Procedure and legal questions

[Marina2]

I betcha if AL asserts herself since she is technically lead counsel now we'll be seeing more well-thought out strategies and less minutae about things that don't matter so much when it comes to the big picture. If things don't change, it will speak volumes to me about who is driving that train.

She needs to assert herself immediately, if not sooner! I think JB's ego will stand in the way. Someone needs to get through to KC and let her know that JB is running amuck. It's a shame because she has very competent defense counsel at her disposal if JB will take a back seat.

 

[beach]

She needs to assert herself immediately, if not sooner! I think JB's ego will stand in the way. Someone needs to get through to KC and let her know that JB is running amuck. It's a shame because she has very competent defense counsel at her disposal if JB will take a back seat.

Totally agree. Every word.

 

[ZubenElSchemali]

You seem to be very knowledgeable about the legal matters pertaining to this particular case. Do you think it might be difficult to recuse a judge when the defense was so flat out against the gag order that the prosecution requested? FYI, I am a law school grad myself.

I don't claim any special legal knowledge, only what I have aquired on my own. That is why I asked these questions in this thread. I wouldn't think that objecting to a gag order should contradict recusing a judge for failing to follow standard procedure or law. I'm not saying he hasn't. The purpose of my questions was to gain insight into whether or not he may have. While I like the judges demeanor in many ways, I thought it very strange in the early days that he put such a high bond on such a small charge. It seemed clearly out of line according to what bond would normally be for those charges, especially with her being a first time offender. So perhaps that is why these questions came to me.

 

[Bittiness39]

I don't claim any special legal knowledge, only what I have aquired on my own. That is why I asked these questions in this thread. I wouldn't think that objecting to a gag order should contradict recusing a judge for failing to follow standard procedure or law. I'm not saying he hasn't. The purpose of my questions was to gain insight into whether or not he may have. While I like the judges demeanor in many ways, I thought it very strange in the early days that he put such a high bond on such a small charge. It seemed clearly out of line according to what bond would normally be for those charges, especially with her being a first time offender. So perhaps that is why these questions came to me.

Keep in mind I am going through chemo (so a lot gets scattered for me)...but it has been clearly documented that the Prosecution requested a gag order and JB fought their requests for it in a motion. He didn't want one. Hence, anything that comes out against his client is a direct result of his action to fight the gag order. The Judge ruled in his favor. Just as the Judge yesterday granted his request correctly to seal the video. ITA that it should not be shown.
As far as her being a first time offender...I understand there was a charge as a juvenile...no idea what that was (and by the way it is none of anyone's business) but this defendent didn't report a child missing for 30 days. This is not someone who was ugly coping. She was hiding in plain sight and cashing her "friend's" checks at a bank and using those funds (not for gas, or to search or put up cheap posters of a "missing" child) to buy clothes (the same shirt she was arrested in on a bleeping whim) and food at Target for herself and Tony. She very well could have been a flight risk. But as far as "tricking her into confessing" she all but wanted to tell LE something a long while ago. They were by the book and let her call her attorney JB and as soon as she did anything that she wanted to say...done. Same with her dad coming to the jail to see her. She wanted to see and speak to him. Yet JB was there as well.
But I don't feel that LE/SA or anyone else is out to get her. What a waste of tax payer money and she isn't even famous like OJ was. She clearly wanted to tell LE something on more than one ocassion and even requested her dad at one point....but JB put the kabash on all of that.
I don't think that the Judge is out to get her. He has ruled more than a few times in favor of the defense. I think this is a case where the defendent is so clearly guilty that there is nothing more that the defense can do but throw everyone and everything (including bamboo, pizza, etc) under the proverbial bus.

 

[Marina2]

I don't claim any special legal knowledge, only what I have aquired on my own. That is why I asked these questions in this thread. I wouldn't think that objecting to a gag order should contradict recusing a judge for failing to follow standard procedure or law. I'm not saying he hasn't. The purpose of my questions was to gain insight into whether or not he may have. While I like the judges demeanor in many ways, I thought it very strange in the early days that he put such a high bond on such a small charge. It seemed clearly out of line according to what bond would normally be for those charges, especially with her being a first time offender. So perhaps that is why these questions came to me.

It was a very high bond for the charges and her lack of a criminal record.
I think JS may have let his conscious guide him when he set her bond. I don't think he failed to follow the law when he did this. Is it ethical for him to follow his conscious when making decisions as long as it's within the scope of the law? He is the judge and has to judge things. Or, does he have to rule as a jury does and not let any emotions influence his decisions?

