Prosecutors New Motion for Private Meeting w/Judge but w/out Defense #2

[CarolinaMoon]

Their motion said they wanted to subpoena certain records that would not be obtained in the normal discovery process[/B] ( see page eight )

Respectfully snipped for content

I'm going to have to go way back in time for research, but I do recall that it was probably about subpoenas to get phone records. The defense didn't want the State to know whose phone records they wanted. They didn't want the state to know who they wanted to throw under the bus next.

I hope someone else can remember this before I go off on a major dig through my records!

 

[Sun]

Respectfully snipped for content

I'm going to have to go way back in time for research, but I do recall that it was probably about subpoenas to get phone records. The defense didn't want the State to know whose phone records they wanted. They didn't want the state to know who they wanted to throw under the bus next.

I hope someone else can remember this before I go off on a major dig through my records!

In my notes, I had a list of the people that Baez later requested "any and all records for telephone usage, including but not limited to: phone calls, text messages, P2P communications, internet usage, WAP usage, cell tower pings, etc, which pertain to the aforementioned individuals." RK, JG, TL, RC, CA, GA, LA, RM, AH, DC, JH, and KW.

 

[LambChop]

I think the differences between the two meetings is that SA may want to protect an individual where the defense wanted records of someone to exploit. So tit for tat would not apply. That's legal for no way Jose. JMO

 

[TotallyObsessed]

I agree with you TWA, but I was thinking something else a little while ago and want to share. I'm not sure if the delay in JB's response was due to a) duh, what next AL? or b) whatever it is that the SAO has is most likely detrimental to the defense and will probably make them look worse (if that's possible).
I'm thinking they don't want the "new material" outted any more than they wanted the info from their ex-parte request outted. The difference I see between the two ex-parte requests is that the defense indicated their info was NOT discoverable and the SAO's request indicate that their material IS discoverable material. It's going to come out one way or another.

Hold on to your hat JB....sometimes you may get what you wish or ask for!!!

I think that JB thinks what the state has is totally exculpatory for his client and if he could just get his meaty little hands on it, she could walk free.

Dream on...........:loser:

 

[Dear Prudence]

When Baez filed a motion seeking an ex parte hearing Judge Strickland denied it 2 days later. 2 DAYS!!! Why hasn't he granted or denied the state's motion yet? It's now been 8 business days since the motion was filed. I don't understand what has taken so long with this one when the defense's motion was denied so quickly last year. I realize Baez's motion had no valid legal precedents cited so that would be one reason it was denied so quickly, but that doesn't explain why it is taking so long for the judge to rule on this one. Does anyone have any insight?

 

[The World According]

In my notes, I had a list of the people that Baez later requested "any and all records for telephone usage, including but not limited to: phone calls, text messages, P2P communications, internet usage, WAP usage, cell tower pings, etc, which pertain to the aforementioned individuals." RK, JG, TL, RC, CA, GA, LA, RM, AH, DC, JH, and KW.

I still think they are gunning for Jesse. They know the Kronk idea is going to be short lived, but I am still worried they are not through dragging Jesse through the mud. Go to minute 3:00 Annie tells that Casey eluded to the fact that Jesse is responsible for whatever happened in the back of that car. Whoa. Cindy was helping her along with the we don't trust Jesse bs. [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MW5o2HqJ6Bc[/ame]

I guess we will never know what the defense was asking for since the judge refused to have the in camera ex parte hearing. All I know is they have asked for everything under the sun in this case, starting with wanting the prosecutors thrown off the case.
I am looking forward to the next hearing.
I think the judge is going to reign in our errant Mr. Baez. A girl can hope, right?
Mr. Ashton knows very well what the requisites are to have his request granted, so I expect it will be. Baez gets so many motions denied because he doesn't know and doesn't take the time to find out.

News Flash: There will be lawyers lining up to step up for Jesse pro bono...all day long. God have mercy on the soul of someone who would knowingly implicate an innocent person in this murder. That is vile!!

 

[denjet]

Someone asked what took them so long.
So clever! Exactly. Did you see the swift and sure response from Mr. Nejame when the defense accused him of publishing all the TES records to the journalist? It was righteous indignation. The defense was going to object to the prosecutions motion, of course, immediately, even as a matter of formality. The delay did speak volumes.

Their argument is ...no fair, Dad...you didn't let me play...now you are letting brother play. Whahhh whahhh whaaah.

