Playing Phone Tag With Jose Baez

The first news of Jose Baez' phone tag games with prison inmate Robin Lunceford came out at the end of the hearing on July 15. I wrote about the Status Hearing a few days ago and there is a summary of what occurred in court that day.

The short version is that Linda Drane Burdick had made Baez aware that she had been made aware of an "item" and was planning to get it from the DOC and would be making it available for discovery at some future time.

Baez responded that he had filed a Motion For Protective Order Regarding A Telephone Recording Of Robin Lunceford that very morning. In court, Baez hesitated as he gave up some information concerning a phone call with a prison inmate who was a "prospective witness".

Drane Burdick pointed out to Baez that she didn't have the "item" yet and that his motion was premature.

At that point, Judge Perry read the motion for a few minutes and asked Baez if the call had been recorded by the person or the institution. Baez answered, "the institution", at which point Perry, breaking from his normal demeanor gave Baez quite a look! Watch this video to refresh your memory!

Judge Perry then reminded Baez to notice the institution concerning the motion and ordered Drane Burdick to file a response to the motion. He also ordered her to provide the Court with a copy of the tape. At that point, Baez argued that it was an illegal recording and wouldn't want her to commit a third degree felony by listening to it! On July 20, Perry made a written ORDER TO STATE reiterating his oral instructions. Of note is this line:

It is further ORDERED that the Office of the State Attorney shall submit the telephone recording of Robin Lunceford to the Court for an in camera inspection.

Notice, it doesn't order her to provide a copy to Jose Baez. Perhaps Linda Drane Burdick and the judge were willing to face third degree felony charges, but didn't want Jose Baez to get in trouble? Ah, I think not! Based on the judge's reaction to knowing that the call was recorded by the institution made him feel free to listen!

Perhaps Baez should have paid more attention to Perry's body language and comment concerning Lawson Lamar being the one to decide whether or not to press charges. One has to believe that at that point in the hearing, the judge already knew the call was recorded legally. Baez should have also thought back to the different treatment given to the Joe Jordan tape. Nobody listened to it, not Drane Burdick, not Judge Strickland, not Judge Perry. How many "hints did Baez need to know the "illegal recording" argument will never wash in this case?

On July 21, Drane Burdick filed a Notice Of Provision Of Recording Under Seal For In Camera Inspection Re: Telephone Calls of Robin Lunceford.

Needless to say, these preliminary events and subsequent motions and responses have caused MSM and the Blogosphere to go wild. First up was to learn about Lunceford. A quick search of the State of Florida Active Inmates gave up a great deal of information. Among other things, she has 37 aliases and is currently serving a life sentence for robbery with a gun/deadly weapon. Such charges weren't unusual for her. In her record, we find that she has had 25 similar convictions and one for escape. She apparently went on quite a crime spree in October of 1986! She's only concluded the sentence for escape and, in addition, has been detained in other states.

Oh, and she's being investigated for those phone fraud schemes to make illegal calls out to unauthorized parties! Apparently, that's how Linda Drane Burdick learned of the call to Baez.

She's also considered the most prolific snitch in Dade County, frequently inserting herself into high profile cases. Anyone can Google her in about 30 seconds. I wonder if Baez ever did that? Perhaps not, he seems to think her a good prospective witness! That is, if the State even bothers to use Maya Derkovic or Robyn Adams. Personally, I don't think they are needed for their information. Perhaps Robyn Adams could be used to introduce the letters Casey wrote to her. They do contain some interesting bits and are all being verified by handwriting analysts in Quantico, Virginia.

So, it's over this inmate's phone call that Baez is making a big stink. Exactly why, we'll not know until it's made public.

His first motion, filed the day of the hearing provided some information about the calls.

1. Approximately two months ago, on an unknown date in May, the undersigned counsel received a call from an individual who advised the undersigned counsel that she was an ex-inmate at Lowell Correction Institute...

The inmate said that she had a friend still incarcerated who would be calling later that evening.

So, Baez knew from the get-go that the person who would be calling from a prison and that calls from prison are recorded. I am also surprised that Baez, like most attorneys didn't take note of the date of the call.

2. Shortly thereafter, the undersigned counsel was advised by his secretary after hours, that Robin Lunceford was attempting to reach him. The call was transferred to the undersigned counsel's cell phone...

3. ... the undersigned counsel was never made aware that the call was being recorded by either Robin Lunceford or the standard recording...

If she's in prison, how could Robin record it? That's probably because Robin made a call to her friend (who heard the notice) and then forwarded it illegally to Baez' office who forwarded it to Baez. If all that business is on the call, the judge will also know if that happened.

4. ... Many times inmates have access to telephones specifically designed for contact with attorneys (their own) and sometimes counselors allow inmates to make non-recorded call, (alone?) and on certain occasions inmates obtain contraband cell phones.

But, if the call had been made on a contraband cell phone, wouldn't Baez, as an officer of the court, have a duty to inform the prison of that?

The remainder of the motion argues that since he wasn't aware the call was being recorded, it should fall under F.S.934.03 and F.S 934.06. These were the rules that covered the surreptitious tape made by Joe Jordan.

On July 23, Baez filed a Supplemental Motion for Protective Order Regarding a Telephone Recording of Robin Lunceford. Obviously, Baez had thought some more about his original motion and had some information to add.

He indicated that the call in question was forwarded from his office to the secretary and then to him. That adds one more transfer to the Phone Tag Game. Robin calls friend who forwards to Baez' office which forwards it to the secretary who forwards it to Baez. Do I have that right? This process would clearly separate Baez from being personally notified this call was being recorded at the prison!

In this addendum, Baez also takes a step back from saying "he was never made aware" of the call being taped to he has "no recollection of hearing any recording" by the prison.

Now, Baez is making more claims about the call:

3. The undersigned maintains that the call contains work product information.

There is no reference here to any reason why it would be work product, there are no legal references in the entire addendum, for that matter.

4. In said call, information is given to the undersigned counsel including the names of more potential witnesses.

Oh yeah! I can see this at trial. He'll have ten witness to say, I heard them plotting against Casey Anthony! Now, cut me a deal!

He goes on to say that he has discussed making arrangements to go to the prison to depose these "witnesses" with Linda Drane Burdick.

Finally, Baez asks for time to investigate the claims if the judge does not agree that the contents are work product. Heck, LE doesn't have to turn over information before completing an investigation!