Incidently, his ruling at the bond hearing doesn't in any way make me question his credibility or motives. The reason I asked the question above is because many times, a judge will follow the law to the letter while ignoring his common sense, i.e. child abuse case where his decision, while following the law, failed to use common sense and a child suffered as a result.

 

[MarleneM]

Thank you peace. I understand better now. I went back and reread the amended motion and see that he asks for the court to seal the videotape based on a violation of her 4th, 5th 6th and 7th amendment rights including interfering with her right to council. I thought I remembered him asking for sanctions earlier and perhaps that was in the original or just stated in court. But this amended motion doesn't ask for anything other than sealing the video. But I was wondering if when the judge becomes aware of violations if he is obligated to do something. I thought if an attorney became aware of a law being broken they were obligated to report it. If she was kept from her attorney under false presences, that is a clear violation of her rights as is taking notes on a meeting between attorney and client, I would think, even if he didn't believe it was a violation of her medical rights.

ETA: I also noticed Baez used the word inflamatory himself. But I am more concerned with the judges wording at this point. It could be said that the way the whole thing was orchestrated was meant to create an inflammatory video, especially by accidentally releasing the interviews that clearly left out the abnormality of the order and their personal feelings about being told to do this, along with their observations. If it isn't ok for the accused to lie it isn't ok for them to lie either.

Q: Does "the interviews" = the defense's depositions of OC jail personnel? These were "accidentally" released? They left out at least one CO stating he agreed with JB that the order seemed "unusual" or "cruel"?

I'm at a loss for where I heard this from then, because I have heard it from a number of media sources recently. I don't get who's lying in your statement here. Who are "they"?

 

[MissJames]

I'm hoping someone with a legal background will address these questions. Isn't it highly inflammatory for a judge to make a statement that something he isn't going to allow the public to see is highly inflammatory against the defendant? He could have accomplished judging this video not appropriate to be released without that comment and based on the means under which it was obtained, couldn't he?

If the defense has uncovered potential violations and could ask for sanctions, is it appropriate for the judge to refuse to hear the evidence in a hearing and rule without that hearing that has been requested?

If the judge is made aware through a deposition that an officer was ordered by another LE agency to observe and record what goes on between an attorney and his client, is he obligated to take any sort of action? The same question would apply to the SA office.

Thanks,
Connie

I thought just the mere fact that the defense made a motion to not release the tape to the public suggests the tape is detrimental to his client.The judge was just supporting the defense and their own motion. No? :waitasec:

 

[MissJames]

I don't claim any special legal knowledge, only what I have aquired on my own. That is why I asked these questions in this thread. I wouldn't think that objecting to a gag order should contradict recusing a judge for failing to follow standard procedure or law. I'm not saying he hasn't. The purpose of my questions was to gain insight into whether or not he may have. While I like the judges demeanor in many ways, I thought it very strange in the early days that he put such a high bond on such a small charge. It seemed clearly out of line according to what bond would normally be for those charges, especially with her being a first time offender. So perhaps that is why these questions came to me.

I know you said you were only concerened with judges' use of the term inflammatory.Why are you not concerned with JB using the same term in his motion? The judge appears to be answering ,or reflecting exactly what the defense asked for.
If KC's own lawyer can use that term publically,referring to the tape,why can't the judge?
Do you think it was inappropriate for KC's own lawyer to use the term?
What else should JB have said?

 

[Marina2]

I know you said you were only concerened with judges' use of the term inflammatory.Why are you not concerned with JB using the same term in his motion? The judge appears to be answering ,or reflecting exactly what the defense asked for.
If KC's own lawyer can use that term publically,referring to the tape,why can't the judge?
Do you think it was inappropriate for KC's own lawyer to use the term?
What else should JB have said?

Apparently, what's good for the goose, is not good for the gander. :waitasec:

 

[Bittiness39]

Apparently, what's good for the goose, is not good for the gander. :waitasec:

Apparently, what the defense would like to continue to do is stonewall (not ask for a speedy trial), complain (after fighting against a gag order that would have kept all of this information out of the public), blame (LE/SA/FBI/JS/TES/LP etc...anyone other than KC) and deny deny deny...All the defense had to do from day one...was to allow the prosecution's request for a gag order. Wow. I just wow. But they are more content to allege some conspiracy, during this economy that all the SA/LE etc...want to do is frame KC (while wasting precious tax payer dollars) when clearly, the state barely regarded her as blip on any radar before Caylee was killed.

