Defense Motion to Add New Witnesses

[logicalgirl]

:waitasec: I just don't understand how the DT can filed these motions with a straight face. Danziger and Weitz haven't finished up their work, the have not turned over a report on their findings. So, the State has to wait? Didn't Judge Perry say that if deadlines were missed then it was their loss. State of Defense?

Then we have the other 4 witness, one that if the inmate Maya doesn't testify then the Lewis will? A lawn care guy Mr.Kondos ? A lady (Sharon C.) that is out of state but will be returning, they just don't have a date yet as to when?


Mr.Kondos the supervisor for landscaping on Suburban drive, why did they wait until now to add Mr. Kondo? Is he going to say he cleaned that area and there was no sign of Caylee? :no:

Then P. Young a member of TES, who was in a fight with George Anthony, while protesting outside the Anthony house in 2008. The DT claims they just got her address? Really? Was there not a INCIDENT REPORT: Battery Accusations ?

I thought the incident report was pretty interesting - down at the bottom of the Battery Incident Report is the line - Injuries - None. on both women.

 

[CarolinaMoon]

I don't think this was filed today. I read this a few days ago.:twocents:

I was filed March 22.

 

[LambChop]

:waitasec: I just don't understand how the DT can filed these motions with a straight face. Danziger and Weitz haven't finished up their work, the have not turned over a report on their findings. So, the State has to wait? Didn't Judge Perry say that if deadlines were missed then it was their loss. State of Defense?

Then we have the other 4 witness, one that if the inmate Maya doesn't testify then the Lewis will? A lawn care guy Mr.Kondos ? A lady (Sharon C.) that is out of state but will be returning, they just don't have a date yet as to when?


Mr.Kondos the supervisor for landscaping on Suburban drive, why did they wait until now to add Mr. Kondo? Is he going to say he cleaned that area and there was no sign of Caylee? :no:

Then P. Young a member of TES, who was in a fight with George Anthony, while protesting outside the Anthony house in 2008. The DT claims they just got her address? Really? Was there not a INCIDENT REPORT: Battery Accusations ?

No. The motion said if Maya does not testify Mr. Lewis will not need to be called.

 

[Whome?]

Surely there will have to come a time, when HHJP will smack Jose down, and tell him NO MORE MOTIONS! (not shouting...just emphasizing) The defense has had almost three years to get this all lined up...Jose better work on his case and CM better quit with the dang motions and help his less than intelligent partner get ta crackin'! Was CM brought in only to write legible motions? :banghead: The man can't hardly stay awake during testamony!

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

 

[Horace Finklestein]

Going into the 3rd YEAR and we're still getting odd witnesses that make no sense.

 

[chefmom]

Just a thought, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least to hear JB go into the hearing tomorrow and scratch the lady who had a fight with GA. If he actually tried to use her at trial to point the finger at GA it would blow up in his face, imo. But, all he had to do was list her as a "possible" witness, and we have had a full 24 hours of mass speculation on the net, a news report stating that they may say GA did it, and a rebuttal by GA's attorney. They have managed, yet again, to tamper with the jury pool. This may very well have been their only intent. JB does like to play dirty, and imo, this would be a dirty trick to pull.

 

[Aedrys]

But it doesn't have to be a "re-hearing" on that issue. They can write a new motion to some other issue as to why the words of KC should be left out of CIC.

Oh. I didn't know they could do that! I thought that matter was done. Dangit. Anyone else want time to skip past the week of April 18th so no more of these drama rama, drawn out, OMG make it stop hearings will finally be over?

 

[faefrost]

This is the US Supreme Court case on the issue: Taylor v. Illinois, 485 U.S. 983, 108 S.Ct. 1283.

Now that's an interesting and applicable read.

http://openjurist.org/484/us/400/taylor-v-illinois

(just a portion of the info)

Held:

1. The Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment may, in an appropriate case, be violated by the imposition of a discovery sanction that entirely excludes the testimony of a material defense witness. The Clause is not merely a guarantee that the accused shall have the power to subpoena witnesses, but confers on the accused the fundamental right to present witnesses in his own defense. Pp. 407-409.

2. However, the Compulsory Process Clause does not create an absolute bar to preclusion of the testimony of a defense witness as a sanction for violating a discovery rule. Although a trial court may not ignore the fundamental character of the defendant's right to offer the testimony of witnesses in his favor, the mere invocation of that right cannot automatically and invariably outweigh countervailing public interests. If discovery violations are willful and motivated by a desire to obtain a tactical advantage or to conceal a plan to present fabricated testimony, it would be entirely appropriate to exclude the witnesses' testimony regardless of whether other, less drastic sanctions might be available, adequate, and merited. Pp. 410-416.

