Casey Anthony To Make Another Appearance In Court Monday

There's going to be another status hearing Monday, November 29. The time of the hearing has been moved up to 1:00 P.M. Casey Anthony will be present because, aside from the status hearing, at least one motion will be heard.

Also, the following day, November 30, is an important day for the defense. They are due to turn over their witness list of expert witnesses as well as any reports they have generated. In advance of this date, Assistant State's Attorney Jeff Ashton has filed a Motion to Compel Discovery. Judge Belvin Perry will hear this motion at the hearing.

We are not strangers to Motions to Compel Discovery. Casey Anthony's former attorney, Linda Kenney-Baden filed one on August 20, 2009. After extensive searches, I can't find any active links to the document, but I'm sure you wouldn't want to peruse all 91 pages of it! She wanted everything and the kitchen sink. Jeff Ashton, who is the expert witness attorney for the case, spent a great deal of time working with Ms. Baden to provide her with every item that was discoverable, from bench notes to reports to the curricula vitae of the prosecution experts. One can even read some of their correspondence in the discovery documents. Indeed, many of us have spent hours pouring over the reports and documents released through the Sunshine Laws. Ashton's motion only takes up one page and a bit of a second page and is concise and to the point.

Pursuant to F.R.C. P. 3 220(d) and (f), Ashton asks for:

1. Any contracts or agreements, in any manner or form, setting for(sic) the scope of work or expected compensation.

I expect this section to be a stretch for the defense. Remember when the State asked for the contract between the defense and the Padilla crew? Baez turned over some papers which made very little sense and was asked by the judge to come back to court with the originals. I don't know whether Baez was ever able to do so. I also wonder if he even has agreements with some of his experts in writing. Consider Dr. Lee. I remember him announcing on Nancy Grace that he was doing the case pro bono. Was there a handshake on the deal? Did Lee insist on some sort of contract? If there is a contract, can Baez & Company even locate the original?

2. Any communications between the expert and any member of the defense team, either past or present, or any member of their staff, or any one working on behalf of the Defendant.

I can't wait to see these!

3. All records of bills submitted by or payments made to the expert.

Again, this will be a very touchy issue. Baez and Cheney Mason have been having a hard time keeping up with what time and money has been expended since Casey declared indingency. I am very sure Ashton wants to see every penny spent by and for these experts from the get-go. I would expect to see some strong arguments here from the defense.

4. All records pertaining to payments for travel, meals or entertainment paid to or for the benefit of the expert or anyone traveling with the expert, by and member of the defense team, either past or present, or any member of their staff, or any one working on behalf of the Defendant.

Again, this could prove difficult for the defense to produce. I keep imagining a pile of cardboard boxes piled in a dark corner of the Baez Law Firm office, filled to overflowing with receipts tossed in as they accrue. My advance apologies to the Baez Law Firm if this is not a fact. Perhaps I'm channeling my former life as a temporary office clerk during a summer vacation when I had to sort and organize bills and receipts for a lackadaisical paint company facing an audit...

5. Any notes taken by the expert or for the expert during, or referencing their examination of any evidence in this case.

The State has handed over many such documents and we have read them.

6. Any photograph or video taken by the expert in connection with this case.

This hearkens back to the hearing when Linda Drane Burdick was complaining about lack of discovery from the defense prior to depositions (such as Laura Buchanan's "mystery" document). She used the David Lohr situation as an example. Baez, in high dudgeon, rose to address the Court to state that he had indeed provided discovery. It turned out that he had attached the phone interview transcript with audio to his motion! Drane Burdick said that she had never received the audio.

When arguing for the Dutch DNA experts to be used Baez pointed out that he had attached the curriculum vitae to the motion. In his Order on the motion, Judge Perry noted that:

The defense states that his CV is attached to the Motion as Exhibit A, but there are no attachments to the Motion scanned by the Clerk of Court.

Ashton ends his motion by blocking any objections by the defense about privilege by asking that such items be submitted to the court for in camera inspection.

My friends all laugh at me because I am an eternal optimist. However, as these hearings have gone on, I've lost hope that just ONCE the defense team would come in with neat lists and straight answers. Even so, I do hope that the defense will come in, give their current status in a succinct manner, argue with reason their points on the motion and then fully comply with the judge's orders with all the information they have been required to turn over to the State... just call me a dreamer!

By the way, there are two other motions that have been filed by the defense since the State offered this one. At this point, we don't know if they will be heard on Monday. I'm in the process of doing my homework on them and will write more tomorrow!

In the meantime, I'll look forward to seeing you in court Monday!

Casey Anthony Case Status Hearing: Judge Belvin Perry Says It's All About Deadlines

UPDATE!

WFTV has posted the video!

Part 1
Part 2
















If any of the attorneys (I'll leave you to guess which ones) involved in the Casey Anthony murder trial thought they could let deadlines slip, they were sorely mistaken. Judge Belvin Perry made it abundantly clear that there will have to be a very compelling reason for there to be any changes to the deadlines he has set. He has prepared all the attorneys for the fact that, if the work can't be accomplished during the day, it will be accomplished at night.

Jury selection for the trial will begin on May 9, 2011, and the trial itself will begin on May 16, 2011 in the Orange County Courthouse.

Perry entered the courtroom promptly at 1:30 PM. Court was called for order and the attorneys introduced themselves, with the exception of Cheney Mason. Perry made light of that and joked for a moment with the defense attorney, asking "Where is Mr. Mason?"

He then passed out agendas for the hearing stating what was to be discussed and in what order.
Perry then commented that this was an important day because tomorrow, August 31 is the deadline for witness lists to be submitted.

The first item on the agenda was concerning the depositions by expert witnesses listed by the State of Florida. The deadline for these depositions is September 30, 2010.

Jose Baez then spoke to the issue. He stated that he had numerous scheduled and a handful to be scheduled which he hoped to have by the deadline. He explained that he had compiled a chart for His Honor. Unfortunately, there is some work product on the right. Judge Perry simply stated, "then I don't want it...". Hello! couldn't Baez have made a copy of the chart and covered the work product for the judge?

Baez then paused for a while to look over his papers. Judge Perry then asked Baez which experts had not been scheduled yet. Baez read over his list and gave about 9 or 10 names. He wasn't sure if he was going to depose someone who did peer review or a took mark expert concerning the bullet found on Suburban drive.

Judge Perry than asked for a response from the State. Jeff Ashton pointed out that Neil Haskell (entomologist), Dr. Warren, and Dr. Schultz (forensic anthropologist) had not been scheduled and that if the defense didn't want to depose them, it was fine with him!

Baez then provided the Judge and the State with a copy of his list and went on to explain his rather complicated color coding scheme. I'll spare you the details on that! I did notice that Jeff Ashton didn't bother to take notes about the color code, anyway.

After that, Perry stated that the "Pumpkin Time is the 30th of September for defense to take these depositions. The deadline will not be extended without good cause. I'm thinking that with Judge Perry at the helm, it would have to be a VERY good cause.

Jeff Ashton then rose to state that certain depositions they had done were completed in April, not in May as Baez had previously stated. He then stood there, looking to me as though he were showing off to the teacher how good a boy he was today. Judge Perry rewarded him with two words... "That's good."

Then, Jose Baez stated he had some "issues" he would like to bring to the court's attention in reference to the deadlines. It seems that the state had listed an additional 60-70 witnesses and released 8000 more documents. He said he also received new documents on a disk today, with how many pages of information he did not know, and the State had added 13 new witnesses to their list today. He pointed out that they were working as efficiently and expeditiously as possible, but with all this new information, the odds of the defense meeting the deadline were 50/50.

Perry responded by indicating paragraph 3 of his order, that all witnesses other than experts and law enforcement were to be completed by tomorrow, August 31. All other witnesses must be listed by October 30.

Judge Perry indicated that if there were good cause with these 60 new witnesses, he would consider expanding the deadline for "those witnesses and those witnesses alone". Perry then went on to say that they have to "wrap it up and play with the team players". Continuing on with the football analogy, he said that "the roster must be set unless it's not under the control of either side". If there were to be newly discovered evidence, they would deal with it.