Does anyone have any guess who or what the defense was trying to subpoena in their request for an ex parte hearing? They said they didn't want to divulge their strategy. Anyone on the state's witness list they had every right to depose, so that narrows down a lot of possibilities ( everyone from LE, former lovers, family members and friends of Casey, the mailman and the meter reader are on that list ). Their motion said they wanted to subpoena certain records that would not be obtained in the normal discovery process ( see page eight )

I cannot understand how the defense thinks what they asked for has any similarity to LE needing time to fully investigate something new. The state is just asking for a little time, not a pass on divulging it. In fact the state was very specific, that they want it all on the record, just sealed, for now. The defense wanted permission for something outside of the rules. What in the world ?

The two requests are very different imo.

Sad, tired and pitiful.

ITA! Nejame is an experienced, ethical and wise lawyer and takes his motions seriously ... and Baez ... well ... he should just give it up and forget about trying to put one over on Nejame ... it could start costing him a few pennies if he doesn't!!

The two requests had absolutely nothing in common ... Baez lost his because he DIDN'T state ANY legal authority that would allow it ... just the opposite, he sited rules that didn't even apply to what he was asking ... seems to be his style

It's not the state's fault that Baez is incapable of writing a motion that isn't legally flawed !!

 

[cyberborg]

When Baez filed a motion seeking an ex parte hearing Judge Strickland denied it 2 days later. 2 DAYS!!! Why hasn't he granted or denied the state's motion yet? It's now been 8 business days since the motion was filed. I don't understand what has taken so long with this one when the defense's motion was denied so quickly last year. I realize Baez's motion had no valid legal precedents cited so that would be one reason it was denied so quickly, but that doesn't explain why it is taking so long for the judge to rule on this one. Does anyone have any insight?

It'd be cool if the Judge had already met with the SA ex-parte BEFORE the Defense filed their objection .... the Defense wouldn't necessarily know right?

 

[butterfly1978]

Here is defense's objection to the ex parte hearing.
http://www.wftv.com/pdf/22545604/detail.html

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :rolling::rolling::rolling::rolling:
SO the defense objection is "its not fair" . REALLY, and Bias graduated from what law school, can't wait to see how well that works for him.

 

[denjet]

When Baez filed a motion seeking an ex parte hearing Judge Strickland denied it 2 days later. 2 DAYS!!! Why hasn't he granted or denied the state's motion yet? It's now been 8 business days since the motion was filed. I don't understand what has taken so long with this one when the defense's motion was denied so quickly last year. I realize Baez's motion had no valid legal precedents cited so that would be one reason it was denied so quickly, but that doesn't explain why it is taking so long for the judge to rule on this one. Does anyone have any insight?

Maybe he already has, Pru ...
I wondered about that, where the state is asking for a private hearing, is it then announced ? or granted then filed with the court records ?
The state filed on the 3rd ... I wonder if they have to wait a certain number of days to give the defense a chance to respond ? Maybe we'll hear soon now the defense has ... I hope

 

[sleutherontheside]

Maybe he already has, Pru ...
I wondered about that, where the state is asking for a private hearing, is it then announced ? or granted then filed with the court records ?

That is a very good point.......and assuming that the paperwork required for the docket to be properly updated was submitted........it doesn't mean that it happened right away. Perhaps it was at "the bottom of a very large pile of docs to be entered". If the defense waited to file a motion objecting to the meeting, it is possible that it has already occurred. I have seen motions filed that require a response within 1 day, I have seen motions faxed after hours with an expiration at 9:30 the next morning. It doesn't appear to be the case here.......BUT........to wait that long is out of the ordinary. My thoughts.......if they did not file an objection it would have been an issue later.....it would be brought up in their appeals process. AL's mantra....FILE A MOTION FOR EVERYTHING.

 

[denjet]

That is a very good point.......and assuming that the paperwork required for the docket to be properly updated was submitted........it doesn't mean that it happened right away. Perhaps it was at "the bottom of a very large pile of docs to be entered". If the defense waited to file a motion objecting to the meeting, it is possible that it has already occurred. I have seen motions filed that require a response within 1 day, I have seen motions faxed after hours with an expiration at 9:30 the next morning. It doesn't appear to be the case here.......BUT........to wait that long is out of the ordinary. My thoughts.......if they did not file an objection it would have been an issue later.....it would be brought up in their appeals process. AL's mantra....FILE A MOTION FOR EVERYTHING.