Well, needless to say, Linda Drane Burdick did as ordered by the judge; she submitted her response on July 26. In the State Of Florida’s Response to Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order Regarding Telephone Recording of Robin Lunceford, she begins by saying

The initial motion filed by counsel... seeks to "exempt from dicovery a statement" of Robin Lunceford pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(I)(1) which allows that specified disclosures of materials be exempted from discovery upon a showing of good cause. As the defendant is not in possession of the recording, her reliance on this Rule of Criminal Procedure appears to be misplaced. The remedy the defendant seeks is more accurately described as a request to exempt the recordings from the Public Record provisions of Florida Statute 119. The defendant also claims that the call was illegally recorded and therefore a violation of Florida Statute 934.06, or alternatively, that the call contains attorney work product.

There it is! A complete summary, with appropriate legal references to make it all make sense! She continues by indicating that she listened to the tape.

Section 2 of this response is worth a full read. It describes the calls and quotes lightly from them. Apparently, it took a bit of arranging to have the final call come through. Drane Burdick stated that

Mr. Baez hears the same warning detailed above and accepts the call. The inmate immediately advises Baez that she only has "15 minutes." Later in the call, Robin Lunceford advises Baez that she is not telling him everything she knows because "these phones are recorded."

Drane Burdick has "vented" a bit in this motion in her rather polite manner.

3. ... After being advised by the undersigned that the warning did occur a the beginning of the call, counsel filed his Supplemental motion which claims "absolutely no recollection of hearing any recording by the correctional facility." Regardless of the state of Mr. Baez' faulty recollection, it is clear that the call was not unlawfully intercepted communication...

That argument reminded me of the old saying, "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around..." Is Baez' statement that he doesn't remember the notification mean it didn't happen?

She continues her discussion of the issue and concludes it by stating

It takes little imagination to envision that calls being received from a prisoner in a correctional institution are being recorded negating any reasonable expectation of privacy Mr. Baez may believe he had in the call.

She then goes on to discuss the fact that the call is not work product and cites the applicable laws and decisions to back up her position. I'm not an attorney and the discussion of work product is very complicated. Suffice it to say, she believes it isn't that. The part of her argument I understand best is that

4.... it is clear that other normally privileged communications lose their privileged status when the communication is overheard by a third party.... Jose Baez and his assistant Michelle Negron knew or should have known that their telephone communications with state prison inmate Robin Lunceford were not confidential and could be overheard by prison officials resulting in a waiver of any possible work product claim.

At the end of her response, Drane Burdick indicates that she takes no position on the issue of sealing the recording. She does, however ask the judge to deny the motion.

The (hopefully) final chapter of this Phone Tag Game came from Jose Baez yesterday when he filed a Response to State of Florida's Response to Defendant's Motion for Protective Order Regarding Telephone Recording of Robin Lunceford. I am at a loss to explain why this recording means so much to him. Does he really believe that Lunceford, who has never met Casey Anthony, is worth so much of his time and energy? According to Linda Drane Burdick,

Both calls are dominated by the rantings of Robin Lunceford against Maya Derkovic as a result of an argument between the two.

Well, anyway, Baez has presented a response that looks nothing like anything he has written before. It's almost as though somebody else wrote it. Even the quality of the printing on this motion is superior to anything I've seen from his office. It is well written in fluent language with numerous legal references. There is also some vitriol towards the Assistant State's Attorney.

Baez claims that it is still a Chapter 119 issue and one of privilege. He then goes on to say

1. ...Having the benefit of the recorded conversation Ms. Drane Burdick (who takes no position) took the opportunity to personally attack the undersigned and his recollection of the recording. This is a specious argument as it is clear that both the State and the Court have copies of the tape, and the undersigned does not. Without having the benefit of the tape the undersigned must rely solely on his memory of a call that occurred two months ago. This is a difficult task a clear example of this is reflected in the initial pleading by the defense, which could not even remember the date of the call. There is still no certainty as to hearing any recording as the call was transferred twice before the undersigned ever came on the line.

I still have to say, a good lawyer takes notes! The devil is in the details, Mr. Baez. If this call was so important to you, why not make note of it. In such a complicated case with so much information, I would think it would be something he should do automatically.

In the first paragraph, Baez also reminds readers of the means by which a prison call could be made without being recorded. Three things are different here, though.

An inmate can inform the jail that they are calling their attorney and the call will not be recorded.

I'm sure the prison has the attorneys' names and numbers on an approved list at the PRISON.

An inmate can call from a counselor's office and may inform the counselor that the call is being made to an attorney to seek representation.

Did Lunceford call for that purpose? No!

Inmates often call individuals who make three way calls to other individuals.

This is the reason Lunceford was being investigated. She'd been making such calls so that she could speak to UNAUTHORIZED people not on her list. This is exactly what happened in this case and Jose Baez is well aware of the fact.

The second paragraph is very strange. In the supplemental motion Baez clearly stated:


4. In said call, information IS given to the undersigned counsel including the names of more potential witnesses. (Caps and bold mine)

In the response, Baez says:

2. The undersigned has also made the Court and Assistant State Attorney Linda Drane Burdick aware that the other witness names that were obtained MAY also have not come from the call but from other communications. (Caps and bold mine)

Baez then goes off on a rant about how difficult it is with such a complicated case to remember all this stuff. It's worth a read. He also attacks Drane Burdick for telling him the tips were available and they weren't. I'm not quite sure how this fits into the motion. Was Ms. Drane Burdick given wrong information she passed along? What does that have to do with his memory?

There's more to the motion, including what constitutes a waiver when a third party is present and the nature of the work product.

Baez ends up by indicating he and the State could depose Lunceford and that he really wants a copy of the recording!

I don't know about all of you, dear readers, but I'm up to here with this nonsense. Please chime in and tell me what you think!

Casey Anthony: July 15 Status Hearing

At the end of the hearing on Thursday, Judge Belvin Perry asked if both parties would be amenable to holding the Status Hearing, originally scheduled for July 20 at this time. Jeff Ashton stated that he would be out of town next week and would like to discuss the forensic issues at this time. Jose Baez indicated he would like to have the hearing today.