Judge Perry pointed out that the magic date to have all the information in is February 28, to allow the attorneys to prepare for trial. For that reason, he is being very strict about the deadlines now.

Baez then had a second "issue". He said that he is receiving discovery that dates as far back as 2008. He indicated that he was receiving discover about people he had already deposed (and would possibly have to go back and depose them again. Baez said that this was an ongoing problem and that they needed to turn discovery over to him as they got it. He also claimed that this evidence was in the hands of the State's attorneys and LE in 2008 and he was just receiving it. He rambled on and on about various items of discovery and then started to say something about his renewed notices of objection when Judge Perry stopped him and said, "We're not going to talk about that now."

At that point, the judge asked the State to answer Baez' concerns.

Linda Drane-Burdick pointed out that there were three issues that Baez had mentioned. She's a better note-taker than I am! Then, she explained the situation for each.

1. Dominic Casey e-mails

The State was not provided these e-mails by Dominic. Casey, came through someone who sent them to someone who game them to the State. The files were cumbersome to read, and once they were organized and printed out in order, they were given to Mr. Baez.

2. Letters people wrote to Casey in jail

The State received them 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.

3. Erica Gonzalez, who had a conversation with Casey on July 15, 2008. She apparently claimed to have heard Caylee's voice in the background.

Ms. Gonzalez's phone number had appeared on the phone records. She was located in Oviedo. in June or July, Yuri Melich took her statement and the transcript should have the date the statement was taken.

Drane-Burdick stated her goal was to give the material to Baez in an organized manner so it is easier for Baez to go through them.

Judge Perry then said that he reminded the State to go through all law enforcement records. He stated that he's quite sure they'll do that at some point. He indicated that "This case must come to an end at some point".

In response, Drane-Burdick told the judge that she spent all day, August 25, at the sheriff's office. She went through Yuri Melich's files and found 300-400 pages to give to the defense. They included bank records of no significance to case. At this point, the only thing left to do is to go through Melich's laptop to see if there is any information there.

Judge Perry then asked if the defense experts had finished the evidence review. He pointed out the deadline is October 31. Baez said that they weren't done, but that he expects to be done by the 31st.

Baez has agreed with Ashton to send certain things to their entomologist and hair slides to an expert. There is one disagreement concerning DNA testing of one item. He said he would be planning to file a motion about it.

Jeff Ashton indicated that the defense had yet to designate the specific number's of the items to be sent. He also said that he had no objection to the DNA testing, which has already has been done by FBI. The State insisted the testing would have to be done at an ASCLAD lab in the US, not to the Netherlands as the defense wants.

Baez spoke briefly about the judge allowing the cost of this testing and said the Dutch specialists would work pro bono.

Judge Perry responded to all of this by telling the attorneys that all new motions will be heard in 15 days. He doesn't want any motion filed that will not be heard in 15 days, he doesn't want the court file to be cluttered. I know my files are cluttered with motions from 2009! Perry said that, if his court calendar was full, he'd be willing to hear the motions at 5 or 6 PM. He tells them to bring their lunch and goes on to say they will have to work evenings and weekend if that is what it takes to get the job done! Judge Perry is on a read time-line-tear! He reminds me of some teachers I know who will tell everybody to behave if even ONE person is misbehaving! Do we have to guess much to whom he is addressing these comments?

Judge Perry then said that the defense deadline to list their expert witnesses and have their reports completed is November 30.

Jeff Ashton indicated he would like to start the depositions of the defense experts already listed, but there are no reports yet and he doesn't know if the defense will use these experts. He also pointed out that he was unclear if the latest defense witness was the entire list or if it was in addition to the previous list. He pointed out that, there is no forensic botanist on it.

Jose Baez stated that this list complies with the August 31 deadline but that hasn't gotten the expert witness list done yet. He points out that he still has time to do this.

Judge Perry said that he wouldn't rush anyone, but would hold them to the deadlines. If Baez had any experts ready to be deposed, it would be a good idea to let the State know about them.
He stated that the only other deadline they may have to adjust is the one dealing with the motions about forensic evidence. He warned the State that their deadline for hearing the objections is the 28th. Again, Perry mentions bringing some food to dine on for any evening sessions!

Linda Drane Burdice then asked if there is a deadline for evidence. She has a similar problem with the defense and tangible evidence, video depositions, and interviews. She was concerned that the State will have to wait for the information until just before trial when the defense decides whether or not they're going to use a witness.

Judge Perry then discussed exhibits for the trial. He said that they come in in two places, at deposition and at trial. He continued saying that if there are such things that they could be using at a hearing or the trial, is there a deadline for that?

Baez told the judge that they are so tied up in meeting deadlines, ...wants the Judge to... mumble, mumble, mumble, whine, whine whine. I could not take notes fast enough to keep up with this!
You get the gist of it all!

Linda Drane Burdick then got up and spoke to the problem that the State is having due to lack of information from the defense team. She stated that at the Laura Buchanan deposition, they had TES records, and Ms. Buchanan, who was in New Jersey, had a THIRD document in her possession that Mr. Mason said he didn't it. The document had to be faxed and when she compared it to TES documents in her possession, it showed that this witness had a document they didn't have. I do believe this may be the document whose authenticity is in question.

When the document was faxed, it had a sticky note on it that said, "From Laura to Mort." In addition, there was a similar situation with aerial photographs. Since the prosecutors had not been provided with documents to study prior to the deposition, they had to adjourn and reschedule this deposition.

Judge Perry responded to this situation by stating that there are remedies for "Trial by Ambush". Excluding the evidence is one of them.

Judge Perry again mentioned the importance of doing things right and on time. He invoked what he called the 24 hour rule, "How much time you get to sleep at night, it's strictly on you!" He also said he had little sympathy for game playing.

Perry then said that he would fashion something to remedy the situation and will send them all a draft for comments and then finalize it with a ruling. It sounds like Ms. Drane Burdick and her team will not be forced to go into depositions or trial without all pertinent evidence.

The next topic was the September 3 deadline for depositions of all law enforcement. Baez said he thinks he will able to comply. He even indicated that the 35 people scheduled for September 3, have very minor rolls in the case.

Linda Drane Burdick indicated that the subpoenas sent out for these depositions were all sent out saying that 18 members of law enforcement should appear at 9 AM and the other 17 after lunch. She pointed out that there are individuals on medical leave, holiday leave, Labor Day Weekend. She pointed out that with this schedule, there would be no more than 10 to 15 minutes per deposition. Any people who had more information to give would have to show up and then be rescheduled.

Judge Perry began with the famous bear in mind, you don't want me setting your depositions, evenings, Saturdays, and gave the parties till Friday to have set deposition scedules.

Linda Drane Burdick simply commented, "See how it goes!"

Cheney Mason then got up and told the judge that the overwhelming majority of the depositions would last five minutes! He said that he asked the State to designate A,B,C witnesses. They didn't. He then read aloud the notice he sent along with the subpoenas to them to contact them if they couldn't comply. He claimed that only two people had contacted him. Then, as if answering direct challenge to his expertise, that "if 30 show up, I'll do 30 depositions".

Finally, Judge Perry discussed the pending motions. He said that some may be moot. He wanted the attorneys to let him know within three weeks which are moot, ruled on, or set for hearings.

He also thanked Linda Drane Burdick for compiling a comprehensive list of motions.

There was a bit of discussion about the motion on behalf of Orlando Sentinel to intervene in theseries of defense objections filed last week, those are the "abuse of ch. 119.01" ones.

Perry indicated that he interpreted them as simply filing these as a standing objection and did not want the court to rule.

Baez said that he was correct, they are simply protecting the record.

Perry pointed out that he's a judge, not a legislator. His remedy for too much pre-trial publicity is the motion for change of venue which he has said they will have.

