Casey Anthony, Will She Serve Probation?

UPDATE!

August 18, 1:46 PM EDT

Jean Casarez on InSesson just reported that the paper copy of the motion has been filed and the case will now move forward.

*****

Okay, I took a week off to go on my first real vacation in seven years. Once we arrived at our destination, we had a wonderful time. However, due to lost airline connections in both directions, we ended up spending two days extra NOT having a good time! There was a sweltering day and night in a Houston hotel whose air conditioning wasn't quite up to snuff, without our luggage and a fresh change of clothing. To avoid the same situation on the way home, we spent a day shuttling to the airport and spending the night shuffling from plane to plane to plane making tight connections. We ended up "visiting" in three states which were not on our itinerary.

I heard about Judge Perry's order concerning her probation and caught a bit of news about it. Unfortunately, my husband banned my laptop from the trip for good cause. Thanks, Sprocket, for posting the news. Now that I've had a chance to rest up a bit, I can also report on the defense reply to the Appellate Court. As of now, the defense reply has only been filed electronically and we all know that it has to be filed on paper. Somebody will have to drive over to Daytona to file the hard copy.

Listening to Jean Casarez on InSession right now, she is pointing out that nobody has filed a stay on the order that Casey Anthony appear for probation on or before August 26.

During the original hearing, Lisbeth Fryer argued vehemently about Judge Strickland's bias and that he had recused himself and had no jurisdiction over the fraud case. She argued double jeopardy.

She also argued that putting Casey on probation in Orange County would put herself and others in danger. At the time, I can recall that she kept throwing the responsibility to the State to report the scrivener's error that caused Casey to be on probation while in protective custody.

In his order, Judge Perry replied to all her concerns:

1. He stated that the Court had jurisdiction. He stated (omitting specific legal citations) that

It is axiomatic that oral pronouncements control over clerical errors. The court has the authority to correct its judgment. An order is rendered, valid and binding, when orally given. It may be corrected at any time to reflect what the court had in fact done.

2. As to violation of double jeopardy, Perry stated that

This case does not involve additional punishment proscribed by the double jeopardy clause nor does it involve a punitive effect by requiring the Defendant to serve probation twice. The Defendant was in jail and unable to meet the goals and requirements of the probationary sentence. The Defendant could not comply with the standard thirteen conditions of probation while incarcerated on a pending charge.

3. As to the defense's responsibility to report the error to the Court, Perry was very clear.

In this case, the State, defense counsel, and the Defendant all knew what the announced intent of the Court was as to when the Defendant's probation was to begin... To permit this error to continue would in fact turn a clerical error into a game cautioned against in the Bozza case...

4. Due process was briefly mentioned.

The Court does not address the issue of the alleged violation of the Defendant's right to due process because the defense did not allege how it was violated.

5. To be sure that the defense understood the issue of Duty to the Court, Perry stated in part that

Finally, this Court would like to address the issue of what duty does an attorney, an officer of the court, owe to our system of justice to see that the lawful orders of the court are followed. The defense acknowledged in court that Mr. Baez knew about the error, but contended that he did not have any obligation to inform the court... While ignorance of the contents of a court order is one thing, the failure to abide by that order and the failure to notify the court of a known scrivener's error in the order may be a violation of an attorney's duty of candor. To additionally seek to use a scrivener's error to achieve an end that was against the court's intent, especially where both parties had argued the issue of when probation should commence, strikes a the very foundation of our justice system...

The duty of candor is simply not a rule of fine etiquette, but is the gold standard that all officers of the court - especially attorneys - must live by if we are to ensure the public's trust and faith in our justice system... While "(z)ealous advocacy is the cornerstone of good lawyering and the bedrock of a just legal system...zeal cannot give way to unprofessionalism" and noncompliance with court orders.

Perry then went on to recommend that the defense refer to The Florida Bar's Rules of Professional Conduct.

As I am writing this, the Orlando Sentinel is reporting that a Bar Complaint against Jose Baez on this very issue.

6. Judge Perry did address the issue of Casey's safety. He ordered her address not be disclosed and cited an article in the Orlando Sentinel which reported that Casey was the most hated person in America.

The Appellate Court in Daytona is still waiting for a paper copy of the defense reply to be provided. At this moment, WESH is reporting that the court will hear the appeal prior to Casey's reporting date.

The appeal is written by Lisabeth Fryer, who argued the motion in court on the 6th. It is very long and has many legal references. There is a great deal of bashing for Judge Stan Strickland. It is a longer version of what I posted about that hearing. In addition, she criticized Judge Perry.

...the trial court engages in three pages of of moralizing about the responsibility of the defense counsel in candor to the tribunal, as if somehow this entire 'mess' was the responsibility of the defense, rather than a vindictive act by a glaringly biased judge... For the record, this was not a case in which the defense was in possession of information that neither the court, nor the State of Florida lacked. Instead, defense counsel only learned of the probation informally, whereas the State of Florida received formal notice of the commencement of probation... Further, the former disqualified judge actually signed the original order which established probation while the Defendant was awaiting trial on a different set of charges. That the court feels it necessary to chastise the defense (and the defense alone -- by name) for not bringing this matter to the court's attention is, at best, misplaced.

Right now, I'm waiting to see if Frank George files a response to this motion, once it is officially filed.

Keep tuned for the latest turn in this twisted case!

Casey Anthony Probation Hearing

To quote Judge Belvin Perry, "This is a mess." Jose Baez, Frank George, and Lizabeth Fryer duked it out during the hearing this morning's hearing.

Baez started with a Ms. Finnigan the Florida Department of Corrections Probation Supervisor.

She received Casey Anthony case January 25, 2010. It was was entered in data base and assigned to a probation officer. On January 26, the intake supervisor received the case and which indicated that Ms. Anthony was sentenced to one year probation. The supervisor noted she was in jail, awaiting trial on another case. Her case was assigned to an officer who located Casey in the jail, Natalie Lewis went to the jail to instruct Casey on the terms of her probation.

She didn't recall if it was publicized in the news. She completed an intake packet. There was a special condition, that she have no contact with the victim, Amy Huizenga.

They monitored the case and checked each month that she was in jail. They checked her records for any problems in the jail because inmates can get arrested for crimes in the jail. During that time, Casey did not commit any other crimes in jail and there were no problems that prevented her release from probation.

Ms. Finnigan went on to say that any time a case is in jail, she decides if the case should be tolled (delayed) or not. Since Casey had another case, she decided not to toll it. She based her decision on the Department of Probation guidelines. She's been in that position for 28 years.

Usually, probation is not given on an indefinite basis. There is no provision in the policy for probation to be served "someday".

Ms. Finnigan stated that Casey was treated as any other probationer.

Baez then went on to mention the media coverage being a problem if she were to serve probation. Baez asked what precautions would they take to see she was treated like any other probationer.

Ms. Finnigan didn't know how to answer that question. She said that it would be possible she would have to and would be concerned for the safety of her probation officers as well, she is ALWAYS concerned about the safty of her people. She pointed out it would be a unique challenge.

Baez pointed out that Casey made restitution. The cost of supervision was waived by the department since she was in custody, not by Judge Strickland.

January 24, 2011, Casey was dismissed from probation and they sent her a form letter. A letter was also sent to the victim, Amy Huizenga. She also said that if Casey had written a letter of apology, it would have violated her probation.

