Defense Motion to Seal Penalty Phase Discovery Documents

[nums24]

I can't imagine any reason why any TES searchers would be penalty phase witnesses? By the very nature they did not enter into the picture until after the crime and the event. Any questions of when the body was "dumped" there will be answered long before in the guilt/innocence phase.

I think you may have misunderstood, LG was responding about my post (#235 here) of the sealed JAC order. The only thing I can figure is that the HHJP sealed the TES searchers info and any costs related to them. I am speculating this because WFTV reported today that the State will depose 10 TES searchers.

I only responded here because this is where the "sealed" order was being discussed.

 

[ThinkTank]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThinkTank
In the Order denying the sealing of penalty phase witnesses: "To the contrary, many potential penalty phase witnesses are presumably already known to the public at large and are already associated with this case," Perry wrote. "Release of any known individual's name could not possibly deprive the defendant of her fair trial rights.

01/06/2011 Order
Directing the Judicial Administrative Commission to Retain Confidentiality and Not Disclose Identity of Certain Defense Witnesses (This Order to be Sealed)

This Order is SEALED ... but, I wonder which defense witnesses this Order applies to, since Judge Perry has denied the Defense request to keep sealed their penalty phase witnesses?
---------------------------------------------------------
nums24
I think I figured out the mystery. I believe that this order is for the 10 TES witnesses maybe?

Casey Anthony: Hearings set for March on defense motions

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/ent...le+Feedfetcher

Quote:
Later, WFTV anchor Bob Opsahl said that prosecutors on Jan. 20 will question 10 Texas EquuSearch volunteers who looked for Caylee.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wonder though if the (10) depositions are named/identified on the
01/06/2011 Notice of Taking Deposition(s) ?? Which would nullify the JAC keeping their identities confidential????

 

[logicalgirl]

I think you may have misunderstood, LG was responding about my post (#235 here) of the sealed JAC order. The only thing I can figure is that the HHJP sealed the TES searchers info and any costs related to them. I am speculating this because WFTV reported today that the State will depose 10 TES searchers.

I only responded here because this is where the "sealed" order was being discussed.

I suspect you are correct because HHJP was very specific about protecting TES identities and not having them broadcast or in print anywhere.

 

[logicalgirl]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThinkTank View Post
In the Order denying the sealing of penalty phase witnesses: "To the contrary, many potential penalty phase witnesses are presumably already known to the public at large and are already associated with this case," Perry wrote. "Release of any known individual's name could not possibly deprive the defendant of her fair trial rights.

01/06/2011 Order
Directing the Judicial Administrative Commission to Retain Confidentiality and Not Disclose Identity of Certain Defense Witnesses (This Order to be Sealed)

This Order is SEALED ... but, I wonder which defense witnesses this Order applies to, since Judge Perry has denied the Defense request to keep sealed their penalty phase witnesses?
I think I figured out the mystery. I believe that this order is for the 10 TES witnesses maybe?

Casey Anthony: Hearings set for March on defense motions

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/ent...le+Feedfetcher

Quote:
Later, WFTV anchor Bob Opsahl said that prosecutors on Jan. 20 will question 10 Texas EquuSearch volunteers who looked for Caylee.

I wonder though if the (10) depositions are named/identified on the
01/06/2011 Notice of Taking Deposition(s) ?? Which would nullify the JAC keeping their identities confidential????

Known as Searchers aka "A" through "J" until the trial if they do end up testifying?

 

[nums24]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThinkTank View Post
In the Order denying the sealing of penalty phase witnesses: "To the contrary, many potential penalty phase witnesses are presumably already known to the public at large and are already associated with this case," Perry wrote. "Release of any known individual's name could not possibly deprive the defendant of her fair trial rights.

01/06/2011 Order
Directing the Judicial Administrative Commission to Retain Confidentiality and Not Disclose Identity of Certain Defense Witnesses (This Order to be Sealed)

This Order is SEALED ... but, I wonder which defense witnesses this Order applies to, since Judge Perry has denied the Defense request to keep sealed their penalty phase witnesses?
I think I figured out the mystery. I believe that this order is for the 10 TES witnesses maybe?

Casey Anthony: Hearings set for March on defense motions

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/ent...le+Feedfetcher

Quote:
Later, WFTV anchor Bob Opsahl said that prosecutors on Jan. 20 will question 10 Texas EquuSearch volunteers who looked for Caylee.

I wonder though if the (10) depositions are named/identified on the
01/06/2011 Notice of Taking Deposition(s) ?? Which would nullify the JAC keeping their identities confidential????

I was wondering that too! Unless the notice of deposition just states 10 TES searchers. The State would not willfully violate Judge Perry's order :wink:

Calling MuzikMan......

 

[jennyb]

Yeah I don't know. I don't think the 10 TES searchers are part of Finnell's bunch.

Someone on another board speculated the JAC order to seal release of names was just a stop-gap until the Judge handed down his decision on the Sentinel motion. Now that the defense has been denied the seal will be lifted?

Anyway makes sense to me but what do I know? I'll answer that. NOTHING. LOL.

BUT, I just don't see how the TES searchers are in the group with penalty phase witnesses. Also, wouldn't the judge have put a caveat into his order excluding the 10 when he said Finnell's list can be released to the media?

 

[Muzikman]

The State Depo notice from today was the TES searchers, so that is not what was sealed.

I'm not sure what was sealed either! They wouldn't let me look at it.

Faefrost has a good idea above tho, wasn't there a much earlier motion for the JAC to seal some records? That should provide a clue.