He said that the media will be the last to know where the jurors will come from. He said he would consider having the parties (media outlets) sign confidentiality agreements, otherwise, he would only give them 30 minutes notice so that they couldn't cover the proceedings. Baez said he would have suggested 10 minutes.

Cheney Mason told the judge that he doesn't want the record to only reflect that change of venue is the only method to remedy the issue of excessive publicity.

Then Judge Perry asked the dreaded question, "Anything else?".

Jose Baez started to rise to speak, but Linda Drane Burdick beat him in addressing the judge. Her concern was the May 9 trial date. She indicated that she wanted to issue subpoenas well ahead of time. She asked if she should issue them for the 9th or some other day.

Judge Perry said that jury selection will start on the 9th"some place". The trial itself will start on May 16, at the Orange County courthouse.

Drane Burdick then brought up the "one witness per one attorney" which I assume is the practice in Florida courts. She also asked if attorneys could split the closing argument. Apparently, this is not typical in Florida. She said she wanted to consider the judge's views in her trial preparation. As an example she gave the example of Linda Kenney Baden doing the science part of a closing.

She asked if Court was opposed to this practice as it's not the protocol.

Judge Perry stated that he wasn't for or against it. As long as there is a line of demarcation between material and stay within the time frame, he wouldn't be opposed to that.

At first glance, Jose Baez said he had no objections.

The judge then reminded the defense team that they had depositions to do and sent them on their way.

All in all, the best part of this hearing was Judge Perry's constant reminders that time was of the essence here and that working hours would have to expand to meet the demand. This is something the defense really needs. Too much time has been wasted.

I also like how the State's Attorneys were constantly egging the defense on by talking about wanting to get their subpoenas out early, how they wanted to do depositions YESTERDAY. The only question I have is, did the defense get the message loud and clear?

After the hearing, the defense team had more business. It's not what I reported... here's a snippet from WESH:

After the status hearing, WESH 2 attended what was supposed to be a routine scheduling hearing between the defense, prosecution and Texas Equusearch attorney Mark NeJame.

Newly appointed Magistrate James Glatt set Oct. 4 and 5 for dates when the defense will get to look at Equeesearch records.

Anthony defense attorney Jose Baez reiterated allegations at the hearing that NeJame is only representing Equusearch for media coverage.

NeJame then told Cheney Mason, another member of the Anthony defense team, that Baez is a liar and incompetent.

“I believe your partner is not only a liar but incompetent,” NeJame said to Mason. “I'm going to say this in light of what he said to me -- he made up complete and total fabrications.”

Baez said he would not respond to NeJame’s comments.

http://www.wesh.com/r/24817269/detail.html

JUDGE PERRY RULES! May 10 hearing in the murder trial of Casey Anthony

Judge Belvin Perry Jr. presided over yet another pre-trial hearing in the murder case of Casey Anthony. As he has done in prior hearing, he reigned in counsel and made Jose Baez get to the point when he would wander off into flights of fancy. During the hearing, Perry ruled on some motions and deferred others to a later time. He also managed to get through the entire list of outstanding motions not related to the death penalty in under two hours.

The first motion discussed was the Amended Motion For Change of Venue.

Jose approached the podium with a huge stack of papers and what appeared to be a book.

Linda Drane Burdick then got up to say that the State waived seating a jury in Orlando, but would have comments later concerning what had been discussed at the April 30 hearing. This would mean we would not have to hear Baez' speak to that issue!

I have a notation in my notes that she didn't want a jury from Dade County.

Baez said that the defense agreed to have a sequestered jury. He then presented the defense argument for Dade County and southern Florida in general as being the location where the least percentage of population were aware of the case and less subject to the intense media. He mentioned two murder trials he's had in the past year. In Orlando, all the jurors knew who he was and in Miami only one person knew.

Baez also felt that northern Florida was inappropriate because of the Hayleigh Cummings and the Somer Thomson cases. He pointed out that even the names were similar with Hayleigh and Caylee. He went on to mentions bounty hunter, young woman, TES and lawyers injecting themselves into both cases (another slap at TES and NeJame).

Baez really wanted to persuade the judge to physically move the trial. He went on at length about the helicopters and angry protesters on street corners when he accompanied Casey home from jail three times. He continued on in this vein for a while and said that he compared this case to the one in "To Kill a Mockingbird" and began to describe the tense situation in that courtroom. Judge Perry put a quick stop to that and headed Baez back on target. Baez apologized to the judge and continued . He objected to jurors being brought back to the Orlando "atmosphere" and court should consider this.

Some of what he said now he said before, so I'll spare you a repeat!

Baez then read off some statistics. The case had generated $19 million dollars in advertising revenue The media frenzy, he said, was not about justice, not about Casey, not about a small child. It was about MONEY!

Personally, I think a trial is about justice for Caylee Marie Anthony.

In his quest for south Florida as a location of the trial, he sad that it can handle media coverage and that the two jurisdictions had switched trials before.

Finally, he asked to give a two minute presentation.

The judge allowed it and we were all treated to a poorly produced video with screaming protesters with their signs and people demonstrating outside the Anthony house shouting "baby killer" and "go to hell". Amazingly, he showed George and Cindy fighting with the protesters.

Judge Perry then asked if other than 4th Judicial Circuit, did Baez have any objections to any other jurisdiction. Baez conferred with Mason and added the 1st Judicial Circuit (Pensacola) as well due to media coverage and demographics.

Drane Burdick spoke next. First, she handed the judge a sampling of all areas of Florida which includes demographics, racial, median income from 2007 Census Bureau.

She then stated the statute which says that if a jury is sequestered and there is a change of venue, the jury SHALL be brought to the venue trying the case... ORLANDO!

Concerning the "atmosphere", she said that State is confident the Court can handle the atmosphere in the courtroom. She cited a case she tried with Mason three years ago where there wasn't any media attention. The families in courtroom were creating problems and the situation was dealt with.

Then end result was that Perry indicated he would rule on this at an appropriate time and stated what his ruling would be. It was exactly the same as he indicated at the April 30 status hearing. There will be a change of venue, the jurors will be brought in from another jurisdiction to Orlando where they will be housed at an undisclosed location. He will also issue a gag order on the attorneys once they are made aware of the location.

As for the situation with the protesters, the judge indicated that he was sure that the Orlando County Sheriff's Office would be able to deal with the situation.

Cheney Mason spoke briefly about the Motion To Seal Jail Visiting Logs. I had to go back and re-listen to this part because Mason spoke very quickly. No unsurprisingly, the defense had failed to notice the Orlando County Jail, which has jurisdiction over the logs. I can't understand why the defense continues to fail to notice the jail!

I have to wonder if Judge Perry, when he hears the motion, will agree to seal the logs as there is the real possibility that the experts who will interview Casey may give away the defense strategy in the case. It is also possible that the same arguments from the jail's attorney as were given about previous jail videos and documents will be given and accepted by the judge. We'll have to wait for another hearing to find out.

The next motion up for discussion was the Motion In Limine To Exclude Irrelevant Evidence of “Party Pictures”. Baez began to speak and and Perry interrupted him to say he had viewed the pictures and read the motion. Baez quickly stated that the vast majority of the photographs were irrelevant, that they did not relate to the crimes Ms. Anthony is charged with.

He stated he would save the rest of his argument for rebuttal, but did state that he was at a loss as to what these photos allegedly prove.

Linda Drane Burdick referred to these pictures a before and after photos. Concerning the photos taken before June 15, 2008, she stated she would agree to proffer them prior to introducing them at trial and that she would not refer to them in opening statements.

Linda Drane Burdick referred to these pictures a "before" and "after" photos. Concerning the photos taken before June 15, 2008, she stated she would agree to proffer them prior to introducing them at trial and that she would not refer to them in opening statements.

Drane Burdick said that the Court could not rule in on the motion in vacuum, without the context of how the pictures would be used. She then went on to demonstrate that the same was true of the Defendant’s Motion In Limine To Exclude Lay Opinion Testimony.

