JBaez requests Ex Parte Hearing with Judge Strickland

[MyTinkieGirl]

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.

Oh, my....maybe agree to disagree??

 

[snow_walker]

Ex-party.. meaning one side wants a chance to bend the judges ear, and the other side can wander in too, if it feels like it. In an important case, the other side would be feeling very much like they wanted to be there too. It is usually about the nuts and bolts of issues.. getting money from the public coffers for some special reason, for example. Sometimes it is used in a temprary emergency sort of thing.. an example would be to get a restraining order against someone until such time as a judge can hear both sides of the story and sort things out.

It isn't usually used as it seems JB wants to use it, although I don't quite understand what exactly it is JB does want from the judge. I have read it over several times, and am none the wiser.

 

[MAMABEAR]

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?

SNIPPED:
:balloons::Welcome-12-june::balloons:
I am on the bottom of the totem pole round here but WELCOME anyway.

 

[Themis]

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 and/or the better attorneys on his team suggest. Right now, I think he's keeping his options open and looking around for the best one.

I am probably totally wrong, of course, because I'm deviousness-impaired. LOL

"Deviousness-impaired?! :floorlaugh:

I don't know what his defense is going to be. Wish we knew about that other case he just finished.
I'm not going to help him by discussing possible defenses. :shutup: :ziplip:
I have a feeling JB or his staff watches this forum. :kilroy:
Nope. Not me. Never. :nono:

 

[Themis]

Since I can't be a great legal mind, they keep me around for comic relief! :tongue:

But if there is ever a case involving paint, canvas or paint brushes, then I'll be all over it.:detective:

Yes, but you get to see the big picture

 

[SoCalSleuth]

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.

I think you may be confusing an "ex parte communication" with an "ex parte application." Themis is correct, if you file an ex parte application you have to give the other party advanced notice of it (and in many jurisdictions you have to give them a copy of your ex parte application 24 hours in advance). However, if one side communicates with the judge without the other side present that is referred to as an "ex parte communication"--and is a huge no-no. On a personal note, in 100 days from tomorrow, my man is getting out and I will no longer be a "hooah girlfriend" but you will be hearing lots of "hooahs" from me!

 

[Themis]

Thank you so much for answering my question so thoroughly. Now, I can fully understand the difference.

What I just can't understand is how could JB say KC is "innocent" if KC told him the "true" facts and/or he looks at the evidence. It seems to me that he runs with "lies" just about as far as KC does....

What can I say? :clap:

 

[Themis]

Bold by me.

I believe Judge Strickland agrees with you. In his ruling attached below he says as much.

http://www.cfnews13.com/uploadedFil...fendant's Motion to Seek Ex Parte Hearing.pdf

YES! It appears we were on the same page today.

 

[Marina2]

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?

To add to your information:

SUMMARIES OF ALL PUBLISHED SUCCESSFUL
INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL CLAIMS
POST-STRICKLAND V. WASHINGTON AND PRE-WIGGINS V. SMITH
(June 29, 2008)
http://www.capdefnet.org/hat/conten..._assist/IAC Strickland to Wiggins 6-29-08.pdf

SUMMARIES OF ALL PUBLISHED SUCCESSFUL
INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL CLAIMS
POST-WIGGINS V. SMITH
*Updated June 29, 2008
http://www.capdefnet.org/hat/conten...effective_assist/IAC Post-Wiggins 6-29-08.pdf

Wiggins v Smith expanded on the vagueness of Strickland v Washington by defining what constitutes effectiveness in death penalty cases.

You can get an idea of what it takes to be successfull with an ineffective assistance of counsel claim with these summaries.

 

[AZlawyer]

"Deviousness-impaired?! :floorlaugh:

I don't know what his defense is going to be. Wish we knew about that other case he just finished.
I'm not going to help him by discussing possible defenses. :shutup: :ziplip:
I have a feeling JB or his staff watches this forum. :kilroy:
Nope. Not me. Never. :nono:

Yeah, he started taking depositions after several of us kept posting that we couldn't figure out why he wasn't taking depositions...

 

[Themis]

I think you may be confusing an "ex parte communication" with an "ex parte application." Themis is correct, if you file an ex parte application you have to give the other party advanced notice of it (and in many jurisdictions you have to give them a copy of your ex parte application 24 hours in advance). However, if one side communicates with the judge without the other side present that is referred to as an "ex parte communication"--and is a huge no-no. On a personal note, in 100 days from tomorrow, my man is getting out and I will no longer be a "hooah girlfriend" but you will be hearing lots of "hooahs" from me!

Bless all of our Hooahs! :usa::usa: Please extend my deepest appreciation for his service on this special occasion. I appreciate all of them, where ever they are :worldmap: each and every one. :soldier:

 

[Themis]

Yeah, he started taking depositions after several of us kept posting that we couldn't figure out why he wasn't taking depositions...

