JBaez requests Ex Parte Hearing with Judge Strickland

[amethyst221]

I don't think it's a question of "seeing something" others have somehow missed, like some actual, existing thing. This is all speculation, but we know he has his secret theory that, once we ever get to hear it at trial, will maketh all things clear and just blow the doors off the courthouse, etc. etc. It's going to be a story, and maybe there is a person involved, maybe a friend of Casey, maybe one of the upcoming deponents, and some document or record or information about it/them that he feels will be tangible "proof" of or support for the magical story. He doesn't want to tell the meanies on the other side, or the gasp/ Baden type "ahah" factor will be gone. If you only feel you might succeed with your theory if you sandbag the other side with it at trial, so they can't prepare to meet it, then maybe it isn't such a great thing. That's just me, being a skeptic. It could be anything, really. Hope the judge says no.

 

[NSS]

So, I called the Orlando Sentinel and asked for Sarah Lundy, the author of the article I'd snipped from, and asked her how she got a copy of this motion, since it wasn't online as of yet. She said she had to physically go to the courthouse to get it, that she didn't realize it had been filed 'til she went looking. I asked her to put it on the Orlando Sentinel's website, and she said she'd try, but she said she wouldn't promise it. She says it's only one page total - JBaez lists 5 points (NO LAW - no surprise there, eh???) on why he should get this hearing: "...he's in search for the truth...he's needing to subpoena things...items cannot be obtained through normal discovery through Rule 3.220, FL rule..."

Just speculating here, maybe he wants to obtain medical records of a family member, possibly to show mental defect on this 'other party' and create the reasonable doubt that the other party 'could' be the perp or the cause of KC's lapse in sanity.
Whatever it is, JB's poorly worded documentation and nonsensical filings must be the cause of much hilarity in the legal community.

 

[cecybeans]

We are of the same mind. No disagreement here.
The problem was, JB could not get KC to accept a plea bargain. That takes the agreement of the client, not just the attorney. KC was still in full, flaming denial and believing her own propaganda.

BTW, I'm borrowing this to quote when needed: "seem to base not only the burden of proof but the burden of inexperience on the prosecution." :clap::clap::clap:

lol I wouldn't think of disagreeing with an expert on points of law and hope I didn't sound contentious (just accidentally stepped up on my economic soapbox). However I'm not sure I agree about JB being unable to convince his client to take a plea. I have to remember she chose to make a stop at OCSO on her way to jail after her indictment and after JB showed up she suddenly decided to cancel. Earlier she refused limited immunity. And her latest handwritten addendum to the motion, indicating that she believes the prosecution is "angry" with her, smacks of the same logic JB's previous client is taking - that the length of his sentence reflects some kind of punitive response the prosecution had to his own refusal to take a plea. That's a mighty strange coincidence they both came to the same "conclusion".

I'm the first to say the Anthony women are megalomaniacal and difficult, but I would think we'd see more evidence of him trying to persuasively rein her in for her own benefit. If I had a client that refused to act in her own best interest, I'd certainly recuse myself for some reason or another.

 

[Themis]

If there is no case law cited, could the Judge Strickland simply throw out the motion?

Yes, and probably wouldn't hesitate to do so with the prosecution. Because this is defense, they are more lenient so avoid an "ineffective assistance of counsel" post-trial appeal.

 

[Themis]

lol I wouldn't think of disagreeing with an expert on points of law and hope I didn't sound contentious (just accidentally stepped up on my economic soapbox). However I'm not sure I agree about JB being unable to convince his client to take a plea. I have to remember she chose to make a stop at OCSO on her way to jail after her indictment and after JB showed up she suddenly decided to cancel. Earlier she refused limited immunity. And her latest handwritten addendum to the motion, indicating that she believes the prosecution is "angry" with her, smacks of the same logic JB's previous client is taking - that the length of his sentence reflects some kind of punitive response the prosecution had to his own refusal to take a plea. That's a mighty strange coincidence they both came to the same "conclusion".