If the defense were to offer testimony that Ms. Anthony was a good mother, if they were to open the door to that topic, Ms. Anthony’s activities during the almost 3 years previous could come in to rebut the testimony. Likewise, previous pictures could come in to do the same.

Drane Burdick said that the Court could not rule in on the motion in vacuum, without the context of how the pictures would be used.

Concerning the “after” photgraphs, she stated that the State has a time line of Casey's whereabouts from July 15-16.

Drane Burdick said that the prosecution intended to use the photos to prove what her activities were during this time frame, not that she was a bad mother.

She also said that the number of pictures would be limited, that there was no need to introduce them all as just one or two would prove their point. They would establish demeanor better than by words alone. They would not be a feature of the trial.

Judge Perry then posed a question to her.

He asked her to assume for the moment the defense offers evidence that Ms. A. is a good mother. What relevance do photos of Ms. Anthony in club with the blue dress have to do with her being a good mother? What was the state's theory on that?

Drane Burdick replied that the blue dress pictures were taken during the time frame she had indicated earlier. They would not necessarily go to challenge the depiction of Casey as a "good mother". They would challenge the fact that Casey claimed she was looking for her daughter when the pictures were taken. She further indicated that the dress would not be an issue. She said there were cases of Casey sitting in a booth with other people which would not feature the length of the dress.

At this point in the hearing, Casey looked very tense.

Perry stated that most of photos would dealt with before trial. Perry said that he didn’t want the jurors to be locked up in jury room while they make arguments about the pictures. He added that he had concerns about some of them. He agreed with Drane Burdick that it is hard to rule on these in a vacuum.

Drane Burdick then stated that, as the trial gets closer, they would be able to narrow the evidence to be presented. They will preview them all with the defense with the intention that it would be reciprocated.

Baez addressed the photographs taken before June 16; he said that he didn’t know what they could indicate as to whether or not Ms. Anthony was a good mother or not. Just because she's drinking beer and is having a good time with her friends doesn’t indicate that Casey wasn't a good mother; that her child were well fed, being taken care of. It was a sexist comment!

He then said that it was the State's theory is that Caylee Anthony died June 16, and that what happened on June 20 wasn't relevant. Baez said that the State's motives were very transparent, they wanted to paint Ms. Anthony in a bad light.

Judge Perry said he would defer ruling and that the State and the defense, under reciprocal discovery rules were to narrow down the issues by March. He said he would hold a hearing March 31 to settle issues about them.

Drane Burdick asked if that was to include all photos. Judge Perry stated the hearing would deal with these and photos of remains of victim.

Cheney Mason gets up to speak to the next two motions, the Omnibus Motion To Exclude Heresay Evidence, Gossip, And, Innuendo and the Defendant’s Motion In Limine To Exclude Lay Opinion Testimony.

I must say that when I read the first motion, I had made a note that any good attorney knows the heresay rules and exceptions. I found that the defense making a long list of statement by various witnesses in statements and depositions was a big waste of time. These issues usually come up on a case-by-case basis. Most of you have followed trials and the sound of an attorney standing and saying "objection, heresay". Then the lawyers will debate with a judge as to why or why not the testimony that would come would be heresay. How many times have we heard an attorney say that the testimony would go towards state of mind, not for the truth of the matter?

Mason said that Doesn't think this, waving and shaking the motion was all that necessary since the prosecution knows what they are doing! He pretty much indicated that the long litany of heresay motions was a big waste of money and that the issue of heresay is more like shifting sands.

I thought to myself at the time that he agreed with me.

He did say he wants State to have a date by which they can present the heresay they intend to use.

Perry agreed with Mason. A lot of the statements could cause heresay objections. He said he would deal with anything theyhave big issues with.

These "things of great concern" will be heard prior to the trial. He said he did not want a mini-trial

Drane Burdick said she didn't have much of a response, agreeing that these issues would have to be a case-by-case basis.

She said that she had a problem with the defense referring to the 911 call as being heresay. She said she would be willing to talk with the defense about redacting it.

Perry stated that his order issued last Friday gives a deadline for all motions. He pointed out that the deadline for the photos is an extended deadline. (March 31) The main deadline is December 31.

Drane Burdick said she would include a motions to redact and to narrow the focus for trial purposes. She stated that the prosecution was not willing to pre-try every issue.

As to the 911 calls, Drane Burdick indicated that the defense only addressed 2 of 3 calls. She said the State was going to use use last one. They would be arguing that Mrs. Anthony's statements are excited utterances. She added that the Court can't rule out of context and they aren't heresay.

Judge Perry said he would reserve ruling on the issue for the present time.

We now got to the Motion To Dismiss Defective Indictment.

Perry asked the defense was going to rest on the pleadings and Baez indicated he was.

Drane Burdick said she had prepared a two page response and handed it to the judge.

Perry took a few moments to read her reply and denied the motion.

The final motion, Renewed Motion To Compel Bench Notes, Standards, Data, And Communications With Law Enforcement, Et Al., was filed by the defense on August 11, 2009. It laid out a laundry list of materials the defense wants.

Baez indicated that they had received some of the material and had not received other information.

They have some of the requested material but not other stuff.

Perry asled what specifically had asked for and from whom (as far as what they still needed).

At this point, I am not going to burden you with all the details. Just going through that gives me a major headache.

Suffice it to say that Baez said that he was missing some CV's (curriculum vitae). Jeff Ashton pointed out that only expert witnesses are required to provide them. Perry asked for the names of those who fit the parameters and Baez came up with four names.

Ashton said that he had no objection and will supply them although one of the names was from the FBI, whose production was complete as of his last discussion with Linda Kenney-Baden.

Baez mention ASCLAD documents from all the certified labs. When Baez mentioned the OCSO, Ashton pointed out it wasn't a crime lab.

Judge Perry asked about Oak Ridge. and Ashton indicated that it was run by the Federal Government and wasnot a crime lab. The awyer representing them has indicated that previously.

Baez then said that certain evidence was sent from FDLE to other labs. He said they do not know if FDLE they ran any tests.

Ashton said he saw no reference to them that he hadn't seen in the14,000 pages of discovery and that they didn't run any tests.

Perry then asked his favorite question, "Next?".

Baez simply said bench notes

Ashton said that Baez needed to be more specific. He' already provided four to five thousand pages of such documents. He said that he had immediately complied with what he had received from the defense.

It was then discussed that Baez needed to speak with lawyers for the Federally run labs.
How many times have we heard this before?

Ashton said that the State had provided everything that they are willing to give that has been asked for and that the defense needs to get this information by going to the jurisdiction of those labs. He added that they could discuss specific items, but they have been compliant.

Perry asked what has Baez not received that he has asked for that he is entitled to.

Ashton replied that counsel should make new motion with specific items and then he can help.

Baez stated that this has been an ongoing issue. He said he'd received nothing from OCSO.

He was again told to list what he'd asked for.

Perry then made a differentiation between experts and crime scene investigators. He asked if there any experts from OSCO who did testing who would testify as experts?

Ashton said that there were only two Sandra Kahn, and Steven Stanger (computer experts). He said that their entire, extensive report has been produced. He added that much that Baez has asked for, such as notes, are undiscoverable.

Perry asked Baez if he would concede or not concede that he had received the material from computer experts.

Baez said that he could only accept Ashton's statement that they are not in existence.

Ashton got testy at this point and indicated he said some of the material is not discoverable.

Perry asked Baez again to list specific items and who he had not received from. He said that the rules of discovery are specific as to whether he is entitled to notes here are rules about whether Baez is entitled to rough drafts and notes. He added that this would be discussed at another time. He mentioned Brady(that the State must provide defense with exculpatory evidence). He again indicated that Baez had to be more specific in what he was missing as it was difficult to go through "this" without knowing what you are missing from whom.

The motion was stabled, and if there is a listed expert the defense has not received bench notes from, they are submit a response and the State can reply and they all can discuss whether they are discoverable.

Baez was given ten days to present this information and Ashton can reply within ten days at which point a hearing for the issue will be set.

