Motion to stop jail recordings: denied Thurdsay

[logicalgirl]

This is the part I don't understand. If I wanted to see the hugging ones, or the Twizzler ones - how would I know which video(s) this was on so I can request them. There must be hundreds of lawyer/client videos by now.

 

[The World According]

It seems once again Baez is his own worst enemy.Every time he stomps his feet and throws a fit, the judge winds up giving him something to cry about!!!

 

[Kentjbkent]

And am curious....(and perhaps MM can answer since he has done this?)...

What is the procedure for requesting anything from this case? I assume it involves a trip to the courthouse, paperwork, but is there a filing fee? Or just a fee attached to obtaining a copy of a CD of video, photocipes, etc?

How does this work, and what type of expense is involved for multiple requests (since I know the media doesn't always get copies of everything to save $$$?)

 

[The World According]

Originally Posted by Muzikman View Post
If Fox and WESH are right, and Judge S is going to review the Casey/Baez videos to decide if they can be released, Baez may REGRET EVER FILING THIS MOTION.

If he wouldn't have filed it, media might have never thought to do a public records request for it, thinking it was off-limits.


Another stumble, and this one under Andrea's watch.

 

[TakeNote]

So, they are going to make tapes. Then the media will request them under the public records act. Judge S's opinion said he saw a video that raised concerns about the possibility it might interfere with her right to due process -- can't remember exact language -- access to counsel, fair trial and jury pool issues perhaps. Delay in release was a balancing of the public records rights vs the protection of the trial process. So, what exactly are the records going to be screened for? KC's reactions like the anger she displayed towards her parents? Improper behavior of JB towards his client -- like slipping contraband communications from her parents? I don't have a problem with the delay to preserve the criminal trial process, but I'm not clear what is being screened during the delay.

same here!!!
i would like some legal person explain this.....i dont get it....:waitasec:

 

[The World According]

Unread Today, 08:26 PM
rhornsby's Avatar
rhornsby rhornsby is offline
Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Orlando, Florida
Posts: 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by eaglemom View Post
Mr. Hornsby-

With this new order - Where the judge will review the tapes of JB and KC before the tapes are released http://www.wftv.com/pdf/21996157/detail.html

Footnote #1 "The Court will then set a hearing at the request of any party in interest" - I am curious if this refers to the media being able to ask the court to review the tape and report on what happens in the tape as you referenced before? if the judge has already ruled it as 'prejudicial' (obviously to the defense) what would be the point of a hearing?
For the media to challenge the denial of its release.
__________________
“The only real lawyers are trial lawyers, and trial lawyers try cases to juries.” - Clarence Darrow
Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message Thanks
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to rhornsby For This Useful Post: Remove Your Thanks
BeanE, logicalgirl, MysticOne, The World According
rhornsby
View Public Profile
Send a private message to rhornsby
Visit rhornsby's homepage!
Find all posts by rhornsby
Add rhornsby to Your Contacts
#254 Report Post
Unread Today, 08:27 PM
rhornsby's Avatar
rhornsby rhornsby is offline
Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Orlando, Florida
Posts: 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeanE View Post
rhornsby,

Judge Strickland denied the defense motion regarding videotaping attorney visits, but said he will review all tapes prior to their release, and withold them under certain circumstances.

http://www.clickorlando.com/download...7/21995916.pdf

My question is, could Baez now accompany George or Cindy on their visits to Casey and then claim those tapes needed to be reviewed by Strickland prior to release, and come up with a reason why each of those visit tapes should not be released?

Thank you!
No. Lawyer visits occur in the jail. Family and friend visits occur at a video conference builidng.
__________________
“The only real lawyers are trial lawyers, and trial lawyers try cases to juries.” - Clarence Darrow
Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message Thanks
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to rhornsby For This Useful Post: Remove Your Thanks
BeanE, logicalgirl, Marigold, momtective, MysticOne, okiedokietoo, The World According, zoomom

 

[amethyst221]

I think AL filed this motion to stop the taping of attorney visits as part of her pre-trial attempt to build a record for appeal. Just one more motion on the pile. She framed it at least in part (I admit I sort of tuned her out partway through) as a constitutional issue, claiming that knowledge of the taping and the whirring/clicking machines, etc. were chilling their ability to fully represent the defendant, feel free to talk candidly, and whine, etc. whine. I doubt she even expected the court to grant it.

 

[The World According]

Today, 06:41 PM
Muzikman's Avatar
Muzikman Muzikman is offline
ROCKIN!

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Orlando
Posts: 1,496
Quote from the judge's order:

"Additionally, the Court has also given careful consideration to simply delaying the release of any videotapes of these meetings until after the trial. The Court, however, is aware of no authority which would justify delaying the release. This is especially true in light of the lengthy delay for the start of the trial in this matter."

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/21995914/detail.html

Order available for download at link above.
Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message Thanks
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Muzikman For This Useful Post:
AZlawyer, BeanE, Dear Prudence, LC446, logicalgirl, MysticOne, Texas Mist
Muzikman
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Muzikman
Find all posts by Muzikman
Add Muzikman to Your Contacts
#130 Report Post
Old Today, 06:44 PM
Muzikman's Avatar
Muzikman Muzikman is offline
ROCKIN!

