The article included some information from the motion which clearly points out that the State has "had it" with the defense team, notably Jose Baez.
We all remember the first feeble attempt at discovery presented to the State. It was a copy-paste of their defense witness list with snide comments. Jose Baez was, at that point, playing the delay game with the State and Ashton was none too happy. At an emergency hearing at 5 PM on December 12, Judge Perry put down a stern list of requirements for the defense to turn over to the prosecution. He followed it up the following day with his Order.
According to the order, the judge indicated that both sides must provide the following:
1. The expert's curriculum vitae or qualifications of
3. a statement of the specific subjects upon which the expert will testify and offer opinions;
4. The substance of the facts to which the expert is expected to testify; and;
5. A summary of the expert's opinions and the grounds for each opinion.
Baez responded on December 15, (one day late for two of the witnesses to be deposed) with this rather mis-named Response To State's Motion For Clarification Of Expert Witnesses and an attachment, a 323 page Exhibit with a curriculum vitae for each expert witness, although I understand a couple of experts are missing.
When I read the response, I scratched my head and had to wonder in what way Baez thought he was being open and honest with the State. I won't copy all the statements he made here, just a few choice items.
Jane Bock (forensic botanist) would testify IF:
a. Whether the State calls Dr. Hall as an expert witness.
b. Whether Dr. Hall's opinions are approved by this court as being based on scientific principles (Frye challenge)
c. Whether Dr. Hall can effectively survive cross examination.
Apparently, the defense is going to challenge Dr. Hall on whether he qualifies as an expert witness in botany? Is botany an accepted field of scientific study? If he survives cross examination?
These are all rather barbed comments about Dr. Hall's credentials!
A section about Dr. Scott Fairgrieve, the Canadian forensic anthropologist states:
4. If Dr. Fairgrieve were called to testify would depend on the following:
a. With this Court for the first time in the history of this state admit testimony
concerning cadaver dog "alerts" as substantive testimony.
b. Will this Court allow a canine to testify, via a dog handler, given Miss
Anthony's 6th amendment rights to confront her accusers and despite the
fact that all "alerts" in this case are unrecorded, and resulted in negative
results for human remains.?.....
5. Of course a dog cannot testify. In the event that the State attempts this
Here's a little bit from the Henry Lee section:
If Dr. Lee were called to testify, the substance of the facts that he would be expected to testify would be to rebut any false claims raised by CSI investigators in this case. Until that occurs it is difficult to give a complete summary of his opinions and the grounds for those opinions.
It's no wonder Jeff Ashton decided to go after Baez. There is no substantive information in these documents for him to have the vaguest clue as to the nature of the testimony of these "expert" witnesses. It's unbelievable to think these highly educated people have no ideas and opinions of their own in the case.
the state would contend that the defendant is in deliberate non-compliance with the court's order as to certain of their listed experts and that sanctions to address the non-compliance are necessary."
Ashton notes that the defense has said expert Dr. Henry Lee "will render opinions on…crime scene analysis, collection and preservation as well as recovery."
But he says the defense team's inability to summarize so-called "false claims" by crime scene investigators that Lee will rebut "is disingenuous and just plain laughable."
"If Dr. Lee has no opinions that would impeach the testimony of any witness, then compliance with this court's order would require a statement to that effect," Ashton argued. "If he has relevant opinions, the court's order requires that they be listed and the facts supporting them be clearly stated."
The intent of the defense to defy the authority of this court to issue orders of discovery is crystal clear", Ashton wrote.
Besides his motion, Ashton also filed a State's Response to Court Order. The response begins with:
... Defense counsel's representation to the court that only fifty percent of the State's listed expert had provided reports was erroneous. Of the thirty eight witnesses listed by the state with the classification of expert, thirty six have either submitted reports, or co-signed
reports, as to their testimony and opinions or have their testimony and opinions referenced in the reports of others.
Ashton then followed up with a complete list of his experts and the reports filed. As is typical for Mr. Ashton, he shows Mr. Baez how a real lawyer operates.
Thank you Muzikman, YOU ROCK and your hard work is appreciated.