Frank George then spoke for the state. He asked what the purpose of probation was. Ms. Finnigan to protect the community, as it is a community-based service. It is not intended to watch people in custody.

Baez objected to George's next question. Judge Perry allowed him to ask it even though Baez had a point. Ms. Finnigan indicated that the purpose is to supervise those already released from custody and assist them into reentry to a law-abiding life style. It's purpose is to help them assimilate back into the community.

George then asked if it is not a normal practice to supervise a probationer while in custody?

Ms. Finnigan indicated that it happens on occasion when there are subsequent dockets. They could have additional cases and be on probation for the first one.

George then asked it it was a requirement of probation to report every 30 days? Yes Was it a normal condition to pay the cost of supervision? Yes (We know Casey did neither.)

According to Ms. Finnigan, after Feb. 2, 2010, nobody went out to the jail to supervisor her. They merely checked to see if she was still incarcerated.

George then asked if probation could begin at an unspecific time? The witnesses indicated that it was true, especially because the release date from prison can change. George also got her to agree that the words "upon release" have meaning. Those cases resolve themselves at different points in time. It's not so confusing or spectulative that you wouldn't know when probation would begin. While the last question confused Ms. Finnigan a bit, she did indicate that there is a mechanism for them to know if probationer has reported within 30 days of release.

George also asked her if parolees are seen outside of their monthly reporting dates. Finnigan stated that parolees are classified as maximum, medium, or minimum and that decides how often their parole officer sees them in the field.

Costs was waived because Casey was incarcerated. There would be no way for her to violate terms of probation unless she attacked someone or committed some sort of crime in jail. Or contacted the victim.

Baez then brought out that at time of probation, she wasn't under sentence, but she was under possibility of violation by her office.

Judge Perry then asked about the issue of tolling. Did she ever contact Judge Strickland about that? She said she hadn't. He also asked her if she was familiar with a number of cases (Jones (2007) Bradley (1998), Savage, (?). Ms. Finnigan said that she was only familiar with Savage.

With the conclusion of testimony by the witness, Lisabeth Fryer made a number of arguments to the judge. She spoke as fast as usual, but managed to get the gist of her arguments. She mentioned the Judicial Cannon 3B2, a direct slap at Judge Strickland.

(2) A judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence in it. A judge shall not be swayed by partisan interests, public clamor, or fear of criticism.

Fryer continued by saying the issue is moot on several grounds. First was that the issue came from previously disqualified judge. (I would tend to disagree with that. Judge Strickland was the judge who accepted the plea deal and did the sentencing in question. He did NOT recuse himself from the fraud case.)

She also cited lack of jurisdiction because the court loses jurisdiction 30 days after the decision.

The sua sponte decision was written by a disqualified judge. His oral order was not followed up in writing with a motion concerning the issue.

The State Attorney unofficially stated she had served her time.

Ms. Fryer then went on to cite case law at a rapid pace and I missed a lot of her references. Such items as the 1ssue of double jeopardy (most of which dealt with erroneous jail sentences). separation of powers, and so on. One remarkable comment was that, "The disqualified judge's displeasure is not a problem for the judiciary." Another issue was that The Department of Probation did consider if it could be tolled and decided it did not.

Fryer went on by stating that Casey's acquittal could not affect her sentencing. There was no previous attempt by the State to challenge the decision. Judge Strickland was in the media and is vindictive. Casey was not serving a sentence and there was no certainty to when she would be released. It would be inappropriate to toll based on DOC policies.

Finally, Judge Perry asked if she reviewed the sentencing transcript? Fryer said she didn't, but she saw the video.

Perry handed out transcripts of the hearing to everyone and referred to page 5 of transcript, lines 16-23. He pointed out that long before he was recused, Strickland reserved decision. Mr. Baez felt strongly that Casey would be acquitted and Judge Strickland said he would withhold, follow by one year probation when released.

Perry asked her what obligation, if any, would he or she have once he or she knew that the written pronouncement differs from the oral pronouncement, what responsibility does he or she have to inform the court? What obligation does the defense have to notify the court? Can a judge, on his own volition, correct a scriveners error to give the sentence that he announced in open court which no one appealed for whatever reason?

Perry went on to the issue of double jeopardy (Brown v State) and pointed out to Ms. Fryer that a probation order is NOT a sentence. A sentence can only been given with the adjudication of guilt.

Perry then stressed this is not a cut and dried situation. Casey was not serving a sentence. She was given time served. He also noted that when people are erroneously placed on probation while being incarcerated they really can't function on probation. (All Casey had to do was not attack anybody or contact Amy. That's not real-world probation.)

Perry then indicated that the judge's oral pronouncement was not followed. They knew she would complete one year upon release.

Ms. Fryer said that the defense WAS aware of the situation, but it wasn't their burden. It was up to the State to prove it. (Notice, she never answered the earlier question about the defense's responsibility to report errors to the court, considering they are all Officers of the Court.)

Then, Ms. Fryer blasted Judge Strickland's bias and his recent appearance in the media.

Judge Perry disagreed. Strickland imposed sentence and probation BEFORE that all came up. He also asked if there is a time limitation to correct the scrivener's issue?

Fryer avoided answering that question as well and simply indicated that Strickland no longer had jurisdiction over that case. She then rambled on that Casey hadn't violated probation, she had completed probation, and so on and so on ending with the statement that Strickland made a correction that she serve a second period of probation.

Perry again asked the question that, as an Officer of the Court, doesn't counsel have the responsibility to report errors? Fryer again threw the responsibility back to the State. He then asked if the State even knew she was serving probation. Then, he went back to the oral order in court by Judge Strickland. "It's a mess, go home Ms. Frye!"

Perry said that her strongest point is that of jurisdiction and the ability to amend the scrivener's error. Ms. Fryer stated, "This is done, this is over." Perry kept saying that probation is not a sentence! She was given time served and probation. Perry again pointed out it is NOT a sentence. (Yes, we were listening to them repeat themselves by this point.)

Judge Perry then opined that it is a legal maze

Frank George then spoke. Here is the short version of the points he made:

It's bad public policy to allow people to serve probation in jail. This supervision was in name only. She was in PC, her only obligation was not to attack anybody or escape.

Another jurisdiction says she has successfully served probation.

They discussed time frame for correcting a scrivener's error. Judge Perry brought up the case(Drumright v Fl)

Gave more legal citations.

Judge Strickland was merely correcting a scrivener's error.

Oral pronouncements trump written.

George ended by saying they would leave the decision to the court.

Perry then asked George when the State of Florida learn the written pronouncement was different from the oral pronouncement. When did they learn she had been placed on probation?

George said he learned of it when Judge Strickland corrected the error. When that case was resolved, he received no documentation about the probation.

Perry then asked his position on administrative probation?

George said that he had none and mentioned that there may not even be a statutory provision for administrative probation.

Judge Perry said that he didn't know.

Ms. Fryer said they have wide latitude and that administrative probation was the only practical solution. She went on to state that they were back to Casey having to serve probation TWICE!

I believe Judge Perry pointed out that time waiting in detention was release, she was not serving a sentence. (Actually she was, retroactively.)

Ms. Fryer brought up that if Casey were to have to serve probation, if there would be an opportunity to discuss the difficulties in dealing with her "unique" situation. Perry agreed.

At that point, the hearing was finished. Judge Perry indicated he could find no similar situation in Florida law and would have to do a nationwide search.