To begin, Jeff Ashton indicated that he had filed an objection to the cancellation of the Oak Ridge depositions scheduled for the same day as this hearing. He asked Judge Perry if he had received it, and Perry said he had. Jose Baez indicated that he had not read it. Ashton pointed out to Baez that he had e-mailed it to his office the previous Friday. At this point, part 8 ran out and at the beginning of part 9, it seems to have been decided to set a hearing for this issue.

Jeff Ashton brought up one more forensic issue at this point. He said he had spoken to the defense last Tuesday about scheduling the defense's botanist and forensic anthropologist (who hadn't been involved in the examination of the evidence) for depositions. He mentioned that there may be or not be reports from them. He was considering traveling to them or doing the depositions by Skype. He wanted to know if the defense had any information about that.

Baez indicated that he had been busy with the experts that had come to Orlando and hadn't had a chance to deal with that yet. Ashton wanted to get them set because they are "presumably" done with their work.

Judge Perry indicated that he was in discussions with Cisco Systems to install a system in the courthouse and that they should wait to make plane reservations. He said that the system had life-size figures and no delay and was better that the view they had in the courtroom. Cheney Mason asked about the hearing and was assured that it was excellent. Ashton liked the idea as the experts mentioned were in Colorado and Canada. Perry said that the system would be able to show documents to them real-time.

Ashton added that he would be submitting motions for preliminary discovery from these two witnesses because he assumed that they were done and hadn't been told otherwise.

Jose Baez then brought up an issue that had been brought up at the the last hearing, the 5,000 pages of discovery the prosecutors had given him. Those were all those letters! Baez had been so busy with all the other things that were going on that they hadn't been able to fully investigate them. He just wanted the judge to know that.

Baez then mentioned that the defense would like to test several items of evidence that had been examined. He said that he had already had preliminary discussions with Ms. Drane Burdick about sending some of them to his experts because it wasn't feasible to do so during the examination due to lack of proper equipment at the OCSO. It mainly seemed to be concerned with identifying the tiny, tiny insects. Those would probably be the coffin flies already identified by the State's forensic entomologist.

Jeff Ashton stood up and told the Court that those sorts or questions should go through him as he was the one who was handling the forensics for the prosecution team. He mentioned that he would have no problem with that and added that he had offered them to Dr. Huntington a year-and-a-half ago. He had also offered to have Dr. Huntington come and examine the entomological evidence with their expert. Both offers were declined by the defense.

Baez said that he would let Ashton know, in the next week or so, which items they wanted to test.

To speed things along, Judge Perry told Baez that if they couldn't come to an agreement over the items to be sent, they were to see him the following week. Ashton pointed out that, although he would be out of town, he'd be available by work e-mail or telephone.


Then, Baez brought up a topic which was the "bombshell" of the hearing. He had filed a motion that very morning to seal an audio tape of a conversation he had with a prison inmate he described as a "prospective witness". At this point, Baez hesitated and indicated he didn't know how much information he needed to make available at the time.

At that point, Linda Drane Burdick stated that she had already made Baez aware that she had made arrangements to recieved "certain items" from a state prison facility that would ultimately be made available through discovery. She said she didn't even have the "item" yet. Ultimately, the motion filed by Baez was in response to that. She pointed out that there was nothing to protect at this time, as it was not in her possession. She felt that discussion about the "item" at the point was premature.

Judge Perry read the motion as he sat on the bench. After the long pause, Judge Perry asked, "Do we know whether this person taped it themselves or the institution taped it?". Baez answered, "I believe it's the institution". Drane Burdick said that she had the same information via a third party.

Judge Perry said that the issue should be set down for a hearing and reminded Baez that he needed to notice the correctional institution, since they are a member of the executive branch. He added with a slight smile, "Mr. Mason's favorite branch." Linda Drane asked if she should NOT obtain a copy, the judge told her that she was ordered not to release a copy.

Baez then tentatively argued the motion by mentioning that the Court had had the same issue with the Joe Jordan tape. Ms. Drane Burdick had not listened to it because it was a third degree felony. He "joked" that he didn't want to see her get arrested.

Judge Perry said that it would be up to the State Attorney, Lawson Lamar to determine that.

To end the hearing, Baez brought up the "feet shackles" and how uncomfortable they are during long hearings, what with them being uncomfortable and cutting off her circulation. Drane Burdick pointed out that the situation involved a "third party" (the jail) and they weren't there. Baez indicated that the shackles were not worn during trials, to which the judge replied, "sometimes they are, sometimes they're not." He asked Baez if he meant that when she stepped over the threshold of the courtroom the "leg irons" be removed and Baez agreed. The judge said he would take the matter under advisement. Perry also made it clear that this would apply to the courtroom only. I noticed Casey nodding slightly with Baez' agreement with the judge.

That ended the hearing for the day.

Since the hearing ended, the phone call Baez wants sealed has become quite the topic. One hint to me that it may come out was Perry's question as to who had taped it. When Baez said it was the institution, my head literally exploded! Baez claims he wasn't notified the call was being recorded! It turns out that an ex-inmate called Baez to tell him that an inmate would be calling him later in the day. Baez' secretary took the call and forwarded it to Baez. It has turned out that Baez has become entangled in an ongoing investigation into an illegal three-party phone scam and a career criminal named Robin Lunceford.

Here are some articles about the situation:

Casey's Attorney Hanging Hopes On Inmate
Casey Anthony attorney wants 'illegally recorded' phone call with prisoner sealed

Here is an article about Lunceford's involvement in another case:

Rilya Wilson Witness has Cold Feet

Resources:

Part 8 Perry Ruling on 911 tapes (cont'd)/Motion to Seal Evidence Lists/Status Hearing
Part 9 Status Hearing

Casey Anthony: Mom's 911 Calls To Come In At Trial

The hearing on July 15, lasted nearly four hours and, while it may not have produced fireworks, it provided an excellent preview of what we will see at trial in May, 2011. The hearing ended with all issues resolved and the issues which would have been covered in a status hearing July 20 were all discussed. Right now, one less hearing is a good thing!

TES DOCUMENTS

As the hearing opened, Judge Belvin Perry announced that the TES issue would be heard first. He stated that he had read all the motions and responses and was prepared to have Mr. Baez speak to the issue for five minutes to and then Mr. NeJame would have five minutes. It was obvious that the judge had just cut off what could be an extremely contentious and time-consuming confrontation at the pass!