3. The exclusion of Wormley's testimony did not constitute constitutional error. Pp. 416-418.

(a) The fact that the voir dire examination of Wormley may have adequately protected the prosecution from prejudice resulting from surprise does not render the imposition of the preclusion sanction unnecessarily harsh. The record raises strong inferences that petitioner's counsel was deliberately seeking a tactical advantage in failing to list Wormley as a witness and that "witnesses [were] being found that really weren't there." Thus, the case fits into the category of willful misconduct for which the severe sanction of preclusion is justified in order to protect the integrity of the judicial process. P. 416—417.

(b) It is not unfair to hold petitioner responsible for his lawyer's misconduct. The lawyer necessarily has full authority to manage the conduct of the trial, and the client must accept the consequences of the lawyer's trial decisions. Pp. 417—418.



BBM

Some very interesting and applicable stuff in there! Thanks SCS :tyou:

 

[TiaM]

SoCalSleuth - I did not immediately see you had started this thread, thank you!

Bringing my last post over from the Defense Strategy Thread....

Well we are sort of both correct. I looked up the motion from the Defense to add additional witnesses for good cause and here is the lineup.

- Daniel Kodos
- Sharon Cadieux
- Patricia Young
- Kenneth Levers
- Dr. William Weitz
- Dr. Jeffrey Danziger

So, are we placing bets as to who is going to make it in and if those reports actually made it to HHJP in time? :great:

BBM

Well, the DT is already 4 MONTHS LATE adding these witnesses, but I don't think they've been denied yet for any late additions. My guess is that HHJP will cave, as they know he will, and let them add these. :banghead:

Now getting the reports, in full, will be another matter. I'm sure that HHJP will have to browbeat them, and in the end, they'll turn in some flimsy, incomplete info, as usual. :maddening:

 

[JSR]

O/T. I will seriously scream if this case doesn't finally get heard by May 9th. It seems the defense is attempting to pull out all the stops at trying to get this case delayed. Or by getting surprise witnesses/evidence in. In a word, amazing.

 

[faefrost]

BBM

Well, the DT is already 4 MONTHS LATE adding these witnesses, but I don't think they've been denied yet for any late additions. My guess is that HHJP will cave, as they know he will, and let them add these. :banghead:

Now getting the reports, in full, will be another matter. I'm sure that HHJP will have to browbeat them, and in the end, they'll turn in some flimsy, incomplete info, as usual. :maddening:

My bet. The TES searcher and the Landscaper will be allowed.

Lewis and Condos are their to impeach or offer irrelevant and disallowed testimony regarding "prior bad acts" of other witnesses. This has already been covered in other motions. They will not be in.

Danzinger and Weitz could go either way. I am betting that one of the bigger determinants in HHJP's patience with it will hinge on whether or not reports regarding them showed up on his desk and the SA's by Monday. I think he is getting really pissed with all of the games and bad faith actions. If no reports, no witnesses.

 

[Spangle]

My bet. The TES searcher and the Landscaper will be allowed.

Lewis and Condos are their to impeach or offer irrelevant and disallowed testimony regarding "prior bad acts" of other witnesses. This has already been covered in other motions. They will not be in.

Danzinger and Weitz could go either way. I am betting that one of the bigger determinants in HHJP's patience with it will hinge on whether or not reports regarding them showed up on his desk and the SA's by Monday. I think he is getting really pissed with all of the games and bad faith actions. If no reports, no witnesses.

The Judge has said that the experts could only repeat what they have stated in reports or depo. If the SA hasn't depo these guys and they haven't turned in a report.. Then there isn't much these guys can say on the stand.

If this motion isn't heard tomorrow, and those reports are not in by the time of the hearing, I don't think the Judge will allow them. The DT have been plenty warned.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

BBM

Well, the DT is already 4 MONTHS LATE adding these witnesses, but I don't think they've been denied yet for any late additions. My guess is that HHJP will cave, as they know he will, and let them add these. :banghead:

Now getting the reports, in full, will be another matter. I'm sure that HHJP will have to browbeat them, and in the end, they'll turn in some flimsy, incomplete info, as usual. :maddening:

Add in a phony apology and handshake, rinse and repeat.