Baez asked if he had to file a new motion and the judge told him to rearrange what he has and indicate what he wants from whom.

What the judge was saying was that Baez has to show what exists, does not exist, what hi is entitled to and what he is not entitled to have! In other words... get organized defense!

That was the end of discussion for today's hearing. Tomorrow, Andrea Lyon will be present to present the death penalty motions.

I'm looking forward to seeing Perry vs. Lyon!

Watch the hearing:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

Casey Antthony: Living La Vita Pro Bono

It came as no surprise that Judge Stan Strickland granted indigency status to Casey Anthony on Friday. Not to do so would have put the prosecution of her case in jeopardy. Nevertheless, the hearing on Thursday provided much more information about the case and how it is being pursued.

I watched the indigency hearing on Thursday, well, half-watched. The defense, in arguing their motion to have Casey declared indigent was doing battle with an attorney from the Justice Administrative Commission (JAC) who was calling in his portion of the hearing over the phone. Judge Stan Strickland tried mightily to make his questions audible. In the end, he was forced to have them taped separately from the court reporter due to terrible acoustics. The Judge could hear him and apparently the attorneys could hear. We couldn't!

In most situations, an indigency hearing is not a big deal. A person is arrested for a crime, fills out a paper, the Clerk of the Court declares the defendant indigent, and the judge essentially rubber-stamps it.

As usual, the case of Casey Anthony has to be different. When Casey Anthony was arrested on July 17, 2008, one of the first things she did was file for indigent status. In her application, Casey wrote that she had one dependent (Caylee) and had expenses of $600 a month. She wrote in and crossed out an income of $1400 a month.

However, less that 24 hours later, she had hired Jose Baez. To get an idea of how amazing this situation is, read Richard Hornsby's blog entry for December 28, 2009. In his article, entitled, Attorney of Record in Record Time, the Orlando attorney explains various theories as to how Casey could have had a private attorney in record time.

On March 25, 2009, there was a hearing in the case. Assistant State's Attorney Jeff Ashton argued in his Motion to Determine Potential Conflict of Interest, In a review of the motion the day prior to the hearing, I wrote:

This motion strikes to the heart of the mystery surrounding Casey Anthony's finances. Who is in control of her business deals? Who is signing the contracts for licensing fees for pictures and videos? What deals have been made for the future?

Essentially, that's what the State wanted to know. The following day, in a short hearing and an in camera session with the defense, Strickland pronounced himself satisfied that there was no conflict of interest.

T&T March 24, 2009
T&T March 25, 2009

Fast-forward a year, and we learn that Casey Anthony is broke and penniless having spent over a year in jail. At this point in time the defense comes forward and petitions for indigency.

New Attorney Joins the Team

The first "bombshell" of the hearing was the new defense team configuration. Veteran Orlando defense attorney Cheney Mason had joined the team. Mason, who is near retirement had been asked to join the team by Jose Baez. At this point, Casey was literally surrounded by her attorneys at the table. Present for the hearing, aside from Mr. Mason, were Jose Baez, Linda Kenney-Baden, and Andrea Lyon.

Mason, who has been referred to in the media as a "pit bull" defense attorney, is most recently remembered for the 2007 defense of quadruple murderer Nelson Serrano who was given four death sentences for his crimes.

Judge Strickland, upon addressing Mason at the beginning of the hearing said "What kept ya?".

Mason replied "(I) eventually get tired of seeing what's going on!"

With chuckles from all, Mason rose to address the court. It was immediately obvious that he was going to try and dominate the Court and establish his "good old boy" persona with the judge.

He first indicated that there was no dispute that Casey Anthony was indigent and that she deserved "entitled to the due process funding of her case". He also indicated that he was not asking for attorney's fees. He stated that he had taken the case pro bono and that there was no worry about a million dollars (which refers back to the statement he had made a while ago that he would only take on such a case for that amount). He compared her need for proper funding such as the State had for its prosecution. He referred to Mr. Wesley from the public defender's office as saying they were broke and could not handle the case.

At this point in the proceedings, Mason made clear that the financial issue would not be in open court because, "we'll deal with the necessary cost issues which we would like to take up in camera because I don't intend to argue things that has to reveal all the defense strategy to the press, to the State, or anybody else. We're entitled to do that.."

Mason continued, making the assumption that the judge was already aware that Casey was indigent. He only indicated concern with the JAC, which had stated in an un-publicized motion that they had serious concerns about Casey's real need for funding in her case.

After a lot of rapid-fire mumbling from the JAC attorney over the speaker phone and the futile attempt to fix the situation, Judge Strickland made an interesting comment to the garbled caller, that he would like to finalize "this" today so it would not require an in-person appearance by the gentleman.

Even though viewers could not hear what was being said, a very frustrating experience, Strickland finally settled on having a separate recording made to aid the court reporter. The poor lady will have to do double-duty when it comes time to transcribe this hearing!

There then ensued a long period of time when speaker-phone lawyer went on and on. The camera focused on the defense table and it was obvious there was an all-out effort to listen. At one point, Andrea Lyon could be seen shaking her head "no" and mouthing the word "no" at the same time. Judge Strickland broke the pattern by saying "Sir, you're into attorneys' fees, we're just talking about about costs here..". Sounds like the phone-attorney didn't do his homework!

About 25 minutes into the hearing, Assistant States' Attorney Frank George addressed the Court. He brought up the March, 2009 hearing concerning conflict of interest in the financial situation of the defense. He said that the amount of money discussed at that hearing didn't seem to "jive" with the amount being discussed in the hearing, that there was some money missing.

The representative from the public defender's office spoke briefly and said that there was indeed, not enough money in their budget to fund this trial. Much of what he had to say about money was difficult to hear due to poor acoustics.

Judge Strickland asked Cheney Mason if he was aware of the situation and Mason responded that he wasn't there but that he knew that the "little bit" of money that had been paid to the defense team" was all gone. He reiterated that none of the attorneys on the defense team were asking for payment from the JAC. All the defense team wanted was funding for experts, depositions, necessary travel, and "those things".

Judge Strickland pointed out to Mason that the accounting in the affidavits was "pretty thin". The only information provided by Casey Anthony in the hand-written forms was that she had personally paid Jose Baez $89,454.83 and Andrea Lyon $22,500. For sake of discussion, let's round off a bit and say that the total paid out so far in this case is indicated to be $112,000.

Mason responded that he thought that the accounting had already been done and again offered to meet in camera to explain the rest of the finances. I'm pretty sure that in the hearing last year, the judge had been apprised of the $200,000 Casey had available from the deal she had made with ABC. I would imagine that at that point in the hearing, that Strickland thought that about $78,000 from that deal was outstanding based on the affidavits. He may have known about other funds, but all of that was discussed in camera last year.

Strickland then told Mason that at this point, he was asking for public funds and that it was unclear where all the money had gone.

Mason responded:

I'm not seeking any public funds today, judge, as I said, the lawyers are appearing pro bono, so therefore it's nobody's business about what we're doing and not doing...

Mason also indicated he thought that this business had already been taken care of, BUT... and again asked to go in camera.

Judge Strickland stated that at this point, the defense is asking for public funds and the information should be disclosed publicly in the courtroom. Mason asked the judge to "trust him" that they were broke. Strickland wisely informed Mr. Cheney that trust was one thing, the facts of the finances were another.

Mason asked for a brief break to speak to his team privately for a few minutes. Baez asked if Casey could accompany them. The judge said no, and after a few brief moments of discussing where they would meet, the defense lawyers left the court. Casey was escorted out by officers.

The Lawyers Testify

When the lawyers returned and Casey was in her seat, Cheney Mason called Andrea Lyon to provide testimony concerning the financing. Mason began by asking Lyon how long she had practiced law and her experience with death penalty cases. Lyon indicated she had practiced law for over 30 years and had taken 19 cases to the death penalty phase.