With this statement Jose Baez requested a sidebar with NeJame and the State. It was lengthy discussion. When all parties returned to their places, Judge Perry stated that Mr. Baez was going to withdraw his motion and Mr. NeJame will file a motion dealing with bad faith. As for the judge himself, Perry stated that he would be entering an order that the defense could inspect the documents again and take notes. He said he would also appoint a special magistrate to supervise the process. He will also tab any documents to be copied and brought to the judge for consideration.

Mr. NeJame will be filing his bad faith motion by Thursday of next week.

For now, we will have to wait for the judge's orders to know if there are any specific details as to what sort of notes the defense can take. As for Mr. NeJame's motion, I am sure we will all be waiting to see what comes of it. As with any negotiated deal, it is probable that neither side is totally happy, but can live with the results.

The 911 Calls

The Anthony family attorney, Brad Conway had stated in earlier interviews that Cindy Anthony would tell the truth, and she did, when it came to the 911 calls she made.

Cindy Anthony was called to the stand by Jose Baez.

At that point, Lee Anthony was asked to leave the courtroom for the time his mother was on the stand. (My friend, Sedonia Sunset said, Jeez, Lee couldn't even be bothered to put on a decent shirt!
Sprocket even pointed out that, Mr. Sprocket went to court, He AT LEAST put on a white shirt and a jacket.)

Another witness for the defense, Deborah Polisano, had yet to arrive at the courthouse.

Once Lee left the courtroom, Baez led Cindy Anthony through the events of July 15, 2008. He began with the retrieval of the car from the Johnson Wrecker Service yard and ended with the making the third 911 call. He asked may questions to try and have Cindy tell him the precise time when her husband told her that the car smelled like a dead body. The best Cindy could do was say it was prior to 3 PM that day. Baez made it a point to have Cindy indicate that, after putting the smelly pants in the laundry she had gone back to work. George, just starting a new job, had left earlier.

When Baez asked Cindy if she mentioned the odor in the car to any of her co-workers, she couldn't remember exactly what she had said. Cindy also stated at this point that she didn't think there was any special reason to not go back to work!

In his further attempts to show that the final call was not an excited utterance, Baez made sure that Cindy testified that they did not call the police from the tow yard or when they got home, to make it seem that they did not think the situation was an emergency. He also elicited from Cindy that after she returned from work, she had been exposed to the smell as she went about walking the dogs, taking items out of the car and the pants from the dryer. (Mind you, she had said she was only in the garage for five minutes putting the pants in the laundry before she went to work! Quick wash cycle!)

When Baez questioned her about the call she made to Amy Huizenga, Baez asked if she mentioned the smell in the car and Cindy said she couldn't remember.

When asked if she had any discussion with Amy in the car on the way to pick up Amy, she said that she didn't quite remember the nature of the discussion.

When it comes trial time, I'm sure Amy will fill in those blanks and many more. Cindy told her many things, most not positive for Casey. (AMY HUIZENGA INTERVIEW) Cindy also made a point of pointing out how easily Amy found Tony's apartment and that she only allowed Casey to take her shoes with her. She also claimed she never stepped into the apartment. Well, that will be dealt with at trial time.

From that point in her testimony, Cindy went on to give a detailed account of her time with Casey up until the third 911 call.

Among other things, Baez brought out that she was smelling the car for the third time, and that she never discussed the car with Casey. He asked about the fact that George told her there had been a bag of garbage which tow yard manager had thrown away. (Wait, didn't George already tell her it smelled like a dead body before 3 PM?)

At that point, Lee had arrived and Cindy decided to let him talk to her before calling 911 for the second time. Baez asked if she'd said she wanted Casey arrested and had also reported Caylee missing. Cindy agreed. (The fact is, in that call, Cindy referred to a "possibly missing child".) Baez then led Cindy to state that she became increasingly frustrated that the police didn't arrive quickly enough and Cindy agreed. (Baez is attempting to make it sound like the third call was an act to get the police to the house more quickly.)

Cindy stated that she paced back and forth from the house to the street, smelling the car each time.

Some time later, when she returned to the house, Cindy said she heard Casey say she hadn't seen Caylee in 31 days. SHE WAS IN SHOCK, SHE COULDN'T BELIEVE WHAT SHE WAS HEARING! She was hysterical at that point. (This doesn't help Baez at all!)

She made the infamous third 911 call.

It is the first time the police learn that Caylee is truly "missing".

CA: (Crying.) I called a little bit ago. The Deputy Sheriff’s not here. I found out my granddaughter has been taken. She has been missing for a month. Her, her mother finally admitted that she’s been missing.

After showing Cindy a transcript of the call, Baez asked if she made the statement:

There’s something wrong. I found my daughter’s car today and it smells like there’s been a dead body in the damn car.

Cindy answered in the affirmative and then testified that didn't know why she made the statement. When asked if her statement on Good Morning America was true, she answered that it was "essentially" true, that the call wasn't premeditated.

When asked, if it was her husband George who told her the car smelled like a dead body, Cindy stated:

He told me that that was his first thought.

Again, we will have to wait for George to take the stand at trial to explain why he told LE in various interviews and his deposition, that he knew what the smell was and that it was that of decomposition.

As the direct examination came to an end, the discussion of familiarity with the smell of decomposition. Cindy stated that she had never smelled human decomposition in the trunk of a car.

Baez then led her through the facts of her experience with decomposition odor in the morgue during her nursing rotation there. She also mentioned she had smelled "rotting flesh" in the hospital.

Hello! I've only smelled the odor second-hand. Someone I knew was cleaning possessions out of the home of someone who had died two months before being found. She would come home at night reeking of that most unique odor. It was in her clothing and her hair. She barely noticed it because she had been in an environment reeking of that pungent odor all day. There's a good reason rooms in funeral homes are under-heated and the scent of flowers is overpowering. Even with that, there is the undertone of that very same odor. Slight odor in the morgue, but the same odor as in the trunk of the car.

Linda Drane Burdick then began her cross examination of Cindy. (Sprocket and Kitty Malone were saying, "CROSS! Go get her!" and "Go Linda, GO!" They are big fans of lead prosecution attorney.)

Bill Sheaffer gave an interview for WFTV. In it, he had a wonderful description of the differing approaches. According to him, Baez used a saber and Linda Drane Burdick used a scalpel with finesse. He believed that Jose did a "good job" but Linda Drane Burdick did an "excellent job".

