Defense claims judge had inappropriate convo with blogger?

[Dignity4Victims]

I do not think that anyone realistically expects Judges not to have personal lives. Maybe open court is simply not the place to be extending your flattery to a blogger who has written about the case (and your part in it) extensively.

Maybe JS should have waited until after the case was finished to extend his appreciation of MDs views on how he is conducting his court room. It allowed for the INFERENCE and/or APPEARANCE of bias, and that is all that matters in my opinion.

I of course have nothing personal against JS, but I do think he made an error in judgement on this one. Hearing him call MD up in the manner he did was quite a shocker to me, and it is not my life on the line! He was supposed to be going to make a decision on a motion, and the foremost thing in his mind was a blogger sitting in his courtroom....just seems off to me!

And yet had Judge Strickland done it behind closed doors, oh the tongues would be a' waggin'!

There is a huge difference between "appearance" of impropriety vs. "actual" impropriety, and Judge Strickland did nothing wrong. That huge difference is where some are missing the point.

The part of this that is hilarious to me is that Judge Strickland spoke to, and complimented MD on his "fairness" to both the Prosecution and Defense, and yet the Defense has a problem with that word, crying, "it just ain't fair!"

 

[magic-cat]

And yet had Judge Strickland done it behind closed doors, oh the tongues would be a' waggin'!

There is a huge difference between "appearance" of impropriety vs. "actual" impropriety, and Judge Strickland did nothing wrong. That huge difference is where some are missing the point.

The part of this that is hilarious to me is that Judge Strickland spoke to, and complimented MD on his "fairness" to both the Prosecution and Defense, and yet the Defense has a problem with that word, crying, "it just ain't fair!"

EXACTLY! You nailed it. Dave is KNOWN for being an Anthony lover, a KC defender, and a basher of the state! How could THAT be biased for the judge to note his FAIR and EQUITABLE reporting on his site, where he defends the Anthonys for a pasttime? :waitasec: It's insanity!

 

[magic-cat]

I think, and mind you, this is MY opinion only, that the defense saw a FRIEND in Dave N. and they saw an opportunity. For all WE know, Dave stepped up his compliments of his honor because he IS in cahoots with the defense. We don't know all the facts about this, but something stinks about the whole entire ordeal...and it seems all roads lead right back to Mr. Nechel.

 

[Paladine]

Okay...I give. May I have a hint as to who MD is?

 

[Gypsy Road]

Marinade Dave - the blogger.

 

[beach]

Okay...I give. May I have a hint as to who MD is?

Marinade Dave - the blogger who is referenced in the Defense's motion.

 

[Astraea]

The "appearance" of impropriety in my opinion is what matters according to the law. If it can be reasonably inferred, that the defendant believes they would be at risk of a fair trial, by the appearance of bias on the part of the Judge, then the Judge should likely just step aside. I do not think that JS recusing himself is neccesarily a better option for the defendant either. I just happen to think the motion is well founded in this instance.

I, in no way was saying that "behind closed doors" is better. I was simply stating that I agree with the sentiment that Judges are "but mere mortals". In the same regard, I also believe, that most Judges would "know better" then to act publicly, in such a manner, that the aforementioned inference could EASILY be construed.


Hope that makes sense...it sometimes takes some run on sentences to clarify I am finding LOL!

 

[magic-cat]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ae5J_ObjkTw[/ame]

Here is a link to the hearing in question. You can hear the judge ask at the end for the fellow in the 2nd row to be brought up, he just wants to say hello...if anyone cares to go and listen.

 

[magic-cat]

The "appearance" of impropriety in my opinion is what matters according to the law. If it can be reasonably inferred, that the defendant believes they would be at risk of a fair trial, by the appearance of bias on the part of the Judge, then the Judge should likely just step aside. I do not think that JS recusing himself is neccesarily a better option for the defendant either. I just happen to think the motion is well founded in this instance.

I, in no way was saying that "behind closed doors" is better. I was simply stating that I agree with the sentiment that Judges are "but mere mortals". In the same regard, I also believe, that most Judges would "know better" then to act publicly, in such a manner, that the aforementioned inference could EASILY be construed.


Hope that makes sense...it sometimes takes some run on sentences to clarify I am finding LOL!

If he acted in private THAT to me would be impropriety. He did not even turn off his mic when he asked for MD to be brought up to say hello. He obviously did not see any appearance of impropriety in his action. AND I might add, the defense was right there. They should have acted on this LONG ago if they were going to. They knew this since the day of that hearing. :waitasec: So why the delay? hinky...

 

[cuppy199]

Read this motion gave me a good laugh. The defense acts like JS went and had a beer with this new friend and talked all about the KA case.The jury decides the fate of Miss Anthony not JS.JS said he thought his blogs where fair he never said his blogs where fair in this case he worded it in general. They never talked about the case unlike the defense every chance they get. The only one IMO looking to be famous off of this case his the defense team.

 

[Astraea]

Court Hearing 16 Oct 2009

JS asks to speak to MD

Mark 4.34

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKWIO_luem4&feature=related

I think this one remains embedded still magic-cat

 

[beach]

If he acted in private THAT to me would be impropriety. He did not even turn off his mic when he asked for MD to be brought up to say hello. He obviously did not see any appearance of impropriety in his action. AND I might add, the defense was right there. They should have acted on this LONG ago if they were going to. They knew this since the day of that hearing. :waitasec: So why the delay? hinky...