According to InSession, we shouldn't expect a decision from Judge Perry until late next week. He is taking over Judge Adams docket for the present and has to deal with his cases.

Stay tuned to T&T for any developments on this situation!

Watch the hearing:

Part 1 Part 2 Part 3

Casey Anthony Status Hearing: February 4, 2010 - Part 2

I'm back and refreshed and ready to continue. Last time, I ended with the discussion of the new deadlines for the expert reports which all (with the exception of Dr. Spitz) fall into line to preclude Mr. Baez from having his "unique opportunity" in Chicago. Speculation is rampant as to whether or not he will actually attend the AAFS annual conference. Personally, I don't really care if he goes. It won't help his case in any way, but he has put up "his own money" to attend.

Just as this discussion ended, Jeff Ashton brought up the DNA results from the NMS lab which were due by January 14. He had been informed by counsel that it wasn't completed yet, but wanted to know what Judge Perry had to say in light of the fact that there hadn't been a motion for an extension.

Judge Perry then questioned Jose Baez about this. After a bit of hemming and hawing, he told the judge that the lab would not be "touching" the items until the court had given the order. Once the court order was given, the items were sent to the lab. (The judge had ruled on this at the hearing on November 29, allowing the defense a total of 45 days to have the results. ) He also offered to file a motion for an extension for the deadline if that is what the court wanted.

Judge Perry then asked: "When was the materials transmitted to the DNA laboratory?"

Baez turned around to confer with Michelle Medina to find out the date.

After a fairly substantial pause, Baez addressed Judge Perry and said, "While that's being researched, Judge, can, are there any other points that we can address while that is being researched? We'll get back to it."

According to Baez & Co., this case is different (although I would beg to disagree, since there are so many cases out there of mothers who are accused of murdering their children). Isn't there anyone at the Baez Law Firm assigned to keep an accurate flow chart on the case? It can even be multi-color-coded to indicate outstanding vs. completed actions. It could contain a "to do" list multi-color-coded as to importance? Mr. Baez needs to have someone to help him prepare for these hearings, badly.

Judge Perry moved on the penalty phase witnesses and asked Jeff Ashton how that was coming along.

Ashton said that they had received the list from the defense and that the State planned to get those done in April. Ann Finnell had indicated that she would provide the State with a report from the psychologist they were using. He said this witness would be deposed but that he had no intention of deposing every witness on the list, since he already knows many of them. As to what depositions will be done, Ashton indicated that he and Ms. Finnell were having no problem coordinating and cooperating. (Take that, Mr. Baez!)

Judge Perry then brought up the anticipated Frye Hearings and the length of time they would take.

Ashton replied that there were a "multiple of motions filed on the different pieces of information". The State needs to have an agreement on what material is and isn't subject to Frye Hearing. According to the defense motions, they seem to imply that everything (assuming scientific information) is in need of a hearing.

As to the amount of time, he would defer to the defense because they are the ones who will have to make a showing that the scientific evidence is new and untested. Ashton also stated that he thought that most of the material would simply be a matter of opinion and not in need of a Frye Hearing. He also indicated that the motions were pretty much "boilerplate" and not "terribly specific".

The most significant expert who will be subject to Frye will be Dr. Vass and he will be in Tampa March 21-23. He suggested March 24 and 25 as possible hearing dates for the hearing. In addition, this would save the state money since they would not have the expense of flying him in.

Baez replied that the time frame seemed appropriate to him. He did disagree with Ashton over their agreement. He believed that the defense had fully complied with in that they had told him what they would be challenging. He also insinuated that Mr. Ashton may have "misunderstood it"!

I sometimes wonder if the defense team has ever bothered to Google Jeff Ashton's name. I also sometimes wonder if they fully understand the man they are dealing with on the scientific issues in the case.

On October 08, 2010. an article in the Orlando Sentinel had this to say about Mr. Ashton:

In a case now brimming with legal brainpower, the prosecution may have an interesting advantage here: Jeff Ashton. The veteran assistant state attorney helped successfully get DNA findings introduced in a 1987 Orange County rape case.

It was the first time that evidence was ever presented in a U.S. courtroom. Introducing the evidence here all those years ago brought national media attention and, ultimately, broad awareness of a science now used to prove guilt and also exonerate those wrongly accused. (Bold mine)

Baez also indicated that they had not yet responded to their motions. He went on to discuss Judge Strickland's prior ruling; that if they had any case law that they must provide any case law two weeks in advance if they don't file a brief. Baez even said that Ashton wants reports but doesn't want to reply to any of his motions. (Does that make any sense, I'm not seeing it.) Baez then said, "we do the job right, we file responses to briefs, and that they be required to respond to our motions."

Jeff Ashton then pointed out that he will reply to all the defense motions once he has received all the discovery (reports). "I cannot respond to a motion that the discovery is still pending." (Now, THAT makes sense to me.) He again returned to the vagueness of the defense motions as to precisely what the Fry Hearing will challenge and would like to come to an agreement with the defense. He had thought that they had an agreement, however the motions themselves were too vague and "inspecific" for him to know what the defense was challenging. He wanted the defense to put it in writing again and have a stipulation to that.

Judge Perry then took the lead and also schooled Mr. Baez on the sort of information required a Frye hearing:

Mr. Baez, what things you gonna challenge that are not generally accepted in the scientific community or do not come within the ambient of the Florida Supreme Court value case dealing with pure opinion testimony?

Baez responded that "the issue we are really at odds with is that of the Oak Ridge National Laboratories. I told Mr. Ashton, and I will again, that I represented to the Court, that we're not going to question the validity of the gas chromatograph, or of course LIVS, the Laser Induced... (Baez falters here as he tries to recall the rest and I can't make out the multiple voices that finish that part.) Those two instruments as to their ability and to their findings. Now, as to the interpretations of their findings and how they're applied, and how they're being applied, THAT is being challenged. (Pause) You can't get a vacuum cleaner and say that this is a forensic instrument. (Bold mine)

Gee, I didn't know that they used vacuum cleaners at Oak Ridge to do scientific analysis! I could imagine a scientific version of a vacuum cleaner, though. In fact, I've seen such scientific instruments used in various programs on Forensic Files!

Jeff Ashton got up and said to Judge Perry, "As you can understand, from counsel's, from what counsel just said, I'm not completely secure in the knowledge that, that... the difficulty goes... It needs to be in writing, judge.

Baez disagreed with that!

At which point Judge Perry interrupted both of them to tell them 23rd, 24th, and 25th (of March) he was scheduling scheduling the Frye hearings. By that point, the defense has to inform the Court what will be challenged in the hearings. "It will be incumbent on you to reach the legal threshold, then it will shift to the State to come in and do what they're supposed to do."

Perry also made this interesting statement. He is so way ahead of the learning curve on this case. "Memos are nice, folks, but the one thing I think you should know about me by now, is that not only do you, but I read your own case law, I do my own research." He also told them he has people who do the research for him, but he finds cases they don't find!

Perry then brought up the Heart Sticker motion and the Stain Motion and asked if the State had a response for that. Jeff Ashton said he did, but wanted to reply to all the forensic motions at the same time. That seemed just fine with the judge.

The judge then went back to the topic of the DNA testing. He mentioned that in November, he had filed an amended order which clarified the DNA issue. He wanted to know what has happened with this evidence between then and January.

Baez indicated that Ms. Medina had just walked out of the courtroom to check on the issue. (My goodness, a lot of time had passed since he told the court she would look into it!)