Drane Burdick asked Cindy a series of short-answer questions. She elicited from Cindy that at the time that she retrieved the car, she had not seen her daughter, granddaughter for 32 days, counting back to the 15th of June. On July 15, it was Cindy's impression that Casey and Caylee were together. Cindy agreed that prior to going to the tow yard, she had called Casey to tell her she found her car. When she had spoken with Casey, she had not yet smelled the car. Cindy agreed that George had told her that he had told the tow truck operator he hoped it wasn't daughter or granddaughter in the trunk much later, although she cannot remember when.

The questioning then went to what happened when she got home. Cindy stated that she only spent five minutes in the garage with the car after George went back to work.

Drane Burdick then reminded Cindy of her testimony about her experience with dead bodies at the end of Baez' questioning. Cindy agreed that when she made the third 911 call, the words she used to describe the smell was a "dead body".

There was then an extensive series of questions concerning her experience with the odor of dead bodies. Cindy then stated that it was only in the morgue. Drane Burdick reminded Cindy of discussions that she had had with LE at various times and had told them that she was acquainted with that odor, including from rotting flesh caused by an infection (pseudomonas). Cindy had told LE that it had taken days for the odor to clear from the air vents. In the end, Cindy admits it had a unique smell.

Fortunately, the Assistant State's Attorney has all the pertinent documents at the ready to refresh Mrs. Anthony's memory.

I had been to busy typing to notice this, but Sedonia Sunset mentioned that. "Jose is really working his jaw over LDB having Cindy refresh her memory as to what she said in a deposition." Kitty Malone thought that "Cheney and Baez look very, VERY, perturbed!" Sprocket said, "Look at Baez tapping his fingers nervously!"

There is an interesting back and forth next. Drane Burdick asked Cindy if she had said in her deposition last year that George did not tell her until later that it was his opinion that the trunk smelled like a dead body. Cindy waffled over the context, saying that she knew it wasn't immediately (at the tow yard). Drane Burdick showed Cindy a copy of the 2009 deposition to refresh her memory. Apparently, Cindy had used the word "pungent". She had also been asked if George had told her his opinion of the odor when they were first in the garage, and Cindy answered, "no".

Drane Burdick then gently led Cindy through the time line of the events and the odor in the car. When Cindy first smelled the odor in the tow yard, she did not know that Casey wasn't with Caylee. In addition, since they had not discussed the odor of the car prior to George's leaving for work, she had not heard his opinion until AFTER she had made the third 911 call as she had had no contact with George after he left for work!

BINGO!, that's the scalpel there. It's pure logic. If she and George didn't discuss the nature of the odor, Cindy would have had to make that connection herself!

During this, and other portions of her mother's testimony, Casey was write furiously and passing notes to her attorneys. Never once did she acknowledge her mother with even the smallest of smiles.

Drane Burdick then outlined the time from the the call to Amy Huizenga until the first 911 call. When she found Casey at Tony Lazzaro's apartment, Caylee wasn't with her and Casey explained she was with the nanny, Zanny. At that point, Cindy still did not know what had happened until the third 911 call. Therefore, until then, there was no reason for Cindy to connect the odor in the car with Caylee.

She then asked if Casey had been "stonewalling" her and that she then decided to get the police involved to help her get Casey to take her to her daughter. Casey heard the first call and could hear what she was saying. The first call was made at 8:09 PM. When asked if she had stated she had a "grand theft" sitting with her in the car, Cindy said that she had asked Casey to bring the car home two weeks prior. (I don't think I've ever read that.) Cindy claimed that that was where she "pulled that reference from". She did say that the theft of money was true. Due to jurisdictional issues, Cindy decided it would be "stupid" to wait on the side of the road. Drane Burdick asked it would have been more comfortable to wait at home in a non-emergency situation and Cindy agreed.

Drane Burdick then went on to the second call. It had been delayed by the arrival of Lee. Cindy gave him time to try and get information out of his sister. When Lee was not able to get Casey to tell the truth, she decided to make another call. Cindy did not remember exactly where she was in the house w hen she made that call.

Cindy then agreed when Drane Burdick said that she had no idea that Caylee was somewhere where Casey couldn't get to her. The only emergency at the time was a dispute with her daughter. Cindy said "a possible missing child". Cindy did not mean missing as in taken or kidnapped, it meant not at the home. Cindy agreed that this was not an emergency, that she needed law enforcement at the house to help find where Caylee was.

(I got goose bumps here as I saw Linda Drane Burdick deftly lead Cindy through not only the events of the evening, but the emotions and motivation behind each call.)

This second call was made at 8:44 PM, 45 minutes after the original call.

Cindy then testified about the last call, which took place at 9:41 PM. She said that she overheard Casey tell Lee that she hadn't seen Caylee in 31 days. Drane Burdick indicated that it came as a shock to her. Cindy agreed and added that, "she was crying". (Cindy seemed to go for some sympathy for her daughter here.) She also got Cindy to agree that she was panicked, couldn't think, and didn't know what to do. She realized that nobody could get Caylee for her that night.

Kitty Malone said, "I just had a brief moment of sympathy for Cindy. Jeez. Linda is getting to the nitty-gritty and it appears that Cindy is about to break down."

Drane Burdick added that Cindy was angry or frustrated because law enforcement was taking their time to get to the house, at that point she was devastated, that the only people who could now help were the police. Cindy again agreed with her. The problem now was not just a family emergency, but a true emergency.

During this time, the defense is passing notes and conferring, this is not following their agenda.
Cindy agreed that she was angry with her daughter and was yelling, trying to get answers from Casey in a "machine-gun" approach asking her questions over and over. Cindy says, however that she doesn't remember what she said, that she was just "upset". Drane Burdick replaced "upset" with "panicked" and Cindy agreed.

Drane Burdick again asked Cindy if the problem wasn't that the police hadn't arrived yet, but that she needed them now! Cindy buffered this by pointing out that it had seemed like over an hour since she had last called. Cindy admitted it was shocking news, her gut instinct.

Casey is writing furiously again.

Drane Burdick passed out copies of the third call and asked that it be added into evidence for the purpose of the hearing. Although she didn't remember where she made the call from, she did remember handing the phone to Casey in her room.

The next line of questioning went to the connection Cindy may have made between the smell in the car and Caylee. Cindy made an unusual statement about this... "if that's where my mind went to, yes..." She further said that she didn't understand how the mind worked when "you're" under stress. She said she couldn't analyze it. She added, "I said whatever I said".

