Add another motion to this trial. Judge Strickland will hear MOTION TO STRIKE NOTICE OF DEPOSITION AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
Former Baez PI Dominic Casey, whose relationship to this case is twisted and confused as to precisely which parties he represented when. Casey is scheduled to be deposed by the State later this month. He is still claiming privilege.
Orange Coundy has submitted a reply to the motions filed by the defense to have the videotapes of the family visits destroyed and not to videotape her meetings with her lawyers. The motion points out that they cannot change their practices for one person. In addition, they would be liable for violating state laws concerning the use of these videos.
The motion also indicated that Orange County, speaking for the Department of Corrections was not the proper authority to deal with whether or not the videos are sealed or disseminated.
Also, Bill Sheaffer has an excellent article posted on his blog that deals with the reason for all the motions being filed by the defense.
This Friday, December 11, is the next motion hearing for Casey Anthony. It is looking to be another humdinger. George and Cindy Anthony, as well as their attorney, Brad Conway, have been subpoenaed to testify. It isn't clear if they have been subpoenaed by the prosecution or the defense. It isn't clear either precisely for which motion their testimony will be needed.
A good guess is that the defense is going to ask George and Cindy about their inability to visit their daughter, Casey, while she's been incarcerated in the Orange County Jail. Unfortunately, the Anthonys don't have a good record when they testify. Their testimony at Casey's bond hearing last year yielded no results. George Anthony was unable to convince the judge that their sensitivities should be respected concerning Caylee's autopsy results. Finally, at the recent hearing when George Anthony got on the stand to discuss the Padilla & Co. situation, his testimony again failed to convince the judge to bar their testimony.
As for Brad Conway's subpoena, your guess is as good as mine.
Two of the motions to be discussed at the hearing Friday concern videotaping of jail visits and attorney visits couldn't be heard at the last hearing since Baez & Co. had noticed the OCSO instead of the jail authorities:
MOTION TO DESTROY VIDEOS OF FAMILY VISITS
MOTION TO PROHIBIT VIDEOTAPING ATTORNEY VISITS
The defense has tried before to have family videos sealed. Now, they want them destroyed as well. Based on the Judge Strickland's previous decision, he will not go against jail policy concerning these videos. Anyway, it is clear that all the previous visits were watched real-time by investigators on the case. Those videos could be used as evidence based on their contents. Likewise, the judge refused to go against jail policy to allow the family a private, unrecorded, session for the family to hold an intimate "service" for Caylee.
The problem here is that the Anthony family has serious dysfunction. Looking at any of the early visits last summer clearly show the problems that exist. I they were able to carry on normal, everyday conversation, the media would soon lose interest in their comments. It is difficult to imagine these people not having to vent their issues during any visit.
Concerning the previous visits, Jose Baez is quoted in an article on WESH.
Baez also said he hopes the defense can persuade Strickland to limit or eliminate videos of Anthony's jail visits.
"What happened with the other visits was horrible," Baez said
He said the state's release of those videos "is used to paint an ugly picture of her."
The fact is, the release of the jail videos is required under Florida's Sunshine Laws. The State had no choice in the matter.
The videos weren't "used" to paint an ugly picture of Casey. Casey took care of that all by herself.
Another motion to be heard Friday is the defense's motion to preclude the death penalty which was filed September 30, 2009. The State filed their reply. The State's reply was pretty much overlooked because it was filed October 8, 2009, the same day as a major document dump.
It's worth a read. Penned by Assistant State's Attorney Jeff Ashton, it uses some very strong language to attack the defense. In part, Ashton states:
In her Motion, through counsel, the Defendant, once again, has filed a legally insufficient motion which the State would move this court to deny the motion of the pleadings and avoid the grandstanding at a hearing before the media which appears to be the sole purpose being the filing of the motions. Had she the desire to actually litigate a legitimate issue, surely she would have acknowledged in the preface of her Motion that this court lacks jurisdiction to have the hearing she requests...
In a reply to the motion filed October 30, 2009 Andrea Lyon (and Jose Baez) Again asserted that the State had not confronted the defense arguments where were essentially:
I. The Judiciary Has the Authority and Duty to Curb Prosecutorial Discretion Where the Prosecution Has Impermissible Motives.
II. ....This Court Must Ensure that the Prosecution's Decision to Seek the Death Penalty is Not Driven by Impermissible Motives.
III. By Seeking the Death Penalty Where It Is Not Justified by a Legitimate State Interest, the Prosecution is Impermissibly Attempting to Prevent the Exercise of Miss Anthony's Right to a Fair Trial and Due Process.
That's it for starters! I have good reason to suspect that this portion of the hearing will be full of high drama from Andrea Lyons.
In a recent blog article, Richard Hornsby discussed this motion at length and concluded by saying,
So until such time as the trial is held and the death penalty imposed, this motion is moot.
His article doesn't give much hope to any of the motions and is a recommended read.
The final motion to be covered in the hearing is for the check fraud trial.
MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTS 1,2,4,5,7,8,10, 11, 13 FOR VIOLATION OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAUSE
The State recently issued its reply:
STATE'S REPLY TO MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTS 1,2,4,5,7,8,10,11,13 FOR VIOLATION OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAUSE
As I said, Richard Hornsby addressed the legalities here and I can't begin to do as fine a job as he does. Do read the blog. You will be rewarded with a terrific video at the end.
Now, we get to the motion sickness part. Today, Sprocket asked me how many reams of paper I had gone through. The answer to that question is: 4 or 5. How many ink cartridges, I can't begin to say. I am the sort who need to have the motions printed out and duly annotated to keep track of them.
As I was preparing this article, I made a list of the motions outstanding and it was quite impressive.
The check fraud case, which is set to be tried January 25, 2010, has a number of outstanding motions. Here they are:
MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF ALLEGED PRIOR BAD ACTS
DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE THE INTRODUCTION OF ANY EVIDENCE RELATING TO MISS ANTHONY'S MURDER CASE
MOTION FOR INDIVIDUALLY SEQUESTERED JURY VOIR DIRE
MOTION FOR JURY QUESTIONNAIRE
MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE
Then, we come to the murder case. The defense has submitted many motions lately and here is the best listing I can make:
In a case of deja vu, we have this motion:
MOTION TO MODIFY COURT'S ORDER ON EQUUSEARCH DOCUMENTS SUBPOENA APPLICATION
There are two motions involving meter reader Roy Kronk:
MOTION TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO ROY KRONK
MOTION TO TAKE DEPOSITION TO PERPETUATE TESTIMONY OF JILL KERLEY
These motions addresses the aggravating circumstances which allow for the death penalty
MOTION FOR STATEMENT OF PARTICULARS PROVIDING NOTICE OF AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
MOTION TO DECLARE 'AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE' CLAUSE UNCONSTITUTIONAL
The defense is also not happy with jury instructions:
MOTION FOR JURY INSTRUCTIONS CORRECTLY DEFINING 'PREMEDITATION'
MOTION TO PROHIBIT CALLING JURY'S ROLE AT PENALTY PHASE "ADVISORY" OR PENALTY VERDICT A "RECOMMENDATION"
WRITTEN OBJECTION TO THE STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTION ON REASONABLE DOUBT
Finally, we get to the motions filed by the defense which address the death penalty. I'm wondering if these will be decided based on the decision on the motion to be discussed in court on Friday.
FAILURE TO NARROW SCOPE OF DEATH PENALTY
MOTION TO PRECLUDE DEATH PENALTY FROM CASE AT BAR
MOTION TO PRECLUDE DEATH PENALTY FROM PRESENT CASE
MOTION TO PRECLUDE DEATH PENALTY PROCEDURES