There you go! That's "some evidence" that somebody is reading here. We'd better make sure we're right, AZLawyer. :read::read:

 

[Themis]

To add to your information:

SUMMARIES OF ALL PUBLISHED SUCCESSFUL
INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL CLAIMS
POST-STRICKLAND V. WASHINGTON AND PRE-WIGGINS V. SMITH
(June 29, 2008)
http://www.capdefnet.org/hat/conten..._assist/IAC Strickland to Wiggins 6-29-08.pdf

SUMMARIES OF ALL PUBLISHED SUCCESSFUL
INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL CLAIMS
POST-WIGGINS V. SMITH
*Updated June 29, 2008
http://www.capdefnet.org/hat/conten...effective_assist/IAC Post-Wiggins 6-29-08.pdf

Wiggins v Smith expanded on the vagueness of Strickland v Washington by defining what constitutes effectiveness in death penalty cases.

You can get an idea of what it takes to be successfull with an ineffective assistance of counsel claim with these summaries.

Ah! We have a "sleeper" here!
<Tips hat acknowledging another member of the same species.> :blowkiss:
Keep them coming. As you can see there are more than enough legal issues and questions to go around.

 

[Themis]

"defendant's theory of defense".


Um.... How about the truth?

You have a very good point, Wisteria. :clap:
Lawyers are not allowed to mislead the court. If JB knows she did it he can still give KC a lawful and competent defense; challenge the prosecution's case by challenging the testimony of the witnesses and the experts. Then, if the State cannot prove their case, the jury is supposed to find the defendant not guilty on that charge and if not guilty on all charges, then not guilty of the case. What he cannot do is concoct a story of a defense out of thin air, propose it as an alternative that supports "doubt" and then try to support it with "evidence" that could be but is not supportive of a defense "theory." IF something else happened, he is entitled to prove the something else.

 

[snow_walker]

Really, isn't the whole issue kind of behind us now? The judge said "NO!"

More to the point is what he could have wanted in the first place, and why does it have to be kept from the other side ..my guess.. and it is only a guess.. is that he is going to try throwing LA under that bus, and wants to get his juvenile records or other records opened. It would be interesting to see who CA would choose to fight for if it came to a choice between her children.

 

[Themis]

Frankly, the only plausible thing I was able to come up with would be a potential REBUTTAL WITNESS, since their identities don't, depending upon the state and the testimony they're expected to give, have to be disclosed in advance of the trial.

In LA, an attorney does not have to disclose rebuttal witnesses' identities, but you better be darn sure you know who does and doesn't qualify as a rebuttal witness before you take that gamble. I cringed while watching a judge rule that a particular witness did NOT get to testify and the attorney lost his case. (Appeals, malpractice alerts, anyone?!?!?)
Anyhow, so maybe JBaez thinks he's got a potential rebuttal witness and, since it's not a document, and maybe FL is like LA and - although he doesn't have to disclose his rebuttal witness's identity - he can't FIND the rebuttal witness, so maybe he needs a court order to help him locate the immediate whereabouts of the potential rebuttal witness. eek: Casey has him looking for ZANNY!?!?!? J/K...)

Could you say that again about 1,000 times! Holding back a witness with crucial information as a "rebuttal" witness so you can have an element of surprise is extremely risky. Much more prudent to have a name on a long witness list and give notice to the other side. Courts view "trial by ambush" attempts very darkly.
That lawyer might as well get a stack of business cards from his malpractice carrier and leave them on the counsel table in front of his client.

 

[Marina2]

Ah! We have a "sleeper" here!
<Tips hat acknowledging another member of the same species.> :blowkiss:
Keep them coming. As you can see there are more than enough legal issues and questions to go around.

Oh no, not at all Themis. I'm in the medical field but I do have a great interest in the law and all things related. My hat is off to all of you here. If not for my fear of speaking in public, I would have loved to be a trial lawyer.

 

[TinaD]

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?

That's my thought - I posted it yesterday. Weird way to go though,

 

[Themis]

Themis, I SO enjoy your posts....along with all the other legal wizards here!

Question: Do you thing it is possible that JB is looking to get the charges against KC DISMISSED based on something he THINKS he can discover pertaining to the SA team? I am of the mind that this recent motion may have something to do with the the video/videos at the jail.

I can't really guess at what JB thinks! :bang: That would make my head hurt. However, lots of defense counsel who can't pound the facts, can't pound the law and can't pound the table, will try to pound on the prosecution or LE staff. The remedy for any prosecution misconduct (and I'm not saying there is any here) is to file a complaint with the SA or the Attorney General. Even if some prosecutor is disqualified, the remedy is to try the case with another prosecution team; not to throw the case out.

 

[nssherlock]

Could you say that again about 1,000 times! Holding back a witness with crucial information as a "rebuttal" witness so you can have an element of surprise is extremely risky. Much more prudent to have a name on a long witness list and give notice to the other side. Courts view "trial by ambush" attempts very darkly.
That lawyer might as well get a stack of business cards from his malpractice carrier and leave them on the counsel table in front of his client.

Well if I've learned anything from reading this thread it's that being a GOOD lawyer is hard work!! Just wanted to say thank you to all of you - obviously in the Good Lawyer category - for taking the time to go through this very complicated information with us. I do believe I'm ready to sit for the Bar.........Kidding of course