Baez said that although it was sorted out in November, he didn't think the Order had come out until much later. He also said he hadn't come to court prepared to discuss the issue.

There was a long pause as the judge gazed at his computer and told Baez that there was an Order on November 18 clarifying the DNA issue.

It's obvious the defense team has their microphone turned off. No matter how much I've listened, it's been almost impossible to clearly hear what Mr. Baez or Mr. Mason say when standing at their table. Baez does say something about discussions or something that held it up.

The judge then read from the order. (The only site where it is posted is not available at this time.) It authorized payment to the lab for the testing and the judge reads a good part of it aloud to the attorneys.

Baez then rose to say that as far as the lab is concerned, he can give the Court no information about the status of the testing. Judge Perry reinforces the situation, "So we have no idea what the status is of the DNA testing."

Baez did indicate he'd spoken to them recently and the testing was still not done and would let him know when it was. He then whined that he doesn't have the FBI at his disposal. (It would be rather inconvenient if he did! He's going to challenge FBI testing at trial.) He can't order priority testing and has to literally stand in line for his turn to have his evidence tested. (Poor Jose Baez, poor defense team)

Judge Perry then ordered Baez to have a written status update to him by February 10th at 12:00 noon. The report must contain the status of the testing, a date by when they will be finished with the , and when they will have a written report done. (That's this Thursday!)
Baez then asked the judge if he could have a report from the State as to when they would have all their reports done. There was the entomological evidence Jeff Ashton had given to Neil Haskell recently after they had sent it to someone else.

Jeff Ashton told the judge that they have traditionally passed along reports to the defense five to seven days after receiving it. He said Haskell's report should be done within a week and then asked the judge wanted to set a date for that, it would be fine with him.

Judge Perry set a date of February 11, at 4:00 PM, exactly one week after this hearing.

Linda Drane Burdick then spoke to the remainder of the issues. She indicated that they have "a continuing obligation to release discovery to the defense as we receive it. As a result of publicity, the case has received e-mails from individuals, we also get some follow-up based on a lot of the Texas Equusearch investigation that was done recently. I am nearly completed with depositions of witnesses that have been provided to me. We will follow up on the information provided by some of those witnesses. If we receive rebuttal information, if we do additional research that leads us to rebuttal information, I will provide that as soon as I have it. If we get another report of any sort, Mr. Baez knows, that of Ms. Anthony's diary was sent to the FBI, that there were recent reports on that. There is some follow-up based on those reports that were completed by the Orange County Sheriff's Office within the past month or so, that we are trying to nail some things down, so, if the question is, are we going to continue to do our job, the answer is yes."

Jose Baez' immediate question after this was if the trial was going to be delayed by some of the recent information revealed. He then whined that the State had the diary from 2008 (not true, Brad Conway was in possession of it for quite a while). Baez categorized the diary as being full of speculation and he will file a motion on it. He complained that with all the new discovery, they would have to investigate it and more yadda, yadda, yadda.

When Judge Perry asked Baez if he had a copy of the diary, Baez answered in the affirmative. Then, the judge suggested he could file a motion Baez agreed with it, telling the judge that he "didn't like it at all". As usual, Judge Perry admonished him that if he didn't like it, file a motion on it.

Baez then approached the podium and went on about the diary. It was from 2003, maybe 2004, it's full of speculation, and even considered that the line "I'm pleased with my decision" might mean that Casey was happy she'd eaten chocolate!

The judge then schooled Baez as to the two ways he could handle the diary: file a motion in limine or object at the time of the trial! Perry even suggested two things Baez could say in his objection... "irrelevant" or "immaterial". When Baez said that the discovery was after the deadline, Judge Perry told him he could file a motion to exclude. (We're all getting Law School 101 under our belts just listening to Judge Perry advise Mr. Baez. Maybe we should get certificates of attendance.)

Next, Judge Perry told the attorneys to look at their schedules for May 4. It is the day by which the judge will hear any objections to his choice of venue for seating the jury. He will more than likely tell them the venue on May 2. He said he would probably give them so little time because he will be giving them the demographic information about the area.

He also said he'd been doing research on cases that were overturned because of change of venue and he hasn't found one yet.

Jose Baez objected to the time period allowed by the judge for the objection. He also, in my most humble opinion, insulted the judge and his ability to pick an appropriate change of venue. I cringed listening to this both times. It was far more cringe-worthy than the slave wages comment. I couldn't stand to transcribe it all, but here's some of what Baez said to the Chief Judge of Orange-Osceola!

When the court chooses another jurisdiction to try the case, I do not believe, it's our position that there's an assumption made that that jurisdiction, we can, in fact, find a fair and impartial jury from that specific jurisdiction. I don't necessarily think that that might be the case, though. In researching these issues, what I have noticed, and this is with all due respect to Your Honor, that judges appear to, there are many judges that take the approach, "I'm going to treat this case like any other case. But in fact it isn't. This case is different and because of the differences, we have to anticipate, of course, what types of problems may lay ahead. The two days that the court has asked, or, or, contemplating on doing, puts us in the position where we really can't, other than stand and say, "I object", we can't give the court any type of empirical data that may allow the court to make a fair decision based on enough research or enough of an opportunity. And bear in mind, I, I know, I know, I know where you're going with this, but nevertheless, I think that that, I think that we want to have the opportunity to determine, when we do this the first time, that it is the last time and that there are no issues with the venue and in order to do that, we just can't come up and say, "well, Judge, um, Okeechobee Florida isn't the place for this case", cause your next question is going to be, "why?" And I can't give you the answer of why.

At this point, Judge Perry mentioned that Okeechobee doesn't have the same demographics. Judge Perry pointedly made the comment that neither the defense nor the State have any say as to change of venue.

Baez continued on, nevertheless, to ask for 30 days notice of the location from which a jury will be selected.

I have to say, Judge Perry took his "education" with a little smile on his face. We all know that he is probably close to chosing a venue which will be similar in demographic nature to Orlando. He's done this more times than Baez has had a trial with a change of venue... which is a grand total of ONE. Baez ignored the question and kept on going.

At this time, Perry started to have some fun with Baez and asks him if he wants to pick a jury from Orange County!

Baez responded with a resounding "NO" and went on to point out that the defense will not have the opportunity to present information so the judge could make an "educated" decision. He wants his 30 days to do research to bring to the judge.

Baez already did research in 2009 when he filed his Motion For Change Of Venue for the fraud case. I can't locate the link, but there were piles and piles of information from a study he had apparently commissioned.

Perry then made the point that The Appellate Court would look at the questions the jurors were asked and the answers they gave. He also indicated that the jurors need not be deaf, dumb, or uninformed to serve on a jury. What matters is that they are able to come to the jury without an opinion as to guilt or innocence. They have to be able to lay aside what they have heard and make their judgments based on the facts presented at trial.

Judge Perry then made Baez aware that he knew of Baez prior research. He told Baez he had narrowed his search down to Miami-Dade and Ft. Lauderdale-Broward County. He continued to list the things about Baez's search. He mentioned pre-trial publicity, press/news coverage, and so on.

The judge asked if there were any places he felt the case should not be tried. Baez merely said that his opinions were laid out in his motion.

After making nicey-nice with the judge for a sentence or two, Baez then pulled the Cheney Mason routine for the second time: that somewhere down the road, the Appellate Court just might overturn the case based on change of venue.