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Orlando
Posts: 1,496
Quote:
Originally Posted by mommaearth View Post
Is the video he is speaking of in the order the one on the day the remains were found or is he speaking of another time she had bad behavior that was taped?
I believe he is referring to ALL VIDEO that has been recorded of Baez visiting Casey. That's gotta be HOURS if not HUNDREDS of hours!

Quote from the judge's order:

"The Court does harbor some level of concern over the contents of any videotape that
might be released (even without audio). The Court has witnessed at least one prior video which
could arguably affect the defendant's right to a fair trial, as well as jury selection. While state
law on this issue clearly favors public access, this Court is ordering that no video of the
defendant and her counsel be released without an in camera viewing by the undersigned.
Following an in camera review the Court would then either promptly release the video, or
prohibit its release if the Court felt a public viewing might be prejudicial'. Thus, any delay in
release would be minimal, and the defendant's right to access to counsel, and access to the courts would be protected."

Reply With Quote

 

[Just Jayla]

I can’t help wondering that the judge was confused by the defendant’s lawyers and there badly written motions and lengthily arguments and thus believed they were arguing that the lawyers visits should not be released instead of the A’s visits?

I was watching a small claims trial last week where the defendant's name was mis-written on the warrant (missing a small word like 'one' or something), and when the defendant corrected the judge's pronunciation, the judge dismissed it on the spot for being an incorrect defendant, even though both parties were up at the podium. He admonished the plaintiff for not getting the name correct, kinda an important detail.
If their verbage argued that mistakenly, maybe Judge S. should have gone with their mistake, just to teach them about better motion preparation.

 

[MD MOMMY]

Okay call me crazy, but what the heck are they talking about? Have we seen any video of JB meeting with KC at the jail????? I haven't seen any of those visits released.

 

[BeanE]

I think it was BeanE who said no one even realized these videos could be released under the Sunshine laws until Baez made this motion to withhold them from release. Good one Baez, can you walk on that foot you just shot?

Oh no, wasn't me, but I saw the posts. I think it was Muzikman at the very beginning of this thread. I hadn't realized until he posted about it this was opening that particular door.

Baez will try walking on that foot as soon as he's done kicking himself in the a$$ with it. ;-)

 

[momtective]

I will be happy to see just ONE of these videos showing the interactions between Baez-KC, AL-KC.

Not because I think I will be able to figure out what they are saying....(I leave that in ToriMom's capable hands...)

Not because I think it will help me further deem her guilty (or innocent if you are so inclined)...

But just because I am damn NOSY!

I want to see if their behavior towards each other is similar to what we have seen in court (meaningful exchange of smiles, KC batting her eyes, AL's sypathetic posturing) or the rage, fidgeting, puckered face that CA/GA got to see.

MM, I request you start with the video from the Thursday before last week's hearing. Bet that was a doozy of a meeting...!!

Don't you know it!:dance: We would get to see all the coaching and everything...you know there was coaching, right?
Maybe it went something like this...

JB to KC: Now when I lean into you in the courtroom and whisper in your ear; I want you to start sobbing and when Mama Lyons grabs your arm I want you to really let 'er rip! Muster up as much tears as you can...we'll give you the cues, you just follow the script, okay Rose Petal....you'll do fine...I believe in you, Mama Lyon's believes in you and your parents believe in you...Rosebud especially believes in you. :wink:

 

[Themis]

The video he's talking about that raised fair trial concerns was the one where she reacted to the discovery of the remains--not any of the A/C visits. I don't believe he's seen any of those yet.

And he's going to be sorry he suggested an in camera review once the media requests all these videos.

:croc: Sounds like a right fine job for a law student intern. :crazy:

Thanks. It makes sense as to the "Remains Disovery Reaction Video" but the other attorney/client visits? However, I guess you and I will have to wait for "some legal person" to show up and explain all of this to us, right AZLawyer? :back:

 

[Themis]

same here!!!
i would like some legal person explain this.....i dont get it....:waitasec:

Great idea! Let me know when a "legal person" gets here to explain it please. :slap:

Further thoughts: When media requests videos of attorney visits, County produces them to the Court. Judge S (or designee) reviews them. <ZZzzzzzzzzzzzz> Anyway, they review hours of video watching JB and KC, AL and KC etc etc etc. Once those videos hit the public and forums like these, the WS members take those tapes, listen with enhanced listening computers, watch and blow up every corner of any shot that is interesting and finds out a whole lot more than what the Court's reviewer could ever reasonably be expected to see or hear. Then, the online forums consult their own members many of whom could clearly qualify as court experts and discuss every sigh and twitch they see. Problem? Appellate problem?

Another thought: JB should have been careful what they asked for. It was one thing for KC to be set up to see the TV announcement and video her reaction. It is quite something else to video an attorney and client. JB has had problems with allegations of possibly unethical behavior with KC already. Video might prove (or disprove) things like that. Further, the attorneys can't guarantee or control their client's behavior. It's an issue for them as we saw when AL grabbed KC's arm. I wonder if AL told JB not to touch KC in public. If not, he should not --ever touch her. Physical contact is not necessary to provide legal representation. Especially not with the allegations that she may have been motivated in part to kill Caylee so she would be free to man-hunt.