I didn't even think of that, but it may be that it was already settled and Baez's motion is just for the record and something used on appeal ... I didn't realize motions can be handled that quickly ...

 

[sleutherontheside]

I didn't even think of that, but it may be that it was already settled and Baez's motion is just for the record and something used on appeal ... I didn't realize motions can be handled that quickly ...

When you file a motion you must notice everyone else at the same time. You can walk down to the courthouse, file it and then fax it to the other parties. We sued someone that was being particularly difficult to work with......our attorney faxed it to opposing counsel and gave them until the next morning to reply.

If an attorney argues that they didn't have time to prepare a motion it is up to the judge to allow more time. NOW, this was a civil case. I am not personally versed in criminal law. If there is a minimum time period to allow for objection, I do not know.......but I can tell you that a motion of this nature would go to
the head of the class, and IMO there is NO REASON whatsover to delay objecting.

 

[denjet]

When you file a motion you must notice everyone else at the same time. You can walk down to the courthouse, file it and then fax it to the other parties. We sued someone that was being particularly difficult to work with......our attorney faxed it to opposing counsel and gave them until the next morning to reply.

If an attorney argues that they didn't have time to prepare a motion it is up to the judge to allow more time. NOW, this was a civil case. I am not personally versed in criminal law. If there is a minimum time period to allow for objection, I do not know.......but I can tell you that a motion of this nature would go to
the head of the class, and IMO there is NO REASON whatsover to delay objecting.

Right, it probably would have already been denied if it was going to be ... everything's just been too hush, hush lately with all of the players .... can't they just throw us another piece of the puzzle ?? Like now !

 

[Kentjbkent]

When Baez filed a motion seeking an ex parte hearing Judge Strickland denied it 2 days later. 2 DAYS!!! Why hasn't he granted or denied the state's motion yet? It's now been 8 business days since the motion was filed. I don't understand what has taken so long with this one when the defense's motion was denied so quickly last year. I realize Baez's motion had no valid legal precedents cited so that would be one reason it was denied so quickly, but that doesn't explain why it is taking so long for the judge to rule on this one. Does anyone have any insight?

When this motion was first filed and opened up for discussion, I speculated that this situation involves a member of the defense team that the SA has never had to deal with before, so filed for this ex parte hearing to get guidance on how to proceed from JS...

Now that 8 days have gone by (as pointed out by Dear Prudence), it is giving me speculated credence that perhaps JS has never dealt with this type of situation involving a defense attorney before and is also now having to do some heavy legal research for "guidance"!

 

[denjet]

When this motion was first filed and opened up for discussion, I speculated that this situation involves a member of the defense team that the SA has never had to deal with before, so filed for this ex parte hearing to get guidance on how to proceed from JS...

Now that 8 days have gone by (as pointed out by Dear Prudence), it is giving me speculated credence that perhaps JS has never dealt with this type of situation involving a defense attorney before and is also now having to do some heavy legal research for "guidance"!

I got that impression too, that it's something rather complex and requires more consideration because of it ... we can count on Strickland to give an informed decision on it ..

 

[RR0004]

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :rolling::rolling::rolling::rolling:
SO the defense objection is "its not fair" . REALLY, and Bias graduated from what law school, can't wait to see how well that works for him.

...and some would have us believe that he's just "playing dumb" as part of a very clever legal strategy. Jeesh!!!

 

[crucibelle]

IIRC, he passed the bar exam first time 'round, it took him 8 years to meet up with other bar standards for being admitted. One issue was failure to pay child support, another that he was driving fancy cars while not paying child support.

CarolinaMoon - Thank you so much for the clarification.. I was wondering about that.

 

[butterfly1978]

...and some would have us believe that he's just "playing dumb" as part of a very clever legal strategy. Jeesh!!!

Well if he is only "playing dumb" he definitely should go into acting this man deserves an Emmy!

 

[lauriej]

Here is defense's objection to the ex parte hearing.
http://www.wftv.com/pdf/22545604/detail.html

..so, the defense objection is basically something a 5 year old would whine about ?

..(boo hoo judge----you didn't grant MY motion last march-----and now HE gets to file his ???)

..some have speculated that andrea lyon's law students are writing these motions as part of their "home-work" ------they are so ridiculous, and generally flawed.

..or, maybe kc, in her (ample) spare time, is writing them herself. ( after all she sits at the defense table (trying to) LOOK as though she's one of the lawyers, doodling (god knows what on her yellow legal pad)------it's as if she doesn't realize SHE'S the defendant.