Judge Perry then brought up the case of Danny Rolling, aka "The Gainsville Ripper." Baez said he knew of the case. The judge then asked if he knew that Rolling confessed to his crimes but the penalty phase of the trial was held in Gainsville. From what I've read, there was an appeal based on lack of change of venue, but it failed and Rolling was executed.

At this point, Baez continues to argue his points and how law evolves and yadda, yadda, "unique situation", yadda. (He should have known the judge wasn't buying his arguments, but he went on and on.)

Judge Perry then ended our misery at having to listen to any more of Mr. Baez arguments by stating that the most difficult part of choosing a jury would be the length of the trial itself which could go six to eight weeks. That is a long time for a jury to be sequestered. He also told Baez that he would be surprised at the number of citizens who don't watch the news or read the newspapers and no very little, if anything about the case. He also said that "we" continue to monitor several areas of the state to monitor the coverage.

Finally, we arrived at the end of the hearing. For the third time, the judge asked Mr. Baez if he had the DNA information.

The evidence was submitted by the OCSO on December 3, 2010. The defense had been given a minimum of ten weeks for the testing to be done. That is all the defense knows as of now.

(I counted ten weeks and it comes out to February 11,2010. I have to wonder if Baez ever tried to get his tests expedited due to his January 14, court-imposed deadline?)

Then, Judge Perry did something very unusual. He asked Baez for the phone number of the DNA lab's director. He also wanted the submission number and a copy of the submission letter, so he could call the lab himself!

In the Order Memorializing the Status Hearing, I read that the deadline for the DNA testing is now March 23 by noon.

It has become more obvious than ever that Judge Perry is well aware of the games that the defense is playing. He is aware of the research Baez did, he is aware of the Notice of Unavailability, he knows that Baez is being investigated again by the Florida Bar. He has sanctioned Baez for missing deadlines. He has provided him with a wealth of legal education. Let's hope someone tells this to Mr. Baez!

If you want to watch the hearing:

Part 1 Part 2 Part 3

Casey Anthony's Lawyers: Uncomfortable Day In Court

Casey Anthony made her first appearance in court yesterday for the first time in months. As I watched the hearing, I noticed that she was very subdued and did not seem in the least pleased with the proceedings. While there is no way to accurately tell what has caused her to stop primping and never sport any expression other than one of unhappiness, I'm sure she wasn't pleased at all by the motions hearing or the verbal gymnastics of her attorneys.

Casey's parents were also in court and presented a somewhat united front, if only in their increasingly haggard appearances. Again, we can only take a guess as to what information about the case they may have to cause such obvious emotional devastation.

The hearing opened with Judge Perry addressing the defense Motion for Reconsideration. Jose Baez was up first to speak in support of his motion. He also asked Judge Belvin Perry to include the letters Casey received in the jail in the motion. He explained that he had earlier spoken to Tamara Gappen, the lawyer for the Orange County Jail and had mentioned the letters to her. There is no need to go into all of Baez' arguments, we've heard them all before in his other attempts to have various and sundry records sealed from public view.

He mentioned that nobody needs to know how many packages of Skittles Casey orders (at least he didn't mention bras this time) and her personal business in general. Her Constitutional rights as a person being detained in the jail awaiting her murder trial outweigh the public's Constitutional right to know about it all. He brought up all the pre-trial publicity the case had garnered and how the light of media scrutiny wasn't fair to her case.

Judge Perry then brought up the numerous press conferences that had been held by members of the defense team (too bad he didn't mention all of their appearances in the national media to opine on the case and bad-mouth LE and the State). Baez replied that his press conferences dealt with the case, never with Casey's private business. What Baez forgot to consider in his reply was the amount of publicity and media attention he and the ever-changing defense team brought upon itself. (I won't even start to talk about the media attention drawn to the case by the Anthony family!)

Orange County Corrections attorney,Tammy Gappen was next to speak to the motion. She pointed out that the jail was not a part of the case against Casey Anthony, but that they had been invited to speak to the motion. She quoted Ch. 119 and other laws as she has done before. She also indicated that the County needs Court to tell them what to do in light of the Bent decision since the Court had previously denied all previous requests to seal jail visitation logs and Bent did not mention logs. She also objected to the issue of mail as it had not been not presented prior to this hearing. Aside from previous denials by Judge Perry, Gappen stated that the Bent decision holds that recordings of inmate calls are not public record because they are not part of the jail business as are call logs, visitor logs, and commissary logs. She said it was VERY NARROW DECISION which only applies only to visitor calls. (The one thing not mentioned in Baez' motion.)

Attorney Gregg Thomas spoke on behalf of the Sentinel. He gave the same arguments he gave in his original motion which I discussed in depth here. The two key items he brought up were that the Bent decision was not yet final and there were appeals pending in the case and that the decision only addressed private family calls. The only calls that could be made public under this ruling, were it final, would be those which contained inculpatory information such as a confession or security issues. (Gee, Casey could chit-chat with her family and friends, should the ruling ever become final!)

I had to go back and listen to the hearing twice more to figure out what Jose Baez was saying in his reply. The only note I had about it was, "I'm NOT getting what he's saying!". He started by saying that he was "shocked" that Ms. Gappen had made her reply considering "she had no dog in this fight." Upon re-listening, I realized that Ms. Gappen had said that she was here NOT because of this particular case, but because the jail needed clarification concerning the Bent issue. It may not be for Casey, but her dog in the fight is the Orange County Jail's responsibilities.

I also noticed that Baez, in his verbally twisted way, somehow made the link between phone calls and phone logs, as if they were the same thing. Once phone logs was made part of his issue, he then included ALL logs. He wanted the judge to take the one narrow position expressed and spread it widely across all sorts of records.

In the end, Judge Perry denied the motion in very strong terms, by saying, "In balancing the interests..., courts generally take a narrow construction and does not extend beyond that opinion concerning personal phone conversations." He again cited decisions concerning the Constitution of the State of Florida and Florida Statute 119. (We've heard those words before!)
There was a bit of commotion at the defense table and I notice Ann Finnell clearly mouthing the words "phone calls" to Baez. Baez then addressed the judge, asking for clarification as to whether the decision applied to "phone logs, phone calls, visitation logs.... The Judge affirmed that he had denied the motion and the previous ruling still applied. His decision was also based on the premise that the Bent decision were in effect. End of story.

Next, Judge Perry called for motions concerning the JAC. First up was Casey's new death penalty lawyer, Ann Finnell. The first words out of her mouth told me that what I had thought concerning her motion were true.

Ms. Finnell had been sandbagged by the other members of the defense team, including her long-time friend, Cheney Mason. She had apparently been told that the budget for the guilt portion of the trial had been previously worked out and that she was here to obtain funds to do her job in the penalty phase.

WRONG! At the May 6 hearing, there was no distinction made as to what portion of the trial for which the hours were allocated, with the exception of the hours granted to Jeanene Barrett, the mitigation specialist from out of state who joined the team along with Andrea Lyon, the preceding death penalty attorney.

Judge Perry said that he thought they had already done this.

Finnell, who practices in the Jacksonville area said that she'd been asked to prepare penalty phase budgets in other trials. As we learned in the previous JAC hearing, Judge Perry has the practice of giving out hours and asking the attorneys to return with detailed records as to how the money was spent prior to granting more funds. He tends to give money for the development of the case and deals with trial expenses when they arise.