BBM

Why the delay? Four words- Cheney Mason just joined.

I HATE this tactic, but I can guarantee you that this strategy never even occurred to Jose Baez. He just doesn't think that deep.

 

[ZsaZsa]

I rewatched the video and I would advise others to do so. The judge asks to speak to MD before the proceeding is finished. I definitely feel JS' priority this day was not case related. Very disturbing to watch again actually.

Where do you see that this was during the hearing?
The proceeding had clearly finished. Casey had left the Court Room, her attorneys were heading for the door and all others were waiting to get out. Dave was one of them, as he is about to exit the Bailiff tells him to wait.

 

[absolut_alexis]

The "appearance" of impropriety in my opinion is what matters according to the law. If it can be reasonably inferred, that the defendant believes they would be at risk of a fair trial, by the appearance of bias on the part of the Judge, then the Judge should likely just step aside. I do not think that JS recusing himself is neccesarily a better option for the defendant either. I just happen to think the motion is well founded in this instance.

I, in no way was saying that "behind closed doors" is better. I was simply stating that I agree with the sentiment that Judges are "but mere mortals". In the same regard, I also believe, that most Judges would "know better" then to act publicly, in such a manner, that the aforementioned inference could EASILY be construed.


Hope that makes sense...it sometimes takes some run on sentences to clarify I am finding LOL!

What impropriety to you think is appearing? Bias for/against what? What does this blogger have to do with the case?

1. A person is not a party to a case simply by blogging about it. Contact with a non-party is not improper.
2. Bias doesn't mean "has an opinion". Bias means unjustly influence.
3. If his rulings have been consistent before he read the blog and after the blog, he has not been influenced by the blog.

 

[ZsaZsa]

BBM

Why the delay? Four words- Cheney Mason just joined.

I HATE this tactic, but I can guarantee you that this strategy never even occurred to Jose Baez. He just doesn't think that deep.

It sounds more like the kind of dirt that AL dabbles in, file a motion, dig up some dirt on the Judge. Typical strategy for those defending a guilty client. It's like legal extortion.

 

[Astraea]

If he acted in private THAT to me would be impropriety. He did not even turn off his mic when he asked for MD to be brought up to say hello. He obviously did not see any appearance of impropriety in his action. AND I might add, the defense was right there. They should have acted on this LONG ago if they were going to. They knew this since the day of that hearing. :waitasec: So why the delay? hinky...

The law is what matters here, and AZLawyer very kindly posted in this thread in regards to what THAT law is. Regardless of the outcome of the motion, I do not find it to be frivolous in nature. It does not escape me that JS interrupted a proceeding to ask for MD to be brought up and he said an awful lot more then "hello" to MD.

They did not file the motion until they knew that JS called MD at home. They received this information and filed the motion within the time the law sets forth. I personally do not see any "hinkiness" here.

No matter how one feels personally about Casey, I would hope it could be kept in mind that it is the justice system we ALL use and we should want it to work accordingly in the event we were ever sitting at a defense table. JMHO

 

[Astraea]

Where do you see that this was during the hearing?
The proceeding had clearly finished. Casey had left the Court Room, her attorneys were heading for the door and all others were waiting to get out. Dave was one of them, as he is about to exit the Bailiff tells him to wait.

Please watch the video, as I highly doubt I am hallucinating !

 

[Dignity4Victims]

The "appearance" of impropriety in my opinion is what matters according to the law. If it can be reasonably inferred, that the defendant believes they would be at risk of a fair trial, by the appearance of bias on the part of the Judge, then the Judge should likely just step aside. I do not think that JS recusing himself is neccesarily a better option for the defendant either. I just happen to think the motion is well founded in this instance.

I, in no way was saying that "behind closed doors" is better. I was simply stating that I agree with the sentiment that Judges are "but mere mortals". In the same regard, I also believe, that most Judges would "know better" then to act publicly, in such a manner, that the aforementioned inference could EASILY be construed.Hope that makes sense...it sometimes takes some run on sentences to clarify I am finding LOL!

That's not only ridiculous, it's just not true.

For example, convicted drug dealers aren't arrested for "appearing" to traffic drugs. They are convicted due to solid, factual findings that such a crime occurred.

The law is interested in, and base their conclusions on facts, not assumptions, and certainly not "appearances"!

 

[ZsaZsa]

The law is what matters here, and AZLawyer very kindly posted in this thread in regards to what THAT law is. Regardless of the outcome of the motion, I do not find it to be frivolous in nature. It does not escape me that JS interrupted a proceeding to ask for MD to be brought up and he said an awful lot more then "hello" to MD.

They did not file the motion until they knew that JS called MD at home. They received this information and filed the motion within the time the law sets forth. I personally do not see any "hinkiness" here.

No matter how one feels personally about Casey, I would hope it could be kept in mind that it is the justice system we ALL use and we should want it to work accordingly in the event we were ever sitting at a defense table. JMHO

You need to watch that video to the end - Dave is almost out of the door and GA and CA are in the doorway as he is approached by the Bailff. The hearing is clearly over, so I am not sure why you state that he interrupted the proceedings.

 

[ZsaZsa]

Please watch the video, as I highly doubt I am hallucinating !

Wishful thinking maybe, but the hearing is well over.