Lyon explained that she had worked pro bono on the case from the time that the State had decided to go for the death penalty last year and had only been paid for expenses. Lyon indicated she had spent about 1000 hours of time to the case. She also explained that she runs a clinic and raises funds to help poor people with their defense. She estimated the clinic had provided $70,000 to support the case. That amount included the money from Casey Anthony. She also stated that the clinic had no more money, was in fact "in the hole".

Lyon explained where she had spent the money. It had gone for such expenses as transportation, investigation, equipment, etc. She also indicated that she had 14 students working with her in a class. They receive grades, not a salary.

Lyon also indicated she had no book deals, movie deals, etc.

The man on the phone from the JAC had no questions. Mr. George asked for the details of the clinic. Lyon pointed out that she raises funds for the clinic, not for this case. She had expended about $70,000 on the case, less the $22,500 from Casey. George asked if she kept records. She indicated that she did. Cheney Mason said that material would be available to the Court, but not to the State.

Jose Baez was next to testify. I noticed that Mason did not ask about his legal experience as he had done with Andrea Lyon. All he asked was if Baez was an attorney licensed to practice in Florida and in good standing (with the Bar). He then asked if Baez was the lead attorney on the case. Baez responded, "for all intents and purposes". Mason asked Baez if he had represented Casey in the collateral check fraud case. Baez answered in the affirmative. Mason asked Baez if he had any knowledge of any deals in the works. To each, Baez answered, "absolutely not".

Mason then asked Baez if he had received money in the case and if he had revealed that information to Judge Strickland in camera. He then asks if there is any money left, and Baez replies, "zero". Baez then testified that he had received approximately $89,000 for all litigation and that, although he had never tracked his hours, he estimated he'd spent 2500 hours on her defense. Baez said that there was no one holding money for him and that he had asked Mason to join the team pro bono.

Baez also testified that the only lawyers who had been paid were himself and Adrea Lyon. The amount paid to him was for his fees and Andrea Lyon received only expenses. In addition, Linda Kenney-Baden had not been paid anything for her services. She was also working pro bono.

Mason asked Baez if there was any way Casey could have representation without being declared indigent. Baez responded, "I see absolutely no way that Miss Anthony can get any thorough representation unless she is declared..." at which point Mason interrupted to ask him if he could tell the judge how many scientific experts the defense would need to counter the State's experts.

There followed a long explanation by Baez of all the witnesses the State had that needed to deposed. With occasional prompts from Mason, he stated that these experts were spread out all over the country, including the searchers from Texas Equusearch. We never heard anything about how many expert witnesses the defense had!

Mason elicited again the fact that Casey Anthony had no money left, and had no knowledge of any more money available to her.

Judge Strickland pointed out that he recognized that Casey was indigent NOW, but needed a road map as to how the defense had arrived there. According to Mason, the defense had already provided a AAA route! I found that amazing because, at this point in the hearing, there was a lot of money unaccounted for. Strickland asked Mason if he had anymore questions. He said he didn't and Baez began to speak again. Strickland interrupted Baez immediately and turned the questioning to Mr. George.

To make a longer story a bit shorter, I'll get to the heart of the questioning.

When George asked about other deals, Baez indicated that he had hired an ethics attorney, Tim Chinaris, to advise him on deals that came to him.

Frank George then had an opportunity to question Baez. From his questioning, the court was informed about the sources of all the money that had been available to the defense. There was the $5000 from an anonymous donor, $70,000 from Todd Macaluso. There was $200,000 from ABC. This last bit of testimony seemed to cause Mr. Baez some pain as it took him a lot of hemming and hawing before he could say American Broadcasting Com.... Asked to repeat, he said, "ABC". Judge Strickland overcame the defense objection to speaking in open court by stating that NOW this information should be public!

George asked about the unaccounted-for money. Baez gave some vague references to where the money went, but could only state definitively that Marti McKenzie, former PR representative, had received $10,000.

When Baez finished, Linda Kenney-Baden spoke briefly and not under oath that she had a retainer agreement with Casey, but had "torn it up" since she had never received any money for the case.

With so much money being unaccounted for, Strickland decided to rule the next day and told the defense to bring in an accounting of the rest of the money Friday.

Obviously, the defense did so and the judge made his ruling. What remains to be seen is if this information will be made public.

Since the judge's decision, there has been a great deal of talk about the deal with ABC. According to Hal Boedeker, the Sentinel TV blogger, he had called ABC and had been told:

The deal was done with an attorney representing several owners of copyrighted content, ABC News spokeswoman Cathie Levine said. That attorney is Baez, she added.

Fox News reported on this situation with checkbook journalism. If Baez brokered the deal and received payment for it, he could be in trouble. I wonder if this will be investigated.

As for the new attorney, WFTV's resident legal commentator, Bill Sheafer opined:

This is the most significant event for the defense since the discovery of Caylee's body," Sheaffer said.

Cheney has tried 50 murder cases successfully and is a part of a number of anti-death penalty organizations.

"[Cheney] is a founding father of the Central Florida Criminal Defense Association," Sheaffer told WFTV. "This is a game changer."

The addition of Cheney to Casey's defense could mean there will be more changes to the team, including the dismissal of Andrea Lyon. However, that has not been announced and Lyon was in court for Thursday's hearing.

It is going to take a while for the full implications of the hearing to be known. Will Cheney Mason take over the lead, will Adrea Lyon stay on board with another death-penalty certified lawyer on the team? Will Jose Baez be willing to continue another year pro bono?

This is turning into a whole new case!

Casey Anthony Pleads Guilty To Check Fraud

When Casey Anthony was escorted to the courtroom during the hearing on January 25, noticeably absent was the jingle-jangle sound of her shackles which usually accompany such appearances. Anthony, dressed in a freshly pressed, light blue shirt and gray pants, walked in with a smile for her attorneys.

According to Jose Baez, in an interview with Jane Velez-Mitchell on HLN later in the evening, Casey was going to get her wish. Baez told Velez-Mitchell that

Well, she always wanted to plead to this case. It was always a concern of hers. She was always very sorry for what she did to Amy.

I have to wonder if that is truly the case here. The fact is, Casey waited for well over a year to reach that point. In the meantime, her defense had filed a number of motions in the fraud trial. There was a motion for change of venue, to submit prospective jurors to an extensive questionnaire, and individually sequestered voir dire. There were other motions for other various and sundry exclusions from the trial, including barring the admission of evidence relevant to the murder trial and evidence of Casey's prior bad acts. Now, those motions go into the "major waste of paper" section of my stack of motions for the case, never to see light of day again.

The hearing began with Casey's plea to the Court. Casey, accompanied by her attorneys, Jose Baez and Andrea Lyon, came to the podium. Baez spoke first, stating that his client would be entering a plea to the Court in the check fraud case. Judge Strickland then looked over the plea form. Casey was sworn in and asked the usual questions prior to entering her plea.

At this point, I noticed that her yes/no responses were very short and clipped, almost choked off at the end. This morning, I found one of my favorite sources for body language, Lillian Glass. Her article on the hearing is very interesting and, in many ways, reaffirmed my own reaction to the proceedings. Her article is a must-read!

After questioning Casey, Assistant State's Attorney Frank George briefly presented the basic facts of the case, including each check, its number and amount, and place where it was cashed.

Jose Baez stipulated to the facts as cited by Mr. George.

The judge then told Casey that she seemed alert and intelligent and that he would accept her plea.

Judge Strickland then asked Jose Baez to speak to what sentencing he would expect. Instead of simply stating that he wished to have all charges not be adjudicated and his client sentenced to one year's probation, he went into quite a diatribe against the State.

He went on, in his faltering manner, to state that he felt that Casey had been discriminated against because she was "unpopular". He even listed "unpopular" as a type of discrimination way up there with race and gender. He also said that the State could not find, even if they did extensive searches through the entire public records, where a first-time offender, such as Casey, would only be offered an unacceptable five year sentence. He also carped on the fact that his client had been over-charged and that the five years offered by the State was not "fair". He likened the situation to being in "a muck of justice".