Judge Perry said that he'd already granted the funds in his previous order dealing with trial preparation. Jose Baez had already argued the motion and was given the mitigation expert of their choice and 384 hours for her work were approved. The judge asked if they had used them all up. Finnell said that they hadn't, that Ms. Barrett had 1/3 - 1/2 of her hours left. The judge had also assumed that the mitigation expert would be doing the investigation portion as well.

Finnell stated that she was estimating the maximum hours she might need to complete the job. She mentioned that there was quite a bit of work still left to do. There were a large number of potential mitigation witnesses that needed to be talked to. As usual, Judge Perry wanted to know how many witnesses had been talked to and how many people needed to be talked to. When the hours are used up, and she comes back and gives a detailed explanation of how they were used, he could give them more.

Ms. Finnell agreed with the judge and mentioned that she would have to get more detailed information from Ms. Barrett. She then brought up the hours she needed for an in-state investigator. Judge mentioned the 300 hours of in-state investigators already given to the defense.

************************************

I'm putting little stars here because at this point, Baez, promptly hijacked Ms. Finnell's motion and started discussing the amount of PI time that he had already used up. Remember, he was also asking for 300 more hours for an in-state PI.!

This was quite a large digression which totally interrupted Finnell's motion! If you only listen to one portion of the hearing, this is the one to listen to at about 10:00.

Judge Perry indicated that the in-state PI was given 300 hours. Baez told the judge that those hours were completely exhausted and in his motion, he is asking for 300 additional hours.

Judge Perry then went into his now familiar explanation that to spend taxpayers funds, Mr. Baez will have to do a lot of explaining how he spent the, even if under seal so as to not to make public or let the State know his defense strategy.

At this point, Baez gave an extremely generalized idea of what types of work has been done. (All I could think at this point was that Mr. Baez needs a person to keep track of all the hours and expenses and what they were used for. This judge will not except vagueness when it comes to TAXPAYER Money!)

Baez brought up the dreaded Texas Equusearch documents and said that they were just scratching the surface of that, a lot of "them" don't want to get involved. (Can anyone wonder why?)

Then, the words I have been waiting for so long to hear from Judge Belvin Perry came out "TAXPAYERS DO NOT FUND FISHING EXPEDITIONS!"

Baez then made the usual complaint about access to records. I'll spare you the ugly details.

Judge Perry stopped the whining by asking, "what problems have you had when THIS COURT, several weeks ago... I supplied a special master... there are some forms on my desk now, submitted under seal..." (Paraphrased)

Baez replied by saying that the defense was trying to conduct a task with handcuffs on, TES had the worst kept records on the face of this earth, being closely monitored, and so on and so on...

The Judge took some umbrage and that, telling Baez that he gave them every opportunity and he had no complaints. He had made himself available by phone and NEVER got a call asking him to resolve and disputes. (I again recommend you listen to this.)

(Had I been there, I might have said it a little differently! "Mr. Baez, I gave you everything you asked for and you're still whining to me? Do you think Texas Equusearch's main function is to keep perfect records so you can call every searcher and look up their history and send out investigators to hassle them and make them say things they don't believe to be true? Those people gave their time and hearts to finding that little girl. Her name is Caylee and that was what they were there for!)

To make a long story a bit shorter, Perry indicated that he had understood the reason the defense wanted the records was that they didn't trust TES to tell them who had searched Suburban Drive and wanted to see which records showed a person had searched there. He then said that Baez is now telling him that he wanted a laundry list of names to make phone calls to them all and conduct his own investigation! Judge Perry then repeated, "If that's what you want to do, then that's a fishing expedition." Perry also told Baez that if he wanted to do it on his own, it was fine, but it wasn't something he could do with taxpayers money.

At this point, Cheney Mason got up and spoke to the issue. Referring to himself as a "significant taxpayer" he said he had "a dollar in this fight". Then, he misspoke when he said that TES had only identified 32 people who had searched Suburban. That is absolutely NOT true. When making the original order, Judge Stan Strickland allowed only those searchers who searched withing 200 yards of the site to be given to the defense. They would be the only ones to have any information about the ground conditions at the time.

He then goes on to say that they are only looking for people who searched the relevant site, about 17'5'' wide and smaller than the judge's bench. He said that people who searched "over here" weren't relevant at all! He says they are calling all these people so that they can eliminate those who searched Suburban on their own and didn't search that area! He also claimed that they were sending out investigators to talk to these people to eliminate them so they don't have to depose them. (I'm sorry, that STILL sounds like a fishing expedition.) Then, he makes the claim that they have found people who weren't on TES documents who searched that exact area and claim there were no remains there and that the area was dry! (I'm sorry, I do have a tendency to believe people like Tim Miller and the searchers who have already been deposed and haven't been Jeremy Lyonized.) In addition, Mason said that some of the people they have called don't want to cooperate with them or have been instructed not to speak to them. (Probably by friends who don't want to see them dragged into the case. I recall Tim Miller telling the searchers to simply tell the truth.) Mason also added that this is going to be a Federal issue quickly. And that's why we need the investigators.

Judge Perry said that what he explained was different from saying somebody is hiding records and that's what Mr. Baez was saying about TES. The Judge tells Mason that all he has to do is say that that is why he needs them (the PI hours) particularly.

************************************

At this point in the hearing, Ann Finnell takes the reins back and points out what SHE is asking for is different. Finnell goes through all the kinds of records, investigations, she needs and that she is going by the ABA rules. The judge tells her that he has to go by the rules of the Constitution and Laws of Florida.

The judge stated he wants to split investigative hours for guilt/innocence/possible penalty phase and also mentions that he had thought Mr. Mason had been brought in for penalty phase. Mason pretty much brushed that idea aside by saying that he didn't think there would be a penalty phase!

Finnell indicated it was her understanding that no investigative time has been used in the penalty phase. Judge Perry said he was LED to believe the mitigation person was going to do all the investigation. Finnell said that Barrett was from Chicago. Finnell stated that she want's someone local (Orlando, Ft. Meyers) for no more than 100 hours. The judge asked if she knows that she was asked for and that it would save money?

Judge Perry told her that he is not going to give her more money for Barrett and a local investigator. He told her to consult with the others and make a decision between someone local or Ms. Barrett.

Ms. Barrett wants to leave Barrett's hours the same and get 100 hours more for someone local to help her out with the bits and pieces.

Finnell then asked for a max of $7500 for the total cost of a mitigation psychologist. She mentioned that this would cover all expenses through trial. The judge then told her not to consider the expenses for the trial itself. At that point, Finnell asked for $2500. If she needs more, she will approach the judge about it. (She's on a rapid learning curve today.)

When asked for the $1000 for copying expenses, Judge Perry wanted to know if Ms. Barrett had already obtained copies of information. Finnell responds that she has, but has some ideas of her own. She said it would probably be substantially less than $1000, more likely $500.

Finnell skipped the next item as it deals with the actual penalty phase and moved on to the reimbursement for travel expenses. She explained her position after Judge Perry asked her opinion about the JAC rules concerning privately retained attorneys. She also said she would remain with the case even if she weren't reimbursed.

She then brought up expenses to travel to Warren, Ohio. When asked by the judge, she indicated that Casey lived there until about the age of 3. She stated she needs to interview potential witnesses about the family dynamics, for birth records, medical record, any childhood trauma. (I thought Jeneane Barrett had already been to Ohio.)