 

[Themis]

Wow. Can you imagine what AL and JB are thinking right now ... when they meet with KC it is going to be like the Judge is sitting up in an observation room watching the whole thing. If there isn't a prime example of "Be careful what you ask for" this is surely "it!"

 

[The World According]

I predict morning shows with Baez proclaiming , "It's unAmerican!!!"

 

[eaglemom]

While parts of me would LIKE to see these videos, I would prefer KC to never see the light of day again; therefore I prefer the A/C videos to never even be brought up as possible for appeal in this case.

I *think* SS feels the same and we won't see ANY of these videos especially as RHornsby already came up with another staute in FL taht he thinks covers these meetings as 'exempt' as they may not be public records... (please refer to his priginal post hyperlinked below)

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=92918"]List Attorney/Client visits we wish to request - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

See Section 119.071(2)(d), Florida Statutes. "General exemptions from inspection or copying of public records.--"


Quote:
s. 119.071(2)(d) - Any information revealing surveillance techniques or procedures or personnel is exempt from s. 119.07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution. Any comprehensive inventory of state and local law enforcement resources compiled pursuant to part I, chapter 23, and any comprehensive policies or plans compiled by a criminal justice agency pertaining to the mobilization, deployment, or tactical operations involved in responding to emergencies, as defined in s. 252.34(3), are exempt from s. 119.07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution and unavailable for inspection, except by personnel authorized by a state or local law enforcement agency, the office of the Governor, the Department of Legal Affairs, the Department of Law Enforcement, or the Department of Community Affairs as having an official need for access to the inventory or comprehensive policies or plans.

MOO

 

[AZlawyer]

While parts of me would LIKE to see these videos, I would prefer KC to never see the light of day again; therefore I prefer the A/C videos to never even be brought up as possible for appeal in this case.

I *think* SS feels the same and we won't see ANY of these videos especially as RHornsby already came up with another staute in FL taht he thinks covers these meetings as 'exempt'...

List Attorney/Client visits we wish to request - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

See Section 119.071(2)(d), Florida Statutes. "General exemptions from inspection or copying of public records.--"


Quote:
s. 119.071(2)(d) - Any information revealing surveillance techniques or procedures or personnel is exempt from s. 119.07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution. Any comprehensive inventory of state and local law enforcement resources compiled pursuant to part I, chapter 23, and any comprehensive policies or plans compiled by a criminal justice agency pertaining to the mobilization, deployment, or tactical operations involved in responding to emergencies, as defined in s. 252.34(3), are exempt from s. 119.07(1) and s. 24(a), Art. I of the State Constitution and unavailable for inspection, except by personnel authorized by a state or local law enforcement agency, the office of the Governor, the Department of Legal Affairs, the Department of Law Enforcement, or the Department of Community Affairs as having an official need for access to the inventory or comprehensive policies or plans.

MOO

I really think that exception would not apply to surveillance videos themselves, but rather to material that would reveal surveillance techniques. Now, possibly if this is a hidden camera, the mere existence of the video would reveal the technique (use and placement of hidden cameras).

But in any event I believe the videos should be excluded from release due to attorney-client privilege, which IMO (based on no research at all but just a gut feeling of what the law would be) should cover videos of A/C meetings even if there is no sound. What if a deaf lawyer meets with a deaf client? Would that video be privileged because they are using sign language, but video of a hearing lawyer and client would not be privileged because their non-verbal communication is less structured? Or would the video of the deaf people become non-privileged just for the parts where they are reading documents together, pointing at things, etc., but not for the sign language parts?

 

[Muzikman]

I really think that exception would not apply to surveillance videos themselves, but rather to material that would reveal surveillance techniques. Now, possibly if this is a hidden camera, the mere existence of the video would reveal the technique (use and placement of hidden cameras).

But in any event I believe the videos should be excluded from release due to attorney-client privilege, which IMO (based on no research at all but just a gut feeling of what the law would be) should cover videos of A/C meetings even if there is no sound. What if a deaf lawyer meets with a deaf client? Would that video be privileged because they are using sign language, but video of a hearing lawyer and client would not be privileged because their non-verbal communication is less structured? Or would the video of the deaf people become non-privileged just for the parts where they are reading documents together, pointing at things, etc., but not for the sign language parts?

Agree that these particular vids should probably be exempt - unless they are of "special nature" like showing the unauthorized "hugging" or something.

But still WOULD LOVE TO SEE THEM!!! heh :crazy:

 

[Spangle]

I don't think the Judge will ever ok any of the video. I think it was a heads up to JB. He opened a door that he shouldn't have opened. NO ONE ever expected such video to see the light of day and would never request it. Because of the nature of it.

HOWEVER, because of JB's possible conduct with his client, THAT issue is one that to investigate, one needs to view those tapes. WOOPS! I can see that after the trial being over, someone request the tapes.. NOW. Were before they would think they couldn't touch them. Ever. With the trial being over, the Judge would more likely just release them.