. -Baez Jan 25th 2011, 11:05am

Perhaps it was the "idea" of a report...

 

[RR0004]

TWA had some brilliant postings about this just up above in this thread from earlier today. But the gist of it comes down to this. Yes you can verbally consult with experts and get their opinions. And yes you can play cagey and not get a written report, especially if you are fearful or concerned that the experts opinion is not in synch with what you need for the case or your defense strategy. You pay the expert as a consultant or in some way contract them. This locks them up from giving a counter opinion. AND THEN YOU WALK AWAY FROM THEM. YOU DO NOT PUT THEM ON YOUR WITNESS LIST. The witness list is for those people you expect to be giving favorable testimony at trial. These are the ones you will subject to cross examination and these are witnesses that damned well better be prepared to put their views findings and opinions in writing. That whole "no reports please" strategy. That's for much earlier in the process.

And there's the problem. JB slacked off for TWO YEARS. he never bothered to sit down and work out what his actual expert witness strategy was for 2 bloody years. So when the due date for the defense witness list came, passed, came again and was finally demanded by the judge, he just threw up all of the names of his consulting experts. With the assumption that like general witnesses it was a meaningless list of names that can be changed at any time. So now he finds himself at an impasse. he has experts listed on his witness list that he probably never reached an agreement with for testimony. He has reciprocal discovery of those witnesses being demanded that he never made arrangements to actually get from them. He is facing contempt orders for all of this nonsense. And he rather obviously has no back up plan.

ITA with you...and I know that many have stated it, but I honestly believe that Baez has contributed very little to this case for the past 2 1/2 years (with the exception of some pretty bad motions). I believe he got caught up in all the "celebrity" and has delegated duties from the onset. He really doesn't know the law. While I do think that it works to the defense's benefit to stall and put off the inevitable, I think when it comes down to it, Baez doesn't know what he doing.

 

[RR0004]

Interesting re Spitz: (read all the way at the bottom for Spitz info)

http://www.wlwt.com/ryan-widmer-retrial/26613489/detail.html

Have we figured out which Dr. Spitz is on the witness list...son or father...going to check.

ETA: my brain says one thing and fingers type something else. OY!

PPS- senior

 

[IfIMay]

How funny would it be if Judge Perry rules *DENIED* and files his response at 4:50 pm today.

 

[kaRN]

But wait.....doesn't this call into play whether these experts actually AGREED to be defense witnesses as opposed to being contacted initially as a "consultant"?

As I am understanding it after reading AZLawyers posts in the legal thread, as well as the quotes by Hornsby posted by TWA, the defense may have originally contacted these experts on a consultation basis to see what they have to say before making a determination that they would serve the defense well as a "defense expert"?

Is it possible that these experts were originally contacted for consultation but after review and verbally stating that they did not find anything contradictory in prosecution expert reports, they did NOT agree to testify as a defense witness, but Baez, with his limited knowledge, listed them as witnesses anyway...hence the current problem with getting them to return Baez' calls?

I thought I read earlier that as a defense attorney, if you consult with an expert whose opinion AGREES with the prosecution, you do NOT want a written report that will be turned over in discovery and used in trial against your client...so initial oral consultation between expert and defense attorney of findings is first step before retaining expert?

I believe they agreed to consult but JB got all puffed up in pride with himself and misrepresented the relationship to the media. I understand AL's game plan of making an initial payment to an expert and taking them off the market so to speak until the case was resolved. It's brilliant IMO. I can even understand making the SAO believe that all of these individuals may be called to testify in preliminary witness lists. Probably a great defense tactic.
I've done some reading on protocols and ethics in the field of Forensic Investigation by starting at Dr Reichs own site and weaving through the web. Their pursuit is truth and they aren't allowed to omit, or ignore, or lie for JB.

http://www.aafs.org/
American Academy of Forensic Sciences MISSION

The American Academy of Forensic Sciences is a multi-disciplinary professional organization that provides leadership to advance science and its application to the legal system. The objectives of the Academy are to promote integrity, competency, education, foster research, improve practice, and encourage collaboration in the forensic sciences.