When asked by Judge Perry why she couldn't do this over the phone, Finnell replied that the had tried but had met with resistance. The judge then asked why she thought they will talk to her in person? Finnell stated that, based on her experience, it works better in person. She also said that she feels she is required to TRY based on ABA guidelines.

The Judge again reminded her that he is not bound by ABA guidelines and went on to mention all the laws and the Constitution he is bound by. He did say that if she were are able to demonstrate to him that these people will talk to you in person, he might approve it. Finnell then asked to ex-parte the court on that... (I guess we'll never get to know which Anthony friends, family, or work associates are unwilling to cooperate.)

JAC attorney Brad Bischoff then got a chance to speak. He stated that penalty phase funds may be premature at this time. He also asked for some clarification concerning the 100 hours of out-of-state PI time that is left. At that point, Judge Perry then told Finnell she has 100 hours for investigation in Ohio, and they do have investigators there.

Bischoff also stated the JAC had already disallowed attorney travel expenses before and hold the same position in this case.

He felt that the $2500 may be premature at this time. Judge Perry pointed out that "in capital cases you have to put the cart before the horse" and granted the $2500.

Copy costs... Judge asks Baez if he has any money left in copying costs? Baez said he didn't believe the judge gave him copying costs. Baez says he gave money for public records and rambles on a bit, he doesn't have an answer.

The judge, as patient as a second-grade teacher leads Jose Baez through a word problem. He gave him money to obtain public records and when we get public records we have them ____. (The correct answer is COPIED). Baez continues acting dazed and confused until the judge tells him he is playing WORD GAMES. (Clearly, the judge isn't pleased with that at all.)
Judge: Playing word gymnastics!

In the end Baez didn't know how much he had left and indicated he wants Finnell to have her own copying money.

Judge broke down and gave Finnell a starting amount of $500.

Judge Perry did put his foot down when it came to the issue of in-state investigator hours. He said that he has to have defense give accounting of hours already used. When asked, Baez told him all the hours were used up. Baez tried to save face a bit by saying that it wasn't just a TES issue and mentions all the State witnesses.

At that point, Perry insisted he get an accounting, he'll be around all next week, before he gives the defense more.

Perry, perhaps feeling a bit sorry for her predicament, gave Finnell 100 hours of her own, just what she asked for.

Oh! Baez just came up with his records! Surprise! Surprise! After a short trip up to the bench,
Baez gets another 60 hours! One thing is clear here. If Baez wants more time for PI services, he'd better show the judge some extremely detailed records. The judge also told Baez that if ne needs more PI time he can do a telephonic hearing

Perry doesn't award expense money for Finnell due to the privately retained attorney. (And I'm supposing trying to get expense money from the retained attorney would run into just as many difficulties as getting some money to make copies.)

Judge Perry then heard the Motion for Clarification. I never understood that one, but it seems that none of the issues were being disputed. The judge said that expenses for experts would be straightened out and paid at 9th Judicial Circuit rates.

Linda Kenney's Motion to withdraw was dealt with next. When asked if there were any objections, the only voice heard was that of Mr. Ashton who said he liked working with her. The motion was granted. I only wonder here if Casey Anthony understands just what losing this lawyer could mean to her case.

State: Extend time for depositions. The defense has no objections. (How could they?)

Linda Drane Burdick spoke to the motion and repeated a lot of what is in motion and discussed here in my previous article.

The judge asked a few questions about one of the witnesses who can't be located. Believe it was Travis Sanders, whose address was given as Northern California. When Drane Burdick asks if the defense knows what he is going to testify about, Baez pointed out that he's in a video!

Judge Perry grants her motion for a 30 day extension.

Perry then asks Ms. Finnell if she is aware that November 30 is the deadline for mitigation witnesses. Finnell stated that she is working on it and will do her best to meet the deadline. Perry informed her that she may be able to get an extention for mental mitigation, but Bennett has been on the case for a long time. It's obvious that Finnell and Barrett need to become very well acquainted very fast and Ms. Finnell will need to be brought up to speed on everything that has been done.

As the status portion of the hearing continues, Jeff Ashton is asked about expert witness depositions. He says the defense has 2 to go by extended deadline and that all people from the
Body Farm are done

The judge asked the defense if they are anticipation filing any Frye motions. Cheney Mason mumbled something about waiting on transcripts. Jeff Ashton pointed out to the judge that Jose
Baez had personally recorded them!

Judge Perry then told Mr. Baez that Mr. Mason said that he couldn't make Frye motions until he got transcripts (which need to be paid for) why couldn't he use audio?

Ashton, pointed out that the burden is on defense to prove scientific method is new and that some is new, some isn't.

Ms. Finnell made some suggestion about the transcription and then Judge Perry said he can get it done cheaper than "that" if Baez gives him the tape. He told Baez to give the audio to his clerk and the transcripts would be done.

Ashton helpfully told the Court that he doesn't have witnesses for Frye hearing to depose. (I'm wondering if the defense has any at this point.)

What I may not have reported earlier was that there was a brief discussion concerning the TES documents collected in Texas. Judge Perry brought up the topic again at this point in the hearing:

I'm going to summarize it here for the sake of brevity in an already to long entry!

Back in February, Mark NeJame filed a document with the court which explained how additional TES documents had been located in a search of Tim Miller's garage. (Hey TES is an all volunteer organization with one volunteer clerk in the office. It burns me up whenever I hear the defense and the Anthony family knock their efforts and record keeping. They sure aren't in this for the money, media exposure, and fame... and that includes the searchers as well.)

Jose Baez accused the prosecution of playing 3-card Monte with them and had denied the defense access to them. Linda Drane Burdick, for the first time in the 2+ years, lost it a little for the first time. She got up and carefully explained to the judge that these documents had been brought by Yuri Melich back to Orlando and booked in as evidence. The documents were copied and the copies returned to TES. She spent a day (of her summer vacation as I recall) going over the evidence lists with the defense team and it had been their choice NOT to ask for them.

After a little bit of discussion, Perry gave the defense two weeks to go take a look at them. Actually, I thing the defense should have checked out what NeJame had to say last February!

12. The above mentioned additional documents that were recently located are now placed with the other approximately 4,000 documents located at the undersigned counsel's office. The previously mentioned documents along with the recently located documents are available for review by the counsel for the Defendant and the State.

At this point in the hearing, Cheney Mason mumbled something about needing some "psychological" tests. The judge asked if he needed the results.

Linda Drane Burdick came to the rescue (again) and explained that FBI Special Agent Nick Savage had been depositioned yesterday. He did NOT administer the "tests". Rather, two other FBI agents utilized background sheets (which we can all observe in George and Cindy's videotaped interviews with the FBI). However, there had been discussion about the forms and Baez probably realized they existed.

Drane Burdick said that Baez and Mason DIDN'T find out about the forms yesterday. Yesterday, Baez asked if she had them. She said "no" the FBI Behavioral Analysis Unit uses them (to profile people) and doesn't provide copies.

Judge Perry simply told the defense to file a motion to compel, soon.

Drane Burdick then informed the judge that Mr. Mason wants to conduct depositions with 18 law enforcment in November. Three had previously been extended to Nov 18. She said that Mason told her that the court's order was uninforceable and they would do depos when they pleased (sanitized version).

As to the excess "searchers" ON Suburban as witnesses, Drane Burdick said that Mason said that there are 6 to 10 who MAY apply and it's been past 5 days and don't have the names.

Judge Perry, on hearing about the law enforcement depositions said, "Then I don't think they'll do any more depositions.".

For those folks who don't comply with deadlines, and if we have to take a deposition, we will have to take a deposition at the convenience of the court, not either side.

He said that he would be present in court to hear these depositions which would NOT occur during normal working hours.

"I will choose the time, place, and method"

Judge Perry close the long, drawn out, contentious session with some stern words to both parties about "disagreeing without being disagreeable".


Hearing
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

Casey Anthony Murder Trial: Defense Files Yet Another Objection To The Sunshine Laws

On August 30, the defense filed its 3rd Renewed Notice Of Standing Objection Of Abuse Of Florida Statute Chapter 119.01.

It should be noted that there is no time stamp on the document and it is stamped with notice that it was filed "in open court". That leads me to wonder whether it was filed before, during, or after the hearing. Since this objection was filed the same day as the status hearing, its contents reflect some of Jose Baez' complaints about discovery which Linda Drane Burdick fully explained to the Court during the hearing. I do believe that the defense was premature in filing this latest document!

Since the vast majority of the motion is identical to the other three that were filed recently, I'll note only the differences here. (The text is exact transcription of original document.)

6. On July 22, 2010, The State Attorney's office released supplemental discovery in this matter to both the Defense and to the Media, Having previously heard arguments on this issue, this Judge Stan Strickland denied the Defense's request to the release of discovery in this matter to the media at least until the Defense could be heard on relevant objections.

Since there is no date for this apparent decision by Judge Strickland, I can't go back and refer to it. In fact, I don't recall any decision by the judge on any motions made by the defense concerning this issue. What I do know is that the State Attorney's office has not disclosed any discovery to the media for quite a bit of time after giving it to the defense. The defense has always had time to look at the discovery and make objections.

7. In this Discovery dated July 22, 2010 the State released documents that either the State of Florida knew or should have known were in its possession since 2008 i.e. Letters to Casey Anthony, Dominic Casey Emails, Audio of Erica Gonzalez.

First of all, the letters were in the possession of the Department of Corrections. The original batch was released in discovery in early April. Those letters dated from the beginning of Casey's incarceration until March, 2010. At the hearing on Monday, Linda Drane Burdick said that the State received this latest batch in June. They had to be scanned and organized and sent to Baez. When Judge Perry asked how long it took, Drane-Burdick indicated that the scanning took a full week.

Ms. Drane Burdick also explained that the e-mails of Dominic Casey were not turned over directly from the private investigator. Rather, they were passed through a number of parties prior to being sent to her office. Again, they had to be organized and duplicated. Having read the whole thing myself, that was a long and tedious job. Again, just because the e-mails were written in 2008 and 2009, it does not mean that the State Attorney's office received them at the time.

Much the same applies to the audio of Erica Gonzalez. According to Drane Burdick, this bit of investigation did not occur until this year. This has been a huge investigation, and it is more than likely this interview was done after reviewing a lot of evidence and finding an interview missing. Her office saw that Ms. Gonzales was interviewed. In addition, the audio has yet to be released to the media!

Finally, we come to the accusations.

8. The State of Florida has filtered it's discovery over the last two years to feed the appetite of the local media and to keep the public interested in their prosecution. By withholding documents that it either has known or should have known were available to the Defense.

9. These actions whether intentional or not have a sinister effect on Miss Anthony's right to a fair trial.

All I can do here is quote from Judge Stan Strickland's Order in which he recused himself from the case.

At its core, defense counsel's motion accuses the undersigned of being a "self-aggrandizing media hound". Indeed,. The Irony is rich.

It is indeed rich irony that Baez accuses the State Attorney's office of feeding the media the discovery to keep up the public interest. Not one of the State Attorneys has appeared on TV, spoken to the press, or tried to turn themselves into super stars. Apparently, in Jose Baez' mind, he is the only person involved in this trial who is out for pure justice! Give me a break! His accusations are getting old. Just ask Mark NeJame.

Many thanks to Muzikman for providing this latest defense document!

Jose Baez and Cheney Mason ask Judge Perry to ENGAGE THE CLOAKING DEVICE!

UPDATE!

Today, August 25, Jose Baez and Cheney Mason filed two more "objections". One has to do with the visitor logs and one has to do with the release of financial information. Each comes with an example of how the Sunshine Laws are being abused by the Media.

Renewed Notice of Standing Objection of Abuse of Florida Statute Chapter 119.01

2nd Renewed Notice of Standing Objection of Abuse of Florida Statute Chapter 119.01

In the first notice of standing objection, the defense did not only object to the release of information by Corrections (the jail), but also information released by Law Enforcement and the State Attorneys office. The second and third notices add the Justice Administrative Commission.

We will be having a Status Conference next week on August 30, followed by a schedueling conference at 1:30 and 2:00 PM. It will be interesting to know if the judge addresses these at that time.

Here we go again!

Yesterday, Casey Anthony's defense team filed a Notice Of Standing Objection Of Abuse Of Florida Statute Chapter 119.01.

Chapter 119.01, the Sunshine Law which prevails in the State of Florida, has very few exceptions and the defense has tried time and time again to get a judge to seal documents in the Casey Anthony murder trial proceedings.

They've asked for her jail visitation videos, visitor's log, and any other jail-related document to be cloaked in secrecy. Judge Stan Strickland and Judge Belvin Perry have pointed out time and time again that Chapter 119.01 is the Law of the Land there and there are few exceptions. They have also told the defense that they lack the power to rule on jail procedures. They have said over and over again that the Judiciary Branch cannot tell the Executive Branch what they should do. They have informed Casey's attorneys that they must abide by the laws as they exist.

Now, we have the defense boldly stating that

4. It has been and continues to be the Defenses (sic) position that the First Amendment rights of the media must give way to the constitutionally protected rights of the accused, especially when the State seeks the ultimate penalty of Death.

Compare this to the statement Jose Baez made November 28, 2008 when Judge Stan Strickland denied the State's gag order.

Citing U.S. Supreme Court precedent, Baez said the gag order wasn't necessary. "It's a whole lot of hot air and not a whole lot of law," he said, adding "when push comes to shove, I'm going to err on the First Amendment every time." (bold mine)

I guess he's changed his mind now. He states more than once, that the media is abusing the Sunshine laws because

7. The only purpose of this type of coverage is to embarrass, harass and humiliate the accused and poison the potential jury pool.

I suppose that, having prevailed in the gag order issue, the defense feels it has the right to poison the jury pool.

In their arguments, Baez and Mason refer to an attached WESH article which discusses Casey's latest commissary order!

Baez has a much larger agenda here, folks. He wants Judge Perry to order reverse prior rulings!

5. This objection is standing and continuous and the Defense invites this Honorable Court to either reverse and prior rulings as it relates to public disclosure or Sua Sponte order the aforementioned agencies to prevent any future abuses of Chapter 119.01.

It's not going to happen, people. Two judges have ruled and the defense keeps on trying. There is no way Judge Perry will reverse his and Judge Strickland's rulings. The laws clearly state that, with very few exceptions, the public has the right to know. If the First Amendment is good for Baez, it's good for Casey Anthony.

So, were Casey's parents to visit, we will see the videos. Should Casey have an intriguing new visitor, we will see the log records. Should Casey order a new bra, we will know.

BEAM ME UP, SCOTTY! I'm done!