Here, she is trying to waffle about the connection she obviously made in her mind and transmitted to the police by directly saying these two lines in sequence:

There’s something wrong. I found my daughter’s car today and it smells like there’s been a dead body in the damn car.

She hints here at an UNCONSCIOUS CONNECTION made by her mind without her realizing it.

Miss Kitty, "Holy Cow! Casey's eyes are DARTING all over the place during this line of questioning (the smell of the car and Cindy connecting it to Caylee being missing)."

In order to help Cindy remember what she thought at the time, Drane Burdick reminded Cindy of the interview with Scott Bolin on July 30, 2008. After refreshing her memory, Cindy said that she had said whatever she needed to say (to the 911 dispatcher). In that statement, Cindy made a clear connection between Caylee being missing and the car. Cindy told her that she had read the documents and that there were pieces missing! (Blame it on the FBI!)

Casey is again writing fast and furious, double underlining certain words.

After completing her questioning, there was a ten minute recess. When everyone returned to the courtroom, Baez began his questioning by stating that there were a "couple of things to clear up, there is a little bit of confusion".

First, Baez asked Cindy about the conversations she had with co-workers. He asked if during the conversation she had told co-workers that George told her it smelled like a dead body.
Cindy stated that she couldn't remember when George told her that. Baez then went on to ask her if when she said "later", it wasn't after July 15. Cindy answered, "no".

Next, he tried to soften her testimony on cross concerning her experience with the smell of decomposition. He asked her if, after smelling the car, she still believed Caylee was alive. Baez pointed out that at that time, she made statements to that effect. He also asked her if she believed that law enforcement believed Caylee was dead. He then asked her if she meant that, by telling them that she knew the smell of death, the smell in the car was different. Cindy answered with a firm, "yes, I guess".

Compare that weak statement with, "I found my daughter’s car today and it smells like there’s been a dead body in the damn car." Which sounds stronger to you?

Baez then reminded Cindy that she wanted law enforcement to search for a live Caylee. Then, Cindy made this astounding statement:

I, I, I, still think Caylee is alive!

Baez next gets Cindy to say that she never lied to or tried to mislead law enforcement (she added the qualifier, "if I remember..."). He then asks if when she told them that this smell was different to that of her experience, she was being truthful.

The next portion of Cindy's testimony had her now backing off the identity of the smell. She indicated that since then, she had smelled other things in the car that smelled similarly.
(Were I on the jury, that answer would confuse me terribly. What in the world would Cindy, who is a clean-freak, have allowed to something to sit and rot in her car?)

Baez then reminded her of her July 29, 2009 deposition with Ms. Drane Burdick and reminded her of the statement that she had made there that she had made the infamous statement to get the police to her house faster. Baez then showed her a transcript. Cindy agreed that she had been maintaining that all along.

The interesting thing here is that both what she said to Linda Drane Burdick and Jose Baez were both true. She said those lines to get the police out there, but, according to what she said earlier, she could have subconsciously made the connection.

Baez then reminded Cindy of the items that belonged to Caylee that were in the car. He asked if those items of hers being there and Caylee NOT being there was what she meant when she made the call. Cindy said that it was "more so related to the items in the car".

Ok, then why didn't she tell the 911 dispatcher that the child's belonging were in the car and the child wasn't there? Why mention the odor and not the belongings?

I have editorialized quite a bit here. After following the case since July 16, 2008 and reading so many interviews, I do have some strong opinions! One element of Cindy's testimony which gave me a very hard time was the fact that she almost always agreed with both the defense and the prosecution, making it difficult to figure out what was going on. My friends all agreed with me on that.

At that point, Baez completed his cross examination and she left the stand. As Deborah Polisano had not arrived, the State put Lee Anthony on the stand.

Lee Anthony came to the stand and, as Linda Drane Burdick was asking him his name, he mouthed "I love you" to Casey who seemed to cry at the attention from her brother.

As he testified, Lee's demeanor was the same as we have seen in his Morgan&Morgan deposition. He has a tendency to ramble on and laugh at times, perhaps out of nervousness.

Lee testified that he had been asked to go to the house by his father. He met Casey and Cindy in driveway. He said "hi" to Casey and she cried. He said that at that time, he did not smell the car. He was at the house with Cindy and Casey for about two hours before law enforcement arrived.

Cindy and Casey were arguing about Caylee's location. Cindy was frustrated and asked him to talk to his sister, although she did not tell him what the problem was. He tried to reason with his mother and take her to Caylee. He was only aware of the two phone calls at the house at that time. He was not in the room with Casey the entire time. He said he was in the living room when Cindy came out and said she was going to call the police. He said that Cindy went either to the garage or her bedroom and he did not hear the initial call from the home. Casey was still in her room sitting on her bed. He then went back to Casey's room at that point to say that nothing she was saying wasn't making sense.

He engaged in role-playing with Casey as to what she would tell the police when they came to the house. Lee told her if she didn't tell mother where Caylee was, she would have to tell the police. It was during this role-playing that Casey broke down and told him she hadn't seen Caylee in 31 days. Lee said he was "dumbfounded" at the revelation. He said that Cindy then came into the room and said, "What's going on?" and Casey said she hadn't seen Caylee in 31 days. His mother's reaction was "a little different". She got very angry, clenched her fist and hit the bed and said, "What did you do? We could have found her 31 days ago".

Lee testified that he didn't hear the last 911 call Cindy made until months later.

Drane Burdick then referred to Lee's deposition on July 30, 2009, p. 126, line 23. She quotes Lee as having said that Cindy was in the living room and he heard the call in the background. He indicated he heard it and Casey also could have and that Cindy was very, very frantic.

With this information, Drane Burdick completed her examination.

Cheney Mason then got up and conducted a somewhat bizarre cross examination. He first asked Lee about what George said to him about the situation in the home when he called. Lee responded that George only told him that his mother needed him. Then, Mason asked if it was obvious that his parents had been talking. Lee replied that George had merely told him it was a "long story, but your mom needs you".

He then made mention of had his parents been talking when he got to the house. Lee pointed out that there was nobody home when he arrived.

I got a bit confused here. Did Mason think both Cindy and George were in the home when Lee arrived?

He then asked if there was any "screaming or running around" when he arrived.

Lee again replied that no one was at the house when he arrived.

Mason then asked how long he was there before he heard the first mention of calling the police? Lee responded that it was about an hour. Mason then asked "Who talked about calling the police first?". Lee said it was his mom and that she was the only one focused on that. When asked. The next question was quite complicated and Lee couldn't answer.

Mason apparently wanted Lee to say what combination of people had discussed calling the police.

Lee then said he went to Casey's room to discuss what she would say should the police come. Lee then went back over the discovery that Caylee was missing and how, once Casey said he was missing, he became sort of a bystander.

They then went through the progression of the 911 calls and again, it was a bit confusing. For some reason I don't think Mr. Mason had a complete scenario of the events of the evening clear in his head. I couldn't quite figure out what call was being referred to and became even more confused when Mason discussed if Lee had talked to George about them. Lee again pointed out that George wasn't in the home when the calls were made.

Mason elicits that during his time at the house, he had time for private conversation with his sister. The only "interruption" they had was during the 911 call, which he and his sister did not focus on.

And that was it! Linda Drane Burdick asked no further questions.

The final witness of the hearing was Deborah Polisano, Cindy Anthony's supervisor at Gentiva.

In answering Cheney Mason's questions, Polisano testified that when Cindy got the phone call from her husband, she was in her office, she told Cindy she needed to go home and pick up the car. Cindy came back to work in an hour or so and they had a conversation then. Cindy had told her about the car being in the impound lot and that she couldn't get a hold of Casey. She indicated that Caylee's car seat, backpack, and doll were in the car. She also said there was a terrible odor in the car. When Polisano asked if they had opened the trunk, Cindy didn't answer, but said it smelled like a dead body in the car. Cindy also indicated that she and George were both aware of the odor, but stressed that they both knew that. Polisano told her to go home because she was so upset.

Polisano did not remember what time Cindy left the office. Mason tried to get her to pinpoint the time, but she couldn't remember. She also told Cindy she should call the police.

After a brief pause, Mason asked if she had had to "exercise persuasion" to get Cindy to go home. Polisano then asked him to rephrase the question and he came back with the same question. She said she had to get her supervisor to tell her to go home.

Linda Drane Burdick asked no questions.

Each side made their closing arguments. Mason spoke for the defense. They essentially reiterated the information in their motions and responses. Mason did mention Hutcheson that the tapes were heresay and tapes can't be cross examined. He wanted sections redacted, including the theft and Casey's comments. He also made some very gross references which made me ill.

Linda Drane Burdick brought up the fact that Hutcheson had been overturned. Cindy Anthony will be able to testify at the trial. She also made a strong argument for Cindy Anthony's status as a person who knew the odor of a dead body.

At this point, Judge Perry had another ten minute break and then came back with his decision. Siting extensive case law, Perry allowed all the tapes in. Specifically the third call was admitted as an excited utterance.

Motion to Seal Evidence Lists

When the discussion of this motion began, Judge Perry brought up "work product" and, having no motion filed in opposition, he granted the motion.

With the agenda of the hearing complete, the judge then asked if both parties would be willing to continue on and have the Status Hearing scheduled for July 20. They all agreed and continued on.

The links to the live streams kept dropping left and right. It was hard to follow and I, already totally exhausted from the events, decided to wait for the video to e posted. I will be writing another article about that portion when I am rested and have had a chance to view the entire proceedings. Hang in there!

References:

Raw Hearing

Part 1 TES
Part 2 Cindy Anthony
Part 3 Cindy Anthony
Part 4 Cindy Anthony
Part 5 Cindy Anthony/Lee Anthony
Part 6 Lee Anthony/Deborah Polisano/Mason summation
Part 7 LDB summation/Perry ruling on 911 tapes

Part 8 Perry Ruling on 911 tapes (cont'd)/Motion to Seal Evidence Lists/Status Hearing
Part 9 Status Hearing

The Hinky Meter Searchable Database

Casey Anthony vs. TES: Mark NeJame Strikes Back

Many thanks to my friend Muzikman who has provided a copy of Mark NeJame's Response To Defendant's Motion For Reconsideration Of Certain Prior Rulings By Disqualified Judge.
Although the document is 15 pages long, it is well worth a read before the hearing tomorrow.

In his response, NeJame takes the time to explain to the Court the entire situation between Casey Anthony's attorneys and Texas Equusearch since July 16, 2009. He gives a recap of the arguments and rulings that took place. He cites Judge Stan Strickland's rulings in the situation. He also informs Judge Perry of the process that was used to choose and review the documents.

For those of you who get confused with all the motions and what has occurred between all the parties involved, the response becomes an absolute must-read.

On May 17, I posted an article about the Defendant’s Motion to Modify the Court’s Order on Defendant’s Application for Subpoena Duces Tecum for Documents in the Possession of Texas Equusearch. If you go to the Those Pesky TES Documents section, you can read what they said.

To be fair, I will post a brief version of what NeJame wrote.

14. ...On April 23, 2010, Attorneys Cheney Mason and Jose Baez came to the undersigned counsel's office to review the files containing the searches of the approximately 4,000 searchers.... When they arrived Mr. Mason was arrogant, rude and disrespectful to the staff of undersigned and to the monitor. Mr. Mason threw $12 cash on the table at the monitor saying that this would be enough to cover the one hour they were going to be there.

...With the $12 prepaid throw down by Mr. Mason and Mr. Baez' limited schedule, it is patently obvious that there was no real interest or good faith attempt to review any of the documents that counsel for Casey Anthony has claimed were important...

NeJame also explains that while there were 4 boxes of TES records, only two of them contained the pertinent files to be examined. The other two boxes contained material not related to the to the searched areas. He states that they were shown the boxes to demonstrate that TES was not holding anything back.

There is also mention that the documents Baez and Mason flagged for review were for searches that occurred over 300 yards to 8 miles away.

After an hour, one of the attorneys gave the monitor, an out-of-work TES volunteer, another $12. According to the response,

19. ...The monitor was treated rudely and unprofessionally.

When it comes to the Channel 6 new crew that showed up, both NeJame and the reporter for the station indicated that it was not somebody from NeJames firm who had called them.

The account of the incident continues

...The reporter and his cameraman videotaped for approximately one minute, from across the lobby, when Mr. Mason burst out of the conference room causing a scene in front of the camera. It is the epitome of irony that almost contemporaneously when Mr. Mason and Mr. Baez review of the files concluded, the television camera appeared, allowing Mr. Mason's to cast aspersions on the media against undersigned counsel, which Mr. Mason has a history of doing.

There is more in the motion, READ it and enjoy. Apparently, Mr. Mason's behavior with Kathi Belich witnessed by many was not an aberration .

In addition to NeJame's response, Muzikman has also provided a copy of the Defense Supplemental Memo Regarding Admissibility of Contents from 911 Calls. As far as I can see, Cheney Mason is adding to his arguments as to why the defense wants the calls to not be allowed. Their motions and memos have yet do counter the reasons the State wants them in. At this point, we should expect to see the two sides arguing apples and oranges!

Enjoy reading and see you at 2 PM EDT for what should be a real doozie of a hearing.

Getting Ready for the Fireworks: Hearing Thursday in the Casey Anthony Murder Trial

UPDATE!

The defense team filed an Objection to Release Of Documents Related To Intended Defense Review of the Evidence. A quick read-through told me that the author was Cheney Mason and that there was not a single legal reference to bolster his arguments.

The motion will be heard at tomorrow's hearing.

As for his arguments in favor of the motion, they deal entirely with the media. He attacks the media in oh, so many ways. He even manages to take a swipe at the "talking head" lawyers who have neither the experience, knowledge, or predicates for their public comments..."

I recommend a quick trip over to WFTV to read their article. I've also included their most excellent links.

RAW INTERVIEWS: Mason Dr. Lee Baez
READ: Objection On Release Of Evidence
VIDEO REPORT: Experts Reviewing Evidence





I know that I won't be alone on Thursday, July 15 at 2 PM. There will be many people who follow the Casey Anthony trial hearing watching to see what will happen. Judge Belvin Perry, Jr. will presiding over what may well be one of the most contentious hearings we have witnessed.

The genesis of this hearing goes all the way back to the defense's May 6, 2010 Motion To Reconsider Strickland Rulings. One of the portions that was scheduled for that day was the motion to make all the Texas EquuSearch records available to the defense. Unfortunately, when setting the date for the hearing, defense attorney Cheney Mason did not confer with TES attorney Mark NeJame, who was unavailable for that date. The hearing for this issue was then scheduled for July 15. If you would like to review the content of this, read the article I posted on the topic. This motion is technically not a "second bite of the apple" since the Baez and Mason claim that it was impossible to review all the documents properly. Baez even stated in open Court during the May 6 budget hearing that he wanted all the names so that he could research all the volunteers.

To date, we haven't heard Mark NeJame's side of the story, but it will be very interesting to listen to. Do you think Judge Perry will buy the defense's claims? Somehow, I don't think so. Linda Drane Burdick had stated that it had taken her about six hours to go over the forms and had found no more to flag. Also, I hope the judge puts an end to the whole issue for once and for all.


In addition, we have Cheney Mason's odd comments about the searchers after his solo hearing on June 16 after the status hearing.
In the middle of discussing the 911 calls and what Cindy Anthony had made in her deposition which was released last summer, Mason made a sharp seque to say

... the depositions where they searched and did not search, it turns out that they did not search the exact area where the body was found.

Kathy Belich then steered the conversation back to the 911 calls. The discussion then went back to the searchers. Mason said,

... the public has been made to believe that these people searched the exact area where the body was, or tried to, and couldn't. The fact is, they didn't try to, they didn't. They weren't there. It was impassable at the time. So, there's a lot of people who've mistaken what happened back in the summer of 2008, the winter of 2008.

He then went on to discuss that the defense wants to establish reasonable doubt as to when the body was put there. This is the same story that we've heard for quite a while, that the body was placed in that location when Casey was in jail.

Here's the problem with the "when Casey was in jail" part. Casey was in and out of jail between July 16, 2008 and October 14, 2009 when she was indicted by the grand jury. I would see that they would have a problem saying the body was put on Suburban drive after October 14, due to scientific evidence. Are they really going to try for a summer date when Casey was in and out of jail on bond?

Mason went on to state that the defense would have to establish "who, how, and when". He also mentioned that various people had given different information about the condition of the area. He said that some stated that they couldn't search the area because it was under water. He also said that someone said the area wasn't under water.

His statement concerning the searches ended with the statement concerning June 16, 2008,

That's when Caylee was missing. We don't know when she disappeared.

Listen HERE for yourself and see if what he says makes any sense to you!

The second issue on the agenda will be the admissibility of Cindy Anthony's 911 calls. On March 8, 2010, the defense filed the Motion to Exclude Heresay, Evidence, Gossip and Innuendo. The motion was pretty much put on the back burner, the State replied on June 9 with a motion outlining the reasons that the calls should be admitted. As I discussed in this article, the prosecution does not want to have the calls admitted as an excited utterance, they want them admitted because they show the developing story Casey made as the evening wore on.

Thanks to Richard Hornsby, we have a copy of the motion filed by Cheney Mason on June 22, Defense Reply to State Motion to Admit 911 Calls. In it, Mason goes through June 15, 2008 from Cindy Anthony's perspective to show that it was a "plan" of sorts based on her learning that the car was impounded and all the actions she took that day. He even mentioned that Cindy had explained her motivations for the call in the Good Morning America appearance.

He also gave a very complicated explanation in the presser he gave, which is already linked above.

The latest news broke last week that the prosecution has subpoenaed Cindy and Lee Anthony to testify at the hearing. I don't need to tell anyone who read here that this may be the most explosive part of the hearing. All over the Internet, people are asking, "What will Cindy say?" , "What will Lee say", "will George be there?". Even the family attorney, Brad Conway, made a statement to the OrlandoSentinel saying,

"She's going to tell the truth," Conway said today. "She made the phone calls. It's factual. She's going to testify truthfully."

Will she? That's why we'll all be watching.

For more news, check out Calls for Justice, donchais has a new article up today.

mControl is Back with WALL OF GUILT BLOG

Michelle Blaine is back with her new blog Wall Of Guilt, about an old employer, convicted murderer Phil Spector.

234th United States Anniversary

Today is the 234th anniversary of the United States Independence from Great Britian.

Declaration of Independence.

Bill of Rights.

Those of you who are celebrating today, stay safe, and Happy Fourth!



Interesting Flag Building.