JBaez requests Ex Parte Hearing with Judge Strickland

[Chezhire]

That's my bet. He filed for ex-parte, and wanted in camera. Good ol' Jose. At least he's good for a chuckle.

Yeah, but an in camera review falls into only ONE of TWO categories:
(1) the review is done by the JUDGE ALONE, with no one else present, and he alone makes the decision, OR
(2) the review is done by the JUDGE AND BOTH DEFENSE AND PROSECUTION, and everyone gets to take a look, or the judge looks while the attorneys sit and wait.
There is NO such thing as an in camera review with only one party/side present.
So, regardless of the possibility of JBaez incorrectly titling it as ex parte, an in camera request wouldn't have been granted for the same reason: JBaez wanted to be there with the judge but w/o the SA. Ain't gonna happen.

 

[Marina2]

I probably have a better grasp of pretrial law from reading the fine posts of our own legal expert members than Baez poor students. They should save their money and come here.

 

[Chezhire]

:laugh:

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.

ya made me laugh P :crazy:

 

[one_hooah_wife]

That's my bet. He filed for ex-parte, and wanted in camera. Good ol' Jose. At least he's good for a chuckle.

No chuckle here ... Then, he should have asked for an "in camera" hearing -- just him, the judge, court reporter and prosecution. No Press! I think he wanted more exclusivity!

 

[cajun]

http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/local/040109ex_parte_denied

denied!

 

[AZlawyer]

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...)

Hmmmm....his motion says he wants to "subpoena certain records," but I suppose the ultimate goal might not be the "records" themselves but what they reveal about the whereabouts or identity of a potential rebuttal witness.

 

[travelgal]

My guess is:

1. JB wants to get his hands on some third-party documents that require a court order signed by the judge rather than just a subpoena (banking records, etc.);

2. To get the court order, he knows he will have to say WHY he needs those documents;

3. He thinks the prosecutors are too stupid to figure out his master plan if all they have is a copy of the subpoena (i.e. the list of documents he wants), rather than his explanation of WHY he wanted the subpoena.

IMHO the prosecutors are plenty smart enough to follow JB's bread crumbs and he might as well just show his hand.

~~ Wouldn't it be interesting to hear the SA's comments on Baez & all of his blunders? :floorlaugh:

~~ Also, I want to thank all of you "Legal Eagles" sharing your insider's knowledge and opinions. I have learned so much from reading this thread. :clap:

~~ :blowkiss:

 

[one_hooah_wife]

Yeah, but an in camera review falls into only ONE of TWO categories:
(1) the review is done by the JUDGE ALONE, with no one else present, and he alone makes the decision, OR
(2) the review is done by the JUDGE AND BOTH DEFENSE AND PROSECUTION, and everyone gets to take a look, or the judge looks while the attorneys sit and wait.
There is NO such thing as an in camera review with only one party/side present.
So, regardless of the possibility of JBaez incorrectly titling it as ex parte, an in camera request wouldn't have been granted for the same reason: JBaez wanted to be there with the judge but w/o the SA. Ain't gonna happen.

I disagree "ex parte" would consist of only the Judge and Baez.

In camera ... would be the judge, Baez, the court reporter and prosecution.

 

[JSR]

Betcha she didn't even know about it.
Wanna place bets on how likely it will be that she'll withdraw???
(J/K...but the more I look at what I wrote, the more I wonder...)

I agree. I'm betting she withdraws before the trial starts.

 

[Chezhire]

Hmmmm....his motion says he wants to "subpoena certain records," but I suppose the ultimate goal might not be the "records" themselves but what they reveal about the whereabouts or identity of a potential rebuttal witness.

That's what I'm talking about - he might not be intending to rely in any way upon the documents or things themselves, but he's looking for someone's location or identity, which he believes is contained therein...

 

[Marina2]

~~ Wouldn't it be interesting to hear the SA's comments on Baez & all of his blunders? :floorlaugh:

~~ Also, I want to thank all of you "Legal Eagles" sharing your insider's knowledge and opinions. I have learned so much from reading this thread. :clap:

~~ :blowkiss:

Yes indeed. My kingdom to be a fly on that wall!

I want to thank all the legal experts here, too. We are truly blessed with your presence and insight.

 

[Chezhire]

I disagree "ex parte" would consist of only the Judge and Baez.

In camera ... would be the judge, Baez, the court reporter and prosecution.

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.

 

[Paintr]

:laugh:

ya made me laugh P :crazy:

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:

 

[Chezhire]

I agree. I'm betting she withdraws before the trial starts.

Wonder if she even knows about this recent gaffe?
She's counsel pro hac vice, so she's probably not be checking the filings herself...

 

[Chezhire]

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:

Ohhhh... so as in Clue, was it in the drawing room, with the end of a paintbrush, or was it in the study, with the base of the palette??? :crazy:

 

[ThoughtElf]

Good question. If this was a joint effort ... well ... I guess that thought speaks for itself.

I have to say I have finally found a bright spot in all of the defense actions to date, well at least for our Floridian friends. They might just wind up with a few better lawyers as a result.

I'm thinking optimistically and hoping that if the interns working for JB are learning by example, then they have experienced many examples to date of what/how NOT to file motions, behave in court, treat other case participants, etc.

So let's raise a glass to the poor interns on this case and hope that they are skillful in turning this into a positive during future interviews when people read the experience portion of their curriculum vitae. :crazy:

 

[amethyst221]

Along the lines of protesting too much, or saying "trust me," JB seems to be over-emphasizing that, for this thing he wants but dare not speak of, he has a good faith basis. Really, he does. To me that translates into this is a very tenuous, out there thing, I'm not entitled to get it, but I want you to do it for me and not tell anyone else. I must have missed the days we covered this in evidence classes. I have to think this is in part just a performance and only he gets the brilliance of it.

As to LKB, I haven't seen any written work out of her to suggest she'd do so much better. Seems the court had to remind her that a little legal authority for "obvious" stuff would be in order.

 

[Paintr]

That's what I'm talking about - he might not be intending to rely in any way upon the documents or things themselves, but he's looking for someone's location or identity, which he believes is contained therein...

The idea of adoption is still nagging at the back of my mind. Birth records are sealed. The A's did reside in another state before Florida. Maybe JB is hoping for an evil twin sister to KC.

 

[ThoughtElf]

Betcha she didn't even know about it.
Wanna place bets on how likely it will be that she'll withdraw???
(J/K...but the more I look at what I wrote, the more I wonder...)

I've been guessing that all along.

Aside: is Macaluso definitely out? Last I read, it was looking that way.

 

[Paintr]

Ohhhh... so as in Clue, was it in the drawing room, with the end of a paintbrush, or was it in the study, with the base of the palette??? :crazy:

Neither! It was in the studio with the turpentine. :sothere: