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

[Tulessa]

The murder case docket has been updated to show defense has filed an objection to the request for a ex parte hearing


02/09/2010 Defense
Objection to State of florida's Request for an Ex Parte Hearing

Surprise surprise.

 

[logicalgirl]

Hmm - didn't think Baez would do this, but we can usually count on him doing exactly the thing he should be smart enough not to do.

Maybe he's assuming his motion will be denied and it's all bravado, Baez style of course.

 

[ohiogirl]

I would think that this would be SOP when the prosecution files a motion such as this.
Wonder why it took so long.

 

[strawberry]

This was also posted today (twice)

Objection to State of florida's General Discovery Order

Does anyone know what that means?

ETA: They are actually dated 2/10, not 2/11. You lose track of time when you're snowed in!

 

[QB.]

Thank you Strawberry, I have noted the updates in the current news thread.

Interesting, I guess defense is getting busy with it.

 

[QB.]

Who knows what it means and why it was double logged on the docket, I hope to see a hearing soon on this and at the very least some of these motions posted on the media sites. I checked the counter payments, no copies out to media yet as far as I can determine.

 

[strawberry]

Could it be they are now objecting to the order that they turn over discovery by 2/1? A little after the fact?

10/16/2009 Order
ORDER MOTION TO DISMISS DUE TO SPOILATION OF EVIDENCE - NO ACTION TAKEN, STATE MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENSE WITNESS LIST IS GRANTED, STATES MOTION TO COMPEL RECIPROCAL DISCOVERY IS GRANTED. DEFENSE ATTY TO PROVIDE ANY DISCOVERY TO THE SA BY FEB 1ST 2010.......

 

[cyberborg]

The murder case docket has been updated to show defense has filed an objection to the request for a ex parte hearing


02/09/2010 Defense
Objection to State of florida's Request for an Ex Parte Hearing

They were a bit slow to react, that should have really been automatic if nothing other than to stand up for the rights of KC..... a matter of course.

ETA: By the time this gets heard the SA will have bought some of the time they need, with a good faith motion lodged for cover.

 

[logicalgirl]

This was also posted today (twice)

Objection to State of florida's General Discovery Order

Does anyone know what that means?

ETA: They are actually dated 2/10, not 2/11. You lose track of time when you're snowed in!

I don't know if anyone has answered you because I'm only up to your post in the original thread. My take is after the SA and Defense had their meeting to discuss evidence deadlines, Baez objected to the time limit set for the FBI lab to turn over their final materials. It seems it wasn't soon enough for him so he wants the court to order differently even though the court can't do that.

 

[Kentjbkent]

I don't know if anyone has answered you because I'm only up to your post in the original thread. My take is after the SA and Defense had their meeting to discuss evidence deadlines, Baez objected to the time limit set for the FBI lab to turn over their final materials. It seems it wasn't soon enough for him so he wants the court to order differently even though the court can't do that.[/QUOTE]


And did I read that Baez is also challenging JS statement that he does not have jurisdiction over the lab?

 

[SallyLu]

I don't know if anyone has answered you because I'm only up to your post in the original thread. My take is after the SA and Defense had their meeting to discuss evidence deadlines, Baez objected to the time limit set for the FBI lab to turn over their final materials. It seems it wasn't soon enough for him so he wants the court to order differently even though the court can't do that.[/QUOTE]


And did I read that Baez is also challenging JS statement that he does not have jurisdiction over the lab?

Yup, you heard right. I feel like he's sassing the teacher.

Baez may have pushed once too many times as I think JS is a fair man but I doubt he'll be pushed around.

 

[A_News_Junkie]

I would think that this would be SOP when the prosecution files a motion such as this.
Wonder why it took so long.

The law students were busy trying to erase Ms. Lyon's tapes from the internet - or they were in remedial English classes the last two weeks! :saythat:

 

[kew17]

I have questions and hope someone can help me better understand the process here. Ok, so the SAO filed a motion for the private "ex-parte" meeting with Judge JS.

Question #1: Can Baez object? does he have a place to object here?

Question #2: So, if he can object and Judge JS says ok, I'm not going to grant this meeting, can or will the SAO go through the normal discovery route and this info they wanted to delay getting out is now available to the media, and in turn to all of us? **Then they could say, see Baez, we wanted to keep this under wraps, but no, you didn't want it that way**??

Question #3: Just because Judge JS declined 2 (I thought there was only 1), but whatever, of Baez's ex-parte requests, does this have any weight to what he decides on this motion from the pros?

 

[AZlawyer]

I have questions and hope someone can help me better understand the process here. Ok, so the SAO filed a motion for the private "ex-parte" meeting with Judge JS.

Question #1: Can Baez object? does he have a place to object here?

Question #2: So, if he can object and Judge JS says ok, I'm not going to grant this meeting, can or will the SAO go through the normal discovery route and this info they wanted to delay getting out is now available to the media, and in turn to all of us? **Then they could say, see Baez, we wanted to keep this under wraps, but no, you didn't want it that way**??

Question #3: Just because Judge JS declined 2 (I thought there was only 1), but whatever, of Baez's ex-parte requests, does this have any weight to what he decides on this motion from the pros?

Hi, Kew! Get it...haiku...never mind...

1) Yes, and he already did! I haven't seen a link, just a news story that Baez complained (a) that there was no detail given and (b) that the judge wouldn't grant HIS ex parte motions so it would be no fairsies to grant theirs. Well, (a) duh, if you spill the beans in the motion for the ex parte hearing there's not much point in it being ex parte any more... (b) see #3 below.

2) The SA has already stated that this information IS discoverable, so yes, they will have to disclose it to the defense if the motion is denied. And unless some new motion is filed to keep the information away from the publilc, it should be released to the public as well.

3) No, it is just silly to say that the judge has to grant all or none of these motions. Obviously none of them have to do with the same subject matter. Sometimes ex parte is appropriate, sometimes it isn't.

 

[Kentjbkent]

I have questions and hope someone can help me better understand the process here. Ok, so the SAO filed a motion for the private "ex-parte" meeting with Judge JS.

Question #1: Can Baez object? does he have a place to object here?

Question #2: So, if he can object and Judge JS says ok, I'm not going to grant this meeting, can or will the SAO go through the normal discovery route and this info they wanted to delay getting out is now available to the media, and in turn to all of us? **Then they could say, see Baez, we wanted to keep this under wraps, but no, you didn't want it that way**??

Question #3: Just because Judge JS declined 2 (I thought there was only 1), but whatever, of Baez's ex-parte requests, does this have any weight to what he decides on this motion from the pros?

As I understand it....

#1 - Yes, Baez can object and appears to have done so in the response filed today (see separate thread)

#2 - If JS decides to deny the SA motion ("I'm not going to grant this meeting), then yes, the SA will have to release this information in a timely manner to the defense, and when that happens, we will eventually see it, thanks to the Sunshine Law. (either way, we will eventually see it as it is discoverable materials)

#3 - I don't think JS denying defense on previous ex-parte requests will have any bearing on whether he grants this motion of SA or not. JS seems to be a pretty straighforward, by the book kinda guy (who sits on rainbows :dance

 

[kew17]

Thanks!!!

I felt I knew the answers already, just was check'n. I'm a little giddy with excitement as I felt Baez would pipe in (although I thought he'd be quicker) with the "no fairsies". I think this would be a clear case of 'careful what you ask for'. If JS does not grant the ex-parte.....open the flood gate, cause it seems the info/materials they have is going to be quite damaging to the defense. Or at least I hope.

 

[AZlawyer]

As I understand it....

#1 - Yes, Baez can object and appears to have done so in the response filed today (see separate thread)

#2 - If JS decides to deny the SA motion ("I'm not going to grant this meeting), then yes, the SA will have to release this information in a timely manner to the defense, and when that happens, we will eventually see it, thanks to the Sunshine Law. (either way, we will eventually see it as it is discoverable materials)

#3 - I don't think JS denying defense on previous ex-parte requests will have any bearing on whether he grants this motion of SA or not. JS seems to be a pretty straighforward, by the book kinda guy (who sits on rainbows :dance

Kent, you posted almost exactly my "verified legal member" answer! Skip law school and go straight to "GO" and collect $200! :woohoo:

 

[Kentjbkent]

Kent, you posted almost exactly my "verified legal member" answer! Skip law school and go straight to "GO" and collect $200! :woohoo:

That's cause I have been stalking and learning from YOU!! :crazy:

Before this case, I thought an "ex-parte" was a wild gathering for divorcees!!!

:woohoo:

 

[Aedrys]

ROFL Kent! That was so funny!

And y'know...I teach remedial English classes and Composition I at a community college. I bet I could I make it a project in both of those classes for my students to come up with better motions for Baez. Heck, I could probably get my eleven year old stepdaughter to write better motions.

No wait, that would be helping him. Still, I am sorely tempted sometimes...the grammarnazi in me goes CRAZY with some of these motions...

 

[butterfly1978]

My personal opinion about this is that George finally grew a spine, I think he may have turned over evidence or spoke to LE and changed his statement. I think they are investigating it, but do not want it released at this moment because it could possably mean that they have to bring criminal charges against someone else maybe Cindy.
In My own opinion I beleive that eventually George will accept all this and tell the truth and see Cindy for what she is and see Casey as she is and what she has done.

Other possable ideas I have thought of is maybe they have found evidence that ties someone else to this maybe an accomplice.
Maybe they located another ZFG and are investigating that person, not because they beleive said person is involved but so the defense cant say that the state didn't investigate this ZFG.

These are just a few things I have thought of. I have enjoyed reading everyones ideas on this.