Re the conference-
They're voting on the final version of
Draft Criminal Justice and Forensic Science Reform Act 12-22-10

see http://aafs.org/sites/default/files/pdf/DraftCriminalJusticeAndFSReformAct12-22-10.pdf

Just me speculating here but at this of all conferences, JB and his sideshow will not be appreciated. Unless he's going as a display.:floorlaugh: :innocent:

 

[faefrost]

Since Jose has this undeniable hangup about getting all the experts together to hold hands and sing campfire songs, I'm guessing his unique opportunity is the conference. I wonder if he'll ask if ICA can go, too!!
Honestly, he wants until March 11 for Reichs and Roddy? A reasonable amount of time for the others, Logan and Spitz? Does he even know what a reasonable amount of time means?
I can not wait for HHJBP to put widdle Jose in timeout!
Geez, no wonder the prosecution wanted to know how much the experts had been paid, promised, etc.

Jose had $225,000 that we KNOW about. Now, he's lacing each argument with the prosecutions' resources? I'm sick of his incessant whining!

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.

 

[Numbers]

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.

Verily!

And yet Baez did everything except spell it out in his motion, while trying to make it sound so Top Secret.

:floorlaugh:

 

[sumbunny]

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 bring up an amazing subject!!! I do believe the SA will have the opportunity to ask each and every defense witness expert if they in fact did collaborate as per Baez's statements prior to trial, while they are are the stand testifying.

It would be silly of them to say "no" because Baez himself already explained he wanted/needed them to all get together to go over the case.

Baez is truly shooting himself in the foot.

 

[Kentjbkent]

TWA had some brilliant postings about this just up above in this thread from earlier today. But the gist of it comes down to this. Yes you can verbally consult with experts and get their opinions. And yes you can play cagey and not get a written report, especially if you are fearful or concerned that the experts opinion is not in synch with what you need for the case or your defense strategy. You pay the expert as a consultant or in some way contract them. This locks them up from giving a counter opinion. AND THEN YOU WALK AWAY FROM THEM. YOU DO NOT PUT THEM ON YOUR WITNESS LIST. The witness list is for those people you expect to be giving favorable testimony at trial. These are the ones you will subject to cross examination and these are witnesses that damned well better be prepared to put their views findings and opinions in writing. That whole "no reports please" strategy. That's for much earlier in the process.

And there's the problem. JB slacked off for TWO YEARS. he never bothered to sit down and work out what his actual expert witness strategy was for 2 bloody years. So when the due date for the defense witness list came, passed, came again and was finally demanded by the judge, he just threw up all of the names of his consulting experts. With the assumption that like general witnesses it was a meaningless list of names that can be changed at any time. So now he finds himself at an impasse. he has experts listed on his witness list that he probably never reached an agreement with for testimony. He has reciprocal discovery of those witnesses being demanded that he never made arrangements to actually get from them. He is facing contempt orders for all of this nonsense. And he rather obviously has no back up plan.

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You just saved me a ton of time in questions I was going to pose on the lawyer thread this evening for clarification as I have strongly suspected this is exactly what has transpired, but didn't know if it was legally possible...

One last question (if you know?)....

If the above is exactly what happened, is it possible that some of these experts are not even aware that they have been listed on a court documented docket as expert witness in the case?

And what remedy would any of these experts have if they found they were listed as a defense team expert witness without ever having agreed to testify?

 

[Kentjbkent]

I believe they agreed to consult but JB got all puffed up in pride with himself and misrepresented the relationship to the media. I understand AL's game plan of making an initial payment to an expert and taking them off the market so to speak until the case was resolved. It's brilliant IMO. I can even understand making the SAO believe that all of these individuals may be called to testify in preliminary witness lists. Probably a great defense tactic.
I've done some reading on protocols and ethics in the field of Forensic Investigation by starting at Dr Reichs own site and weaving through the web. Their pursuit is truth and they aren't allowed to omit, or ignore, or lie for JB.

http://www.aafs.org/
American Academy of Forensic Sciences MISSION

The American Academy of Forensic Sciences is a multi-disciplinary professional organization that provides leadership to advance science and its application to the legal system. The objectives of the Academy are to promote integrity, competency, education, foster research, improve practice, and encourage collaboration in the forensic sciences.