MM

 

[ThinkTank]

Originally Posted by logicalgirl
Are you telling me Baez has found 10 TES searchers prepared to say there was no water on Suburban, or is he saying he found 10 TES searchers who may have or can't remember whether or not they were there?

Hmm, but hiding their identity makes sense!

I can't imagine any reason why any TES searchers would be penalty phase witnesses? By the very nature they did not enter into the picture until after the crime and the event. Any questions of when the body was "dumped" there will be answered long before in the guilt/innocence phase.

The Order to JAC to keep "certain Defense Witnesses" confidential, does not label them as "penalty phase" witnesses ... only "Defense Witnesses" ..... but it would seem that the Defense would not be allowed to add any new witnesses past deadlines for adding witnesses, except for the new TES searcher witnesses .....

The JAC confidential witnesses may not be the same as the new (10) TES searcher witnesses being deposed by the State on Jan 20th?

01/06/2011 Order
Directing the Judicial Administrative Commission to Retain Confidentiality and Not Disclose Identity of Certain Defense Witnesses (This Order to be Sealed)

 

[nums24]

Yeah I don't know. I don't think the 10 TES searchers are part of Finnell's bunch.

Someone on another board speculated the JAC order to seal release of names was just a stop-gap until the Judge handed down his decision on the Sentinel motion. Now that the defense has been denied the order will be rescinded?

Anyway makes sense to me but what do I know? I'll answer that. NOTHING. LOL.

BUT, I just don't see how the TES searchers are in the group with penalty phase witnesses. Also, wouldn't the judge have put a caveat into his order excluding the 10 when he said Finnell's list can be released to the media?

Please allow me to clarify. I am NOT saying the 10 TES searchers have anything to do with the penalty phase. I was merely trying to figure out what HHJP has ordered to be sealed by the JAC for payment

 

[jennyb]

The State Depo notice from today was the TES searchers, so that is not what was sealed.

I'm not sure what was sealed either! They wouldn't let me look at it.

Faefrost has a good idea above tho, wasn't there a much earlier motion for the JAC to seal some records? That should provide a clue.

MM

Thanks MM!

I think that earlier order has been superceded.

 

[jennyb]

Please allow me to clarify. I am NOT saying the 10 TES searchers have anything to do with the penalty phase. I was merely trying to figure out what HHJP has ordered to be sealed by the JAC for payment

I KNOW!!! I KNOW!!! :crazy:

BELIEVE ME I UNDERSTAND!!!

I'm just talking to myself and not arguing!!!

I UNDERSTAND. I DO!!!

 

[jennyb]

Nums, I'm just noodling myself, trying to understand.

C'mon be nice. I hardly every post here!

(hugs)

 

[nums24]

I KNOW!!! I KNOW!!! :crazy:

BELIEVE ME I UNDERSTAND!!!

I'm just talking to myself and not arguing!!!

I UNDERSTAND. I DO!!!

I wish I could go back and delete my post upthread, but it's too late.

:truce:

 

[logicalgirl]

The State Depo notice from today was the TES searchers, so that is not what was sealed.

I'm not sure what was sealed either! They wouldn't let me look at it.

Faefrost has a good idea above tho, wasn't there a much earlier motion for the JAC to seal some records? That should provide a clue.

MM

Maybe we are just talking about two different things on one thread. We know the motion was denied for the penalty phase - so I expect that is in response to Ann Finnells request to keep them sealed past December 31st up to the date of the trial. If we remember, HHJP did say he would revisit the original seal temp order.

Maybe these are simply two very separate topics, one to discuss penalty phase witnesses, and one to remind JAC that their payment for investigating TES volunteers (and maybe this is where Gil Colon comes in as one bright spark here told us he is not a psychologist visiting ICA, but rather a PI) (someone went as far as to say he has a slight stutter)should remain confidential for the services the PI rendered to what TES witnesses.

sorry that was pretty convoluted.

 

[jennyb]

I wish I could go back and delete my post upthread, but it's too late.

:truce:

Happens to me all the time and twice on Sunday. :seeya:

 

[LambChop]

Were these TES volunteers listed by defense as witnesses? If they were than I'm sure SA would want to interview them to see what they are going to testify to. Since we know there was pressure put on JJ to say no body was there when he searched, it will be interesting to see what they have to say. Not that we will ever know if they are just investigative interviews. jmo

 

[logicalgirl]

I KNOW!!! I KNOW!!! :crazy:

BELIEVE ME I UNDERSTAND!!!

I'm just talking to myself and not arguing!!!

I UNDERSTAND. I DO!!!

:floorlaugh: Your nerves are frayed, have you been over in the motion denied for JJ's computer thread getting stressed out like me? :blowkiss:

 

[nums24]

Nums, I'm just noodling myself, trying to understand.

C'mon be nice. I hardly every post here!

(hugs)

Hugs

:hug: I'm sorry, I did not want to come across as mean. :blowkiss:

 

[ThinkTank]

The State Depo notice from today was the TES searchers, so that is not what was sealed.

I'm not sure what was sealed either! They wouldn't let me look at it.

Faefrost has a good idea above tho, wasn't there a much earlier motion for the JAC to seal some records? That should provide a clue.

MM

Wonder why we have not seen a Supplemental Defense Witness List for these (10) NEW Defense TES searcher witnesses??? Don't the people have to be on a witness list before the State takes a deposition from them?

 

[jennyb]

:floorlaugh: Your nerves are frayed, have you been over in the motion denied for JJ's computer thread getting stressed out like me? :blowkiss:

LOL I quit that one way back. Too much agita. :maddening: