Late this afternoon, Jose Baez filed a MOTION TO AMEND AND SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION TO SEAL THE JAIL VIDEOTAPE TAKEN IN THE MEDICAL FACILITY ON DECEMBER 11, 2008.
Citing depositions of jail personnel, Baez states,
There is no doubt that even after two depositions surrounding the December 11, 2008 incident where Casey Anthony visited the medical facility in the Orange County Jail for medical treatment that this video must remain sealed for medical privacy and other reasons that have now developed.
The fifteen page document is quite a read! Baez quotes from depositions he took not long ago and without reading the entire transcript, it's difficult to know the entire context, but it sounds as though Baez is appalled at the shocking treatment Casey received.
It is disappointing to learn from the motion, in the form of a footnote, that the State does not plan to use the video of Casey and Baez that was also on video. So, it seems we'll never get to see it.
In addition, Jesse Grund has also filed an objection to the release of his phone records.
We've back in Judge Stan Strickland's courtroom this Thursday, May 28 for yet another motions hearing. The hearing is scheduled to begin at 10 AM.
The main focus of the hearing is to hear arguments concerning Jose Baez's EMERGENCY MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND OTHER RELIEF. The media has concentrated on one section of the motion which asks the court to prohibit the release the video of Casey Anthony's reaction to the news that the skeletal remains of a child had been found on Suburban Drive, a short distance from the Anthony home. The video in question is one of Casey Anthony in the waiting room of the clinic viewing television coverage of the morning's events.
He is asking for Judge Strickland to enter a protective order which would prohibit the State and law enforcement agencies from:
1) Monitoring and/or disclosing any communications between Casey Anthony and her attorneys or attorneys (sic) agents;
2) saving any video or audio taping the Defendant and Defendant's counsel while meeting;
3) disclosing to anyone anything that occurred in the meetings;
4) turning over all video or audio tapes or reports or other methods of memorializing meeting between the attorney and client;
5) conducting a full testimonial hearing to determine who authorized that the communications, tapes be saved, reported on, or otherwise authorized all discussed herein;
This one is confusing to me since the paragraph began with the motion asking the judge to prohibit these events from occurring!
6) order that any discovery which has as a part communications with the attorney not be disclosed to the public;
7) order a testimonial hearing on the issue if it deems necessary;
Same comment as for #5.
8)any and all other relief that is within the power of this court.
This is the "short" of the motion. The main thrust seems to be that Mr. Baez suspects the prosecution of colluding with jail personnel to monitor his meetings with his client. In section 11 of the motion, Baez states that,
Since no conversations between the client and her attorney occur in front of any jail personnel - the means by which this communication was obtained is highly questionable to say the least.
Baez is also concerned about the fact that,
...the interview of Lt. Tammy Uncer discusses her medical state in a medical facility and also her medical history at that facility.
Oopsie! The State accidentally released that interview.
To really get the flavor of Baez's outrage, you really need to go to the actual document and read it for yourself.
I am looking forward to the hearing just to hear the arguments on this one. Does anyone else think that tempers may flare a bit?
There are other motions which are scheduled to be heard on Thursday. The main motion is Baez's MOTION FOR APPLICATION FOR SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM in which he asks for extensive communications information from Roy Kronk, Jesse Grund, Tony Lazzaro, Richard Cain, Cindy Anthony, George Anthony, Lee Anthony, Ricardo Morales, Amy Huizenga, Dominic Casey, James Hoover, and Keith Williams. As of date, Roy Kronk, Amy Huizenga, and Richard Cain have filed objections to the wide-ranging motion which asks for:
Any and all records for telephone usage, including by not limited to: phone calls, text messages, P2P communications, Internet usage, WAP usage, cell tower pings, etc, which pertain to the aforementioned individuals.
There are no limiting dates, which mark this motion as an extraordinary fishing expedition. If granted, I can't begin to imagine how tall the stack of records would be if printed out and neatly piled. I would hope that, were the motion were to be granted, Mr. Baez would have a literal army of researchers ready to spend the rest of their working lives sorting out the information.
However, it is highly unlikely that the motion will be granted as written. Those who have filed objections point out the highly intrusive nature of the request. They cite their right to privacy, something Mr. Baez should understand. Both Kronk and Huizenga state in their motions that they have no objection to producing information relating to the case.
Finally, there will be a bit of theater at the hearing. Jose Baez has announced that he will "introduce" the newest member of the "Dream Team" to the court. This will be the new death-penalty qualified attorney.
See you in court Thursday!