Re the conference-
They're voting on the final version of
Draft Criminal Justice and Forensic Science Reform Act 12-22-10

see http://aafs.org/sites/default/files/pdf/DraftCriminalJusticeAndFSReformAct12-22-10.pdf

Just me speculating here but at this of all conferences, JB and his sideshow will not be appreciated. Unless he's going as a display.:floorlaugh: :innocent:

On a platter.....with fruit stuffed in his mouth?????

:floorlaugh:

 

[LambChop]

On a platter.....with fruit stuffed in his mouth?????

:floorlaugh:

While the quote is precious and I love it, I have to block the visual from my mind. :bang:

 

[The World According]

Unreal

http://www.wesh.com/pdf/26611795/detail.html

Baez has been pulling these stunts since he first accused his experts of not being able to figure out the server. Remember this little gem, "Our experts are beyond the age of technology"? This case has been goin on since 2008, and it seems Jose is literally just starting on the evidence!!

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90841"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

 

[denjet]

Since Jose has this undeniable hangup about getting all the experts together to hold hands and sing campfire songs, I'm guessing his unique opportunity is the conference. I wonder if he'll ask if ICA can go, too!!
Honestly, he wants until March 11 for Reichs and Roddy? A reasonable amount of time for the others, Logan and Spitz? Does he even know what a reasonable amount of time means?
I can not wait for HHJBP to put widdle Jose in timeout!
Geez, no wonder the prosecution wanted to know how much the experts had been paid, promised, etc.

Jose had $225,000 that we KNOW about. Now, he's lacing each argument with the prosecutions' resources? I'm sick of his incessant whining!

Maybe "Jose's" experts don't know he's going to the conference
... to hunt them down and corner them ... Jose thinks he's quite the negotiator ... but really, he's just a con artist, not a great debater ... just a whiner, full of promises he'll never deliver on ... :boohoo:

 

[Aedrys]

TWA had some brilliant postings about this just up above in this thread from earlier today. But the gist of it comes down to this. Yes you can verbally consult with experts and get their opinions. And yes you can play cagey and not get a written report, especially if you are fearful or concerned that the experts opinion is not in synch with what you need for the case or your defense strategy. You pay the expert as a consultant or in some way contract them. This locks them up from giving a counter opinion. AND THEN YOU WALK AWAY FROM THEM. YOU DO NOT PUT THEM ON YOUR WITNESS LIST. The witness list is for those people you expect to be giving favorable testimony at trial. These are the ones you will subject to cross examination and these are witnesses that damned well better be prepared to put their views findings and opinions in writing. That whole "no reports please" strategy. That's for much earlier in the process.

And there's the problem. JB slacked off for TWO YEARS. he never bothered to sit down and work out what his actual expert witness strategy was for 2 bloody years. So when the due date for the defense witness list came, passed, came again and was finally demanded by the judge, he just threw up all of the names of his consulting experts. With the assumption that like general witnesses it was a meaningless list of names that can be changed at any time. So now he finds himself at an impasse. he has experts listed on his witness list that he probably never reached an agreement with for testimony. He has reciprocal discovery of those witnesses being demanded that he never made arrangements to actually get from them. He is facing contempt orders for all of this nonsense. And he rather obviously has no back up plan.

ITfreakingA! It should tell Baez something that some of his experts aren't returning his calls or are unreachable. He figured he had them two years ago, so they were still playing the game. I'm wondering if some of these experts are snubbing him because they thought they were only consulting and not going to be testifying at trial. And the defense keeps putting stuff out there and saying this is what they are testifying to, basically putting words in these experts mouths that the experts didn't agree to testify to yet! I have to say, if I was one of those experts who signed on at the beginning, wasn't contacted for two years, and have seen the bumbling in the case including the defense talking for me without my permission, I know I would purposely lose JB's number and never answer his calls.

 

[LolaMoon08]

If these experts were never actually retained by the defense as expert witnesses... could they file a bar complaint against Jose?