Personally, I think his comments were all "in a muck" and very painful to listen to. He ended asking the judge to see that Casey receive "equal justice under the law as is written above you"and to not adjudicate any of the charges and impose parole of "about" a year. As a closing, Baez reminded Strickland that Casey had no prior record and had made full restitution. Lastly, he objected to the costs that the State was asking for. Baez stated that the $5,517.75 cost of investigation was excessive considering that the theft was only $600.54. He mentioned again the "armada" of police cars sent to arrest Casey.

Judge Strickland indicated that he had to impose the costs and that they could be argued over later.

If you remember, at the December 11 hearing, Judge Strickland had given Baez & Company an ultimatum: January 25 was THE date for either a jury trial, a bench trial, or a plea. The judge had also indicated clearly to Baez what his decision would probably be for any first-time offender in Casey's situation. While the judge was not in a position to broker a deal with Casey, he made it very clear (wink-wink) that she would probably get time served and that while she would be found guilty of all 13 counts, her punishment would not reflect 13 felonies. In a sense, Baez was "speaking to the choir" here with his back against the wall in terms of ending the case.

I can only assume that this speech by Baez was mainly to attack the State's Attorneys and do some gratuitous grandstanding. I have to wonder if this was a wise decision, considering the much more serious trial to come.

Mr. George briefly responded and indicated that he didn't know how long Mr. Baez had practiced law in Orange and Osceola Counties, but that the charging situation was not uncommon. In fact, Judge Strickland had made the exact same comment at the December 11 hearing. George stated that he did not want to get into a competition of words and simply indicated that Casey had plead guilty to all 13 counts and that punishment would be the Court's decision. He also stated that that she had already been incarcerated for over a year-and-a-half and that the actual cost of the restitution that had been paid was $654.25. George continued by stating that the State would object to adjudication and parole and would prefer adjudication and a straight jail sentence.

George then brought up a prickly situation that exists. It would not be possible for her to be put on probation as she is incarcerated and already under 24 hour supervision. Casey would still be incarcerated for the foreseeable future and possibly for the rest of her life.

Upon saying that, the camera went to the podium and Casey's face tensed and she gave a big gulp. I am sure she wasn't comfortable hearing this from Mr. George.

Baez responded briefly, telling Judge Strickland that the State was "putting the cart before the horse" in assuming that Casey would spend the rest of her life in jail. He said that they were working hard to acquit Casey and it was "bold" of the State to make such assumptions.

It was then Judge Strickland's time to render justice. He ended up adjudicating Casey on 6 charges, one each for the writing of the four checks, one for one of four counts of using Amy Huizenga's identity, and one for grand theft, as the total was over $300. Each charge was given time served, 412 days (as the judge had hinted at the prior hearing). He did not adjudicate on the remaining 7 charges and sentenced Casey to one year of probation. She is not to have any contact with Huizenga. Strickland stated that “I withheld in seven. I adjudicated in six. If that seems Solomon-like, it is. I just couldn’t think of a better, more appropriate way to do it.”

Almost as an afterthought, it was mentioned that Amy Huizenga was not present in court and did not wish to make a statement. Then, it was Casey's turn to make a brief apology to her friend.

“I just wanted to let everyone know that I’m sorry for what I did. I take complete and full responsibility for my actions. And I’d like to sincerely apologize to Amy. I wish I would have been a better friend.”

In her blog this morning, Lillian Glass had this to say about that little speech:

As Casey was reciting her lines of bullshit, Jose Baez’s eyes did not leave Casey’s face. He looked like a proud papa at a grade school play, making sure that his kid didn’t flub her lines. Casey may have memorized her lines and not flubbed them verbally, but she sure flubbed them vocally and body language wise.

The probation situation is problematic. In order to be adjudicated, probation must be served and then the charges essentially "go away" for the most part. Since Casey is in jail already, probation, or public supervision is not possible at this point. It was suggested by Mr. George that she serve the probation in jail. Strickland pointed out that that particular remedy was difficult since he can only sentence a person to jail for up to one year. In the end, the probation issue and the financial issue were left for another time. Jose Baez cracked a not-so-funny joke: "We could solve this with a reasonable bond..." As Baez smirked at his own wit, nobody laughed.

When all was said and done, Casey Anthony ended up as a convicted felon. What this will mean for the future remains to be seen. Experts disagree and Baez didn't seem to mind about that. In an interview with reporters as he was leaving court, Baez stated that "adjudication didn't mean a "whole lot".

Once the plea was dealt with, the hearing returned to motions in the murder case.

The first motion discussed was the defense MOTION TO TAKE DEPOSITION TO PERPETUATE TESTIMONY OF JILL KERLEY. Kerley is the ex-wife of Roy Kronk who was interviewed by a defense PI and essentially said she thought Roy could have done it. She is ill with non-Hodgekins lymphoma and is unable to travel to Orlando due to her illness. Andrea Lyon indicated that they are working towards resolving the issues. She indicated that Linda Drane Burdick wants the opportunity to do an evidence deposition first. This was agreed to by both parties and interviews will take place based on Ms. Kerley's chemotherapy schedule. Ms. Burdick did not waive the right of the State to call the witness to the stand during the actual trial, health allowing.

Judge Strickland approved the motion.

The only concern Ms. Drane Burdick had was with the costs of traveling to the "mini-trial proceeding." While she was willing for the State to pay for the expenses to travel to Tennessee for the discovery process. Some time later in the hearing, Andrea Lyon made a brief comment that perhaps Casey could be declared indigent for these particular purposes. For now, financial discussions are premature and will be discussed when and if it is necessary.

In his interview after the hearing, Baez also commented on the "Kronk" situation. He stated that they are "not pointing the finger at Mr. Kronk" and they are not "making any disparaging remarks about Mr. Kronk". Baez claimed that he is only looking for material with which to impeach Kronk. He also called the police investigation into Kronk, "shoddy work". Any other information concerning Kronk would come out at trial.

This whole Kronk issue should be going on for quite a while. The Court hasn't even discussed the main motion, DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO INTRODUCE PRIOR BAD ACTS AND OTHER CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO ROY M. KRONK. I have a feeling it will be another circus-within-a-circus.

The next motion that was discussed brought up some very lively discussion. Linda Drane Burdick stated that the purpose for the STATE OF FLORIDA'S SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL RECIPROCAL DISCOVERY and MOTION FOR DISCOVERY SCHEDULE was to move the case along.

Judge Strickland started the discussion of the motion by indicating that he expected both sides to submit discovery schedules and that he would either make one of his own or choose one of the two submitted.

Drane Burdick indicated that no trial date could be set until the defence took depositions of witnesses. She said that the defense had filed a motion entitled OBJECTION which blamed the lack of progress on the State. She indicated understanding of the scientific information status, but stated that there were other, non-scientific aspects of the case on which they could move forward. She said that the defense has any number of LE and civilian witnesses they could depose. In addition, the defense has received 90% of the discovery in the case has already been turned over to the defense. While she was not casting blame on the defense, she felt that the court now needed to get involved in the discovery process. Finally, she said that, based on the current pace, that the trial would probably not be able to be scheduled for the summer. She was also concerned that, as the trial date approached, that the defense would "dump" 50 or 60 witnesses on them, forcing the trial even further back in time. Drane Burdick mentioned that the State would not like to see the trial take place 3, 4, or even 5 years after the incident.

Strickland mentioned that the main items asked for included names and addresses of witnesses. Drane-Burdick said that the defense had begun to supply them to her recently and that that particular issue was moot at this point.

Jose Baez spoke to the motion next. He began by saying that there was no disagreement among the parties. He said they wanted to see the case move along as well. However, he said that they were "not going to have the rug taken from under us" and that they were "gonna be thorough...". He then said that, "We call this motion the pot calling the kettle black".

Before Baez could continue with more of this sort of legal argument, Judge Strickland interrupted him to say, "let's not go there".

Baez then said, "How many times have we filed motions to compel...".

Strickland responded, "You're doing it again, anyway".