I'm the first to say the Anthony women are megalomaniacal and difficult, but I would think we'd see more evidence of him trying to persuasively rein her in for her own benefit. If I had a client that refused to act in her own best interest, I'd certainly recuse myself for some reason or another.

You have uncovered an incredible nugget there. JB was the only common denominator but the reactions are the same. Somebody should look into JB's prior cases and see where we can make predictions on this one.

 

[Manny]

SNIPPED: "...Jose Baez, doesn't want the public to know about any defense theories that are being developed.

He filed a request for an ex-parte hearing before Orange Circuit Court Judge Stan Strickland. That means he wants to meet with the judge without prosecutors or the public present so "sensitive matters which are critical to the defense can be addressed," according to the document filed late Monday.

In the process of investigating the case, the defense claims they will need to obtain certain records, which could be used at trial. Baez doesn't want to prevent others from know ing about any theories.

And the items Baez is seeking cannot be obtained through normal discovery process, the legal process of prosecutors turning over investigative information about the case...."


See here: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...-casey-anthony-hearing-033109,0,7397632.story

I'm going to have to go look at whether or not FL allows such a thing, but it's not allowed here in LA, and with good reason!
Talk about prime setting for a defense attorney to "lobby" their theories and evidentiary issues with the judge!
Also appears he's seeking a potential primer on discovery from the judge...

Is this the reporters interpretation of the meaning of this ex parte request??

 

[cecybeans]

You have uncovered an incredible nugget there. JB was the only common denominator but the reactions are the same. Somebody should look into JB's prior cases and see where we can make predictions on this one.

We might find a paucity of comparable examples, lol. I might be wrong, but I think he's only tried one prior murder case and the defendant in question - the one mentioned above - was sentenced the same day as her indictment, as I believe it made him late to court. So they might be considered proximate or parallel.

I have other problems with his strategy being a tad hinkadelic, mainly the seemingly counterintuitive things he has done like not filing for right to speedy trial, objecting to the prosecution's motion for a gag order - strategies that would benefit someone seeking to delay or bide their time (perhaps to allow for third parties to negotiate media deals that would keep his client's trust - or her families resources - healthy enough to pay for his "indigent" client's legal fees). I hate to sound jaded, but I don't think all this scrutinizing the finances recently is just blowing smoke.

 

[JSR]

And it seems that JB is spending time perfecting his sophomoric behavior in the courtroom as well. I wanted to just smack him when he had that goofy grin on his face at the last hearing when he asked Ashton if he was alright.

Me too. He looked like a petulant child.

 

[JSR]

Did you say TEN depos in ONE week?

There is no way in HELL he's prepping for those depos all on his own. One of my cases had 20, count them 20 depos, in a period of a month and a half. It was INSANE madness. Although to our credit we had a litany of people on our team prepping for them all. Please understand how much work prepping for depositions can be. Just one deposition can take hours and hours of prep time.

 

[whiteangora]

We call this defense tactic "trial by ambush." The remedy is for the prosecution to ask for a recess to be able to handle the sudden, new information.
Truely professional lawyers know that trials go a lot faster and smoother if there is no "trial by ambush." Really good lawyers will even discuss their thoughts, legal research and facts ahead of time with opposing counsel to see if they can't find a point of agreement as to what happened, how the law would handle it and what a case is worth; but then, that's called a "plea bargain."

I thought this kind of thing was not allowed at FL trials. (Perry Mason moments)
It was explained in another thread, here is the post from
member "MiraclesHappen"

Big Glitch in Florida Law.

Florida Rules of criminal procedure 3.220 have plugged up loopholes which allowed experts to spring things at trial by giving the prosecution the opportunity to depose the witnesses who are going to be called by the defendant during trial.


Specifically listed as available to be deposed by either side, are expert witnesses who have failed to reduce their findings or opinions to writing.:deal:

The Florida rules are really geared to getting the info out before trial to avoid this type of situation in which theories are plucked from the sky..

Being somewhat familiar with the PS case, I was basing my humble opinion on the parameters of Florida law & Procedure and their incredibly wide latitude regarding discovery. :blowkiss:

Per Rule 3.220, available for questioning before trial & during the process of discovery:
(7) expert witnesses
who have not provided a written report and a curriculum
vitae or who are going to testify to test results or
give opinions that will have to meet the test set forth in
Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).

