JBaez requests Ex Parte Hearing with Judge Strickland

[Friday]

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?)

Bolded by me: I so want join you in expressing my similiar misconception, but my post would probably get me not only expelled from WS, but expunged, as well! LOL

 

[frenchvixen]

Personally, I don't think he knows what his defense is going to be. I think he originally decided on one, but has had to change his mind (several times?) as new evidence is revealed

This would be the part where he advises his client to plea out but no.. it's all about the JB show, right?

 

[LancelotLink]

If he is going after TES records, my money says he wants to roll that bus over J Hoover.

 

[Friday]

I'm almost certain that this has to do with placing the blame on another family member. I think LA, CA and GA should watch their backs.

I hope you're right, and that the intended victim is CA or LA, but I'd be really afraid it's going to be GA they've all decided to throw to the wolves. Hey, I wonder if it's his records JB is trying to obtain from GA's recent stay in the hospital.

 

[ThoughtElf]

We were wondering that on the proceedures thread. Did anyone check the docket to see if his request came up?

He filed his pro hac vice on March 12, but I really haven't heard what happened with his disciplinary hearings in California, so not sure where is stands now.

 

[ThoughtElf]

If he is going after TES records, my money says he wants to roll that bus over J Hoover.

LOL! I hadn't posted it until you posted this, but I did think to myself, "Gee, if they go after searchers records I wonder if we'll see more on Joy W along with Hoover?"

I scare me, I do.

 

[LancelotLink]

LOL! I hadn't posted it until you posted this, but I did think to myself, "Gee, if they go after searchers records I wonder if we'll see more on Joy W along with Hoover?"

I scare me, I do.

:bow:

 

[SoCalSleuth]

Who knows what JB really was after or the proper procedure to get it? On more than one occasion he has asked for one thing in a motion and then entirely another thing in court. On more than one occasion he has obtained an order for X and then gone back in because he expected his order for X to get him Y. He is an embarrassment to the legal community. He rarely, if ever, cites any law in support of his motions and then acts aghast when the court rules against him because of the very lack of legal support for his requests. Yes, the law JB, that pesky little detail you are always forgetting in your court filings and appearances; and which, btw, also happens to be the very thing you are practicing, the very thing that provides the judge with jurisdiction to act on your requests, the very thing ...well, you get my gist.

 

[frenchvixen]

Who knows what JB really was after or the proper procedure to get it? On more than one occasion he has asked for one thing in a motion and then entirely another thing in court. On more than one occasion he has obtained an order for X and then gone back in because he expected his order for X to get him Y. He is an embarrassment to the legal community. He rarely, if ever, cites any law in support of his motions and then acts aghast when the court rules against him because of the very lack of legal support for his requests. Yes, the law JB, that pesky little detail you are always forgetting in your court filings and appearances; and which, btw, also happens to be the very thing you are practicing, the very thing that provides the judge with jurisdiction to act on your requests, the very thing ...well, you get my gist.

Can't the legal community complain about this? He is incompetent. I mean this is basic law school grounding.. when you write a motion or a brief, you cite case law.. It's not that difficult. How is he going to lead a trial if he can't even do that? I wonder what kind of stupid questions he asks during depos.

 

[MyTinkieGirl]

He filed his pro hac vice on March 12, but I really haven't heard what happened with his disciplinary hearings in California, so not sure where is stands now.

I know this is OT...but there was a reply to the filing in Feb....

http://members.calbar.ca.gov/search/member_detail.aspx?x=133009

 

[cyberborg]

Smoke and mirrors. I truly believe that this is an attempt by JB to suggest that he has something compelling to get the media attention and affect the future Jury pool.

It was a ploy, knowing it would not fly to get everyone talking and speculating. A LKB surprise Phase 1.

 

[MyTinkieGirl]

Can't the legal community complain about this? He is incompetent. I mean this is basic law school grounding.. when you write a motion or a brief, you cite case law.. It's not that difficult. How is he going to lead a trial if he can't even do that? I wonder what kind of stupid questions he asks during depos.

ITA....I have no legal training at all and reading how his motion for this was written seemed almost juvenile...like he was a kid trying to keep something from his mommy....JMO

 

[Americka]

INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL - Ineffective assistance of counsel at trial and on direct appeal violates the Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial. In analyzing an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the overriding concern is to determine whether counsel's conduct so undermined the functioning of the adversary process that the trial cannot be relied upon as having produced a just result. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686 (1984).

First, the defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient. This requires showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the 'counsel' guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment. Second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. This requires showing that counsel's errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable. Unless a defendant makes both showings, it cannot be said that the conviction or death sentence resulted from a breakdown in the adversary process that renders the result unreliable. Id. at 687. Review of counsel's performance is highly deferential, and courts must indulge a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance. Id. at 689.