 

[strach304]

I don't think CM meant literally that these new witnesses were needed to "rebut recent court rulings...". I think what he is saying here is that now that the statements are coming in and the court believes they go to KC's state of mind and are relevant on the issue of consciousness of guilt (which the jury will be instructed on), we want to present evidence to show what her state of mind was and that it does not show a consciousness of guilt. That said, still seems as if they were hiding the ball until after they received a ruling on the motions to suppress.

Your explanation makes the most sense. I'm sooo confused! I can't figure out why they put the prosecutor down as a witness since the state was quite clear and told JB they would not be using MD testimony. Do they think the state is going to try and pull a Baez? Making an agreement they have no intention of keeping. :banghead:

 

[strach304]

Going into the 3rd YEAR and we're still getting odd witnesses that make no sense.

I think it is because they haven't come up with a defense yet. :innocent:

 

[Jomo]

According to the OS Twitter, the hearing regarding these witness will begin at 10:00am. WESH has stated that they will be streaming it live.

http://twitter.com/oscaseyanthony

 

[lauriej]

..according to judgeP's schedule---he doesn't think the thursday hearing will take that long.
..( of course who knows, if JB is doing the talking.)

JUDGE BELVIN PERRY, JR. / DIVISION 02
------------------- Schedule for Thursday, March 31, 2011 -------------------
10:00 am 45 min Case: 48-2008-CF-15606-O- Motion: MOTION CLARIFYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE ADDITIONAL WITNESSES
STATE OF FLORIDA

LINDA DRANE-BURDICK vs. CASEY MARIE ANTHONY

JOSE BAEZ AddOn



JUDGE BELVIN PERRY, JR. / DIVISION 02
------------------- Schedule for Friday, April 01, 2011 -------------------
8:30 am 8 hrs Case: 48-2008-CF-15606-O- Motion: MOTION HEARING
STATE OF FLORIDA

LINDA DRANE-BURDICK vs. CASEY MARIE ANTHONY

JOSE BAEZ

http://www.ninja9.org/jacsatt/attdocketframe.asp

 

[MADJGNLAW]

No. The motion said if Maya does not testify Mr. Lewis will not need to be called.

You are correct, that is what the motion says. I was referring to the article. I glanced at the motion. Sorry about that. It is getting so confusing...thanks for keeping it straight! That is what I love about WS, all you brainiacks lol. :blowkiss:

"Snip" http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...nthony-trial-motions-20110322,0,3468691.story
Cheney Mason wants Assistant State Attorney Kenneth Lewis, who handles homicide cases, added to the witness list.

Mason's motion said the defense team recently learned that Lewis may have testimony under Brady v. Maryland, which requires prosecutors to fully disclose to the defendant all exculpatory evidence in their possession.

Lewis prosecuted the state's case against Maya Derkovic, who, as a jail inmate, befriended Casey Anthony.

 

[Jomo]

..according to judgeP's schedule---he doesn't think the thursday hearing will take that long.
..( of course who knows, if JB is doing the talking.)

JUDGE BELVIN PERRY, JR. / DIVISION 02
------------------- Schedule for Thursday, March 31, 2011 -------------------
10:00 am 45 min Case: 48-2008-CF-15606-O- Motion: MOTION CLARIFYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE ADDITIONAL WITNESSES
STATE OF FLORIDA

LINDA DRANE-BURDICK vs. CASEY MARIE ANTHONY

JOSE BAEZ AddOn



JUDGE BELVIN PERRY, JR. / DIVISION 02
------------------- Schedule for Friday, April 01, 2011 -------------------
8:30 am 8 hrs Case: 48-2008-CF-15606-O- Motion: MOTION HEARING
STATE OF FLORIDA

LINDA DRANE-BURDICK vs. CASEY MARIE ANTHONY

JOSE BAEZ

http://www.ninja9.org/jacsatt/attdocketframe.asp

I really appreciate this information! I'm sure Ritanita will too...She will be able to get some gardening in after all.

 

[Intermezzo]

The DT filed a motion to add new witnesses today.
http://www.wesh.com/pdf/27360053/detail.html

Apparently, the motion is filed in response to the SA asking the DT to show cause why these additional witnesses should be allowed post the deadline for the same.

As far as the two new experts (Danziger and Weitz) the motion only states that they just finished their work and they have opinions to rebut "recent court rulings" which go to ICA's state of mind and consciousness of guilt. Neither has written a report yet.

I'm not sure this reason is going to fly with JP so close to trial. My question would be, when were they hired, when did they do the initial work upon which their new opinions were based, and why didn't they formulate these opinions sooner.

bbm
I would ask those questions as well.