 

[essies]

Question - Will the A's be in court today to express their anguish to the judge? Will Strickland ask them any questions regarding their anguish? :waitasec:
I guess we'll see in about an hour!!

 

[sumbunny]

According to news reports, Casey will not be in court today. I'd assume C and G will be there since they are the ones asking for the autopsy reports to be sealed.

 

[ClockWatcher]

http://www.wftv.com/pdf/19803207/detail.html

Sorry to put this here but, just found this link to Morgan & Morgan response to PI Dominic Motion to Strike Plaintiffs Motion for Contempt, Motion for Protective Order, and Motion for Attorney's Fees.

Holy schnikies, it's pretty dang good read.

Now how do I find the Motion that this is in answer too?


ETA!!! Here is a WS link with the pdf for the first Motion:

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3891253&postcount=348"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Hoover & D. Casey Depos in Gonzales Case[/ame]


Searchfortruth, I love you forever!

 

[whiteangora]

http://www.wftv.com/pdf/19803207/detail.html

Sorry to put this here but, just found this link to Morgan & Morgan response to PI Dominic Motion to Strike Plaintiffs Motion for Contempt, Motion for Protective Order, and Motion for Attorney's Fees.

Holy schnikies, it's pretty dang good read.

Now how do I find the Motion that this is in answer too?

Now those Attorneys, (M&M) know their stuff and they know how to communicate. Excellent read. I'm not sure where the Motion from DC is, but you could try the "Anthony Case Resource Links, Case Calendar and Time Line Analysis Forum". They are at the top of the forum.

 

[Shear22]

http://www.wftv.com/pdf/19803207/detail.html

Sorry to put this here but, just found this link to Morgan & Morgan response to PI Dominic Motion to Strike Plaintiffs Motion for Contempt, Motion for Protective Order, and Motion for Attorney's Fees.

Holy schnikies, it's pretty dang good read.

Now how do I find the Motion that this is in answer too?

Thanks for that link! Is there any estimate on when the civil case might go to trial?

 

[mitzi]

http://www.wftv.com/pdf/19803207/detail.html

Sorry to put this here but, just found this link to Morgan & Morgan response to PI Dominic Motion to Strike Plaintiffs Motion for Contempt, Motion for Protective Order, and Motion for Attorney's Fees.

Holy schnikies, it's pretty dang good read.

Now how do I find the Motion that this is in answer too?

Holy schnikies is right! This response is awesome, and shows me just why Morgan & Morgan are so good at what they do.

 

[CarolinaMoon]

It was a very high bond for the charges and her lack of a criminal record.
I think JS may have let his conscious guide him when he set her bond. I don't think he failed to follow the law when he did this. Is it ethical for him to follow his conscious when making decisions as long as it's within the scope of the law? He is the judge and has to judge things. Or, does he have to rule as a jury does and not let any emotions influence his decisions?

Incidently, his ruling at the bond hearing doesn't in any way make me question his credibility or motives. The reason I asked the question above is because many times, a judge will follow the law to the letter while ignoring his common sense, i.e. child abuse case where his decision, while following the law, failed to use common sense and a child suffered as a result.

IMHO, Judge Strickland used his common sense in this case and the appellate ruling backed him up. He said that "the truth and Ms. Anthony are strangers." The blatent lying Casey started with was the best reason to keep her on the high bond. She was not trustworthy... she still isn't.

 

[Carolina Girl]

I have a question. JB said in his interview yesterday that he got the judge's ruling"yesterday"(Wednesday). If the Judge had already ruled in private,why did they have the televised hearing yesterday? Seems the judge has enough to do without doing things twice. Or was JB telling the truth?

 

[NSS]

I have a question. JB said in his interview yesterday that he got the judge's ruling"yesterday"(Wednesday). If the Judge had already ruled in private,why did they have the televised hearing yesterday? Seems the judge has enough to do without doing things twice. Or was JB telling the truth?

I thought that JB was referring to the 'jailhouse video' ruling.

It wasn't really an answer to the question KB asked, but he had no answer so he went with the 'pull it out my butt' response. He degenerated into personal attacks when his non answer didn't work.

When he scored a win with that one (the video), he figured he'd stretch his luck a little further and go with the 'tainted jury' opposition to the autopsy report too.

He really is winging it and can't possibly work on 2 tasks at once (the video and autopsy reports)

 

[5stars]

I went back to media links when dp was argued nov. 5,2008.What argument will change because of the autopsy report?