'Actual or constructive denial of assistance of counsel altogether is legally presumed to result in prejudice. So are various kinds of state interference with counsel's assistance.' 466 U.S. at 692 (citing U.S. v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 659, n.25 (1983). In Cronic, the Court described the type of situation from which prejudice is presumed. When counsel is totally absent, is prevented from assisting the accused at a critical stage of the proceeding, or when counsel entirely fails to subject the prosecution's case to meaningful adversarial testing, courts will presume prejudice. Cronic, 466 U.S. at 659 & n.25.
Link to site is http://www.lectlaw.com/def/i083.htm


This is my first post, so please be gentle. As I read several of the previous posts, one thought was reaffirmed: ineffective counsel. Today's denial of motion along with other errors committed by Baez, in my opinion, strongly exhibits ineffective assistance of council. If Baez continues to "counsel" in this manner, does it not increase KC's chances of appealing a conviction based on ineffective assistance of counsel? Or am I simply reaching too far?

 

[one_hooah_wife]

I never said "ex parte" would be only the judge and Baez. To the contrary, I've been posting all over this thread that ex parte does not mean that, and my post you'd quoted, which was in response to another poster's suggestion that maybe JBaez had mistakenly entitled it "ex parte" when he meant to say "in camera," also stated even if he'd meant to say "in camera," that the merits of what he sought would be denied b/c he'd asked for it to take place w/o the SA, which ain't gonna happen. Ever.
p.s. In camera can mean/be performed by the judge alone. It doesn't have to take place with the attorneys present, but if one is present, the rest of them must be present as well.

Huh? ex parte --- means that only the judge and "one side" is present. PERIOD!! ex parte is Latin for "from one side" ... "in camera" just means that the proceedings would be documented by a court reporter in front of the judge usually with both sides present but differs from ex parte, in that the proceedings permit both sides to be present and that it is documented and not subject to the public.

 

[cyberborg]

[snip]

This is my first post, so please be gentle. As I read several of the previous posts, one thought was reaffirmed: ineffective counsel. Today's denial of motion along with other errors committed by Baez, in my opinion, strongly exhibits ineffective assistance of council. If Baez continues to "counsel" in this manner, does it not increase KC's chances of appealing a conviction based on ineffective assistance of counsel? Or am I simply reaching too far?

Great point! This may be a part of the Defense strategy, if all else fails and KC is convicted, ensure the door is wide open and obvious on ineffective counsel to enable an appeal and a repeat.

The sequel to the first KC movie?

 

[Themis]

Oh No! I am not betting with you guys any more. I'd starve to death and die broke. Those 14 cents add up over time, ya know.

Go ahead and bet. I'll "stake" you.

:twocents::twocents::twocents::twocents::twocents::twocents::twocents:

 

[Themis]

This is my first post, ... <snipped.>

:Welcome-12-june::newbie:
:blowkiss:

Pretty awesome for a first post! Welcome!

 

[Themis]

Huh? ex parte --- means that only the judge and "one side" is present. PERIOD!! ex parte is Latin for "from one side" ... "in camera" just means that the proceedings would be documented by a court reporter in front of the judge usually with both sides present but differs from ex parte, in that the proceedings permit both sides to be present and that it is documented and not subject to the public.

Both are right. Ex-parte does literally mean without the other side. In practice, it means one party can file an ex-parte motion but has to give oral notice to the other side. If the other side doesn't show up, the motion can go forward. However, rarely does the other side not show up if they've got good counsel. In an ex-parte, the litigants are generally not present but counsel from both sides generally are present. An ex-parte can be held in open court or in chambers, either with or without a court reporter. Some types of cases require a court reporter and others do not. Sometimes the presence of a court reporter is with advance notice to the court at the request of a party. So, both are correct.

 

[Themis]

Themis, could you please explain Possibility #1? (I'm reading this thread in order, so if you've already explained, disregard this request--I'll see your reply soon. TIA

In the "Olden days" before there were public defender offices, the court appointed defense counsel were funded by the courts and an attorney would make a motion to the courts for money for experts. Now the counties usually have a public defender office and either contracts or government employee public defenders. The contracted or appointed public defender has a budget that is used to pay attorneys, staff, overhead and pay for costs of litigation; including experts. Most PD offices are very territorial about their scarce funds and will not share a nickel with private counsel; if the client is indigent and qualifies for PD, then the client can put in the application and get the PD appointed and have access to PD experts etc. A client who can afford private counsel can also afford money for experts. But, what happens with a private attorney doing pro bono work? There's a gap there. One remedy would be to make a motion and get a court order for the PD office to fund the expert. But, the PD office is not a party to the case and not appearing in the case so there's no jurisdiction. A petition for a writ might do it, but that is in civil court. Essentially, it's a gap in the law that different jurisdictions are handling differently, or not handling at all.

The amount the PD offices put aside for experts and litigation costs is very very small, so they're probably fighting over $1.99.

 

[Themis]

That's...that's dopey!

That's an office staff member asleep at the switch.