 

[JSR]

If I had a client that refused to act in her own best interest, I'd certainly recuse myself for some reason or another.

Which is what Nejame did. He went running for the hills.

 

[frenchvixen]

Yes, and probably wouldn't hesitate to do so with the prosecution. Because this is defense, they are more lenient so avoid an "ineffective assistance of counsel" post-trial appeal.

Maybe he didn't use caselaw because it might give away his defense strategy. Personally, I don't think he has a strategy. Telling the public that they will have an "aha" moment is the only strategy I've seen so far and of course smirking and irritating the SA.

 

[jcamille]

What if she is unwilling to do so? Not saying insanity defense would be the strategy here.....QUOTE]

I think he wants mental health records in case he has to argue temporary insanity so he can try to prove that the "apple doesn't fall far from the tree."

 

[trixi491]

I don't get it, if KC is so OBVIOUSLY innocent that the court will be "shocked", why does JB need to file things like these? Why does his defense have to be so secretive if it is really strong enough to get KC off? Why does he want a change of venue? If KC is so obviously innocent wouldn't the ppl of Orlando be able to see that come trial? IMO, if his defense really was that strong and they had definitive proof of KC's innocence, these sort of motions wouldn't be happening and KC wouldn't be sitting behind bars right now (or perhaps another year until the trial is set to happen), someone else would. JB wouldn't be the one who keeps trying to postpone the trial date (remember him even pushing for a month after the date the prosecution gives) if KC was innocent and deserved to get out of there ASAP. Is it wrong to assume this?

 

[frenchvixen]

Did you say TEN depos in ONE week?

Is the deponent required to not talk about the deposition? I guess the Sunshine Laws are to Baez what these defense depositions are to the SA. I hate that!!!

 

[Marina2]

I wonder if this has anything to do with records or identity of Caylee's father.

 

[Khaki_Pants]

His motion is sounding like
it's going to be another fine example of "Go home and do it again." IMO

 

[cecybeans]

Which is what Nejame did. He went running for the hills.

So true! And isn't it interesting the relish with which he sparred with JB over the motion regarding his new client TM? MN didn't get to say it aloud in court, but I loved the line he wrote at the end about JB having to prove that any monies spent in recovering reproductions from TES had to be proven legitimately gained, or something to that effect.

He certainly earned back any respect then I may have denied him earlier for representing CA and co.

I just think it's so interesting that he felt it necessary to put into record a subtle protest on the origin of the defense. I have often thought that Morgan's motivation may have been similar; if he wins the civil suit then he has the opening for discovery into her current financial situation before it gets "OJ-ed" away prior to an actual conviction.

 

[JSR]

Local rules on government funding may be different in Florida, but I don't know of any way for a private defense counsel to get his experts' fees paid using taxpayer sources of funding. 'course, I never thought GM vehicle buyers would have their warranties backed up by taxpayer money either. So, I could be wrong. :crazy:

(Silly me. I thought taxpayer money was supposed to be used only for things taxpayers were obligated to fund?)

I know for certain Scott P. attorney was paid by taxpayers $$ after Scott's parents ran out of money. And if I'm not mistaken I believe so were his experts, although none of them testified at trial. If I'm wrong someone please correct me. My brain is somewhat fried today.

 

[NancyT]

There is reciprocal discovery, so whatever Baez thinks he's pulling over anyone's head isn't going to amount to a hill of beans at trial. Does he somehow think he's more intelligent than prosecutors? Hell, the judge has to teach him how to properly file a motion for crying out loud.

What gets me even more is, all of this could have been confidential, but Baez refused the gag order. He just makes no sense.

The bottom line is, if there was ANY proof that Casey was actually innocent, Baez and any other defense attorney worth their weight would be screaming it from the hilltops to get their client released ASAP. It's just more smoke and mirrors from Camp Baez. I think he's pegging too many people as complete morons, when it's he who is the idiot.