Strickland pointed out that he was aware that due to the "tough" nature of the case, people got hot under the collar. He essentially told Baez that this was not the time for finger-pointing; it was time to make progress in the case. Next, the judge indicated that it was time for each party to present a discovery schedule. He then pressed both sides as to whether or not they wanted to set a trial date, even though it is difficult to do in this case.

Baez then went on to state that they had still not received all the empirical scientific data they had asked for.

This situation has been going on since December 11, 2008, the day Caylee's remains were discovered. The next day, the defense wanted all the photographs, maps, etc. This was followed up numerous times throughout 2009. Not the least of the information the defense wants is just about every piece of information about testing, the lab, the technicians, the scientists that exists. It goes far beyond the information that is normally given out. We heard about the fact that the judge has no jurisdiction over these entities and neither does the State's Attorneys' Office.

Baez said that the Oak Ridge Lab would give them everything that they requested above and beyond what had been supplied to the State.

When Baez said that it wasn't about pointing fingers, the judge interrupted him again to say that that was where he was heading. Judge Strickland then brought the discussion back to setting a trial date. The judge asked Baez if he would like to discuss this with Ms. Lyon (the lead attorney on the case). Strickland quickly pointed out that they would establish deadlines for discovery. As he was saying this, Ms. Lyon approached the podium and Baez went on talking for a bit telling the judge that they would be meeting with the defense that afternoon to discuss these issues. Then, the judge again recommended he consult with Lyon, and he did, briefly.

Jeff Ashton got up to speak to the issue. He said that the State had all the information that the Oak Ridge lab was willing to provide and that all that information had been turned over to the defense. If the defense wanted anything else from the lab, it was an issue the defense would have to deal with directly with the lab.

The judge told the defense that they would have to file something and then have the lab's counsel come in to deal with the situation. Essentially, the State is "incidental" to the issue, according to Strickland.

The judge went back to the point at hand. He now asked if he should set a trial date and work backwards from there, or would they prefer not to have a trial date and set the discovery schedule.

Ashton said that the defense and prosecution would meet together to make a discovery schedule. Strickland set a deadline of 10-15 days for this. Once he had set the schedule, a trial date could then be selected.

Ashton went on to ask if the only problem was with the Oak Ridge lab. Baez stated that there was also a problem with the FBI. Ashton then said that he believed there were some "latent print-related items that are not in the discovery" that he has been able to find.

Needless to say, that line has brought up a great deal of discussion on the Internet!

He then said that, other than that, the defense had everything the FBI lab was willing to provide.

Baez then went on to complain about how the State was providing them with discovery. He said that there is a strong percentage of the forensic evidence they do not have.

Strickland made it clear, one last time, that the defense has everything the labs will provide and that the situation now demands that attorneys for Oak Ridge and the FBI lab now be involved in the process.

Ashton did request that Linda Kenney-Baden, who is the "science" attorney in the case, get directly in touch with him rather than go through the chain of Baden-Baez-Drane Burdick-Ashton to improve communication on the issues.

With this, the hearing came to a close.

If you would like to watch the entire hearing, here are the links:

Part 1
Part 2

According to WESH, later Monday, Strickland denied the defense's motion to stop jail visits from being videotaped. The motion had been filed January 19.

Earlier this week, Tim Miller's attorney, Mark NeJame asked for a continuation and the TES motion was not heard as expected.

I am so pleased with Judge Strickland. Today, he managed to keep the defense from running on and on and on and kept the hearing on track.

What's next to look forward to? Well, we are fast approaching the February 1 deadline set for the defense to provide the witness list which will prove that Caylee's body was placed in its final location while Casey Anthony was in jail!

Stay tuned to T&T!

Casey Anthony's Lawyers: Going through the motions, Newly Released Discovery

I've been skimming motions for the criminal case and haven't had the energy to really go through them in depth because I have the feeling that the defense is merely "going through the motions" to get them on the record in hopes for an appeal down the road.

I promise I'll review them in more depth when a hearing date is set. I've also been collecting the motions for the fraud trial and will post my opinions about them prior to the newly rescheduled hearing on December 11.

Right now, though, I'd like to briefly discuss some aspects of the Motion To Dismiss Defective Indictment. The main argument that the defense makes is that the indictment lacks "facts" which says that it does not contain enough facts to formulate a defense.

To remind you, the Grand Jury met on October 14, 2008 and heard evidence from LE and George Anthony, her father. After 43 minutes of deliberation, they returned the indictment and Casey was arrested for the last time.

At that time, LE had no body. The testimony before the Grand Jury is secret and has only been released to the State's Attorneys due to the fact that there seem to be discrepancies in George Anthony's prior deposition and what he said to the Grand Jury. Obviously, these facts could not be included in the indictment.

As appendices to the motion, the defense included the indictment against Casey and a copy of the indictment against Patrick Gonzalez, Sr. for comparison. Of all the indictments available, the defense chose this case, probably because the whole crime was caught on videotape! If you read through the indictment, it does have more detailed information, but not much at all, certainly not enough to allow the defense to build their case on those facts.

Still wondering if this well written motion and brief, more than likely penned by Andrea Lyon, held any water,I went to the local TV stations. Both of their legal analysts blew the motion off.

Reading Hal Boedeker' s blog on November 3, 2009, I found the following quotes:

***The defense's claim that the indictment is defective is "laughable," WFTV legal analyst Bill Sheaffer said. "When is the defense ever going to get serious?" he asked.

***WKMG-Channel 6 anchor Erick Weber said: "Now the defense is attacking that criminal indictment, claiming the document is defective. According to Anthony's attorneys, the indictment does not include any specific facts about how the crime was committed. Without any facts to refute, Anthony cannot formulate a defense, her attorneys argue."

*** WESH-Channel 2's Bob Kealing highlighted this from the defense team: "The state's intention to seek the death penalty in order to gain a tactical advantage over the defense is in bad faith."

Kealing's take on what will happen to the motion: "It would seem pretty unlikely that the judge would just toss a grand jury indictment that was based, in part, on testimony of Casey's own father. But that's what [defense attorney Jose] Baez and company are asking."

I was still wondering, so I did something I rarely do. I contacted a lawyer. This guy is recently retired and has worked mostly in civil litigation. However, a number of years ago, he did take and pass the Florida Bar exam on a whim. At the present time, he's thinking of relocating to Florida to practice as a defense attorney, so he's been reviewing his Florida law. He knows absolutely nothing about this case, so I thought his opinion might be of help.

He called me back not long after I sent him a copy of the motion. His response was literally, "No way Jose" is this motion going anywhere!

At this point, I'd like to go back to the main complaint in the motion, that:

Without any facts to refute, Miss Anthony cannot formulate a defense.

Let's consider here. This case was placed in the hands of defense attorney Jose Baez all the way back in July, 2008. Between that time and the time of the indictment, Baez had stated to the press more than once that Casey had "compelling" reasons for not telling her story and that the facts would come out at trial. We kept hearing about "junk science" could not prove that there had really been a dead body in the trunk of Casey's abandoned car. George Anthony pointed out in one memorable clip that the "dead body in the car" was somebody else. Cindy Anthony kept claiming it was rotten pizza that caused the stench.

There are now plenty more facts out here in public with all the discovery that has been released due to the Florida Sunshine Laws. We had many pages released today with yet more "facts" that the defense can now refute.

The two main findings that will surely be "bombshells" in the case are the finding of chloroform in the Gatoraide bottle along with syringes as well as the discovery of coffin flies both on the paper towels in the trunk and on the remains.

Today, WESH reported the following:

The forensic report was dated Sept. 22, 2009. Inside the trunk and a trash bag from Anthony's car, investigators recovered a large number of so-called coffin flies, which are gnats that feed on human decomposition.

Forensic botanist Neal Haskell concluded that a large number of the insects found on paper towels inside a trash bag meant there was decompositional fluid on the towels.

"Given the association of the towels with the car, it seems most likely that the paper toweling was used in an attempt to clean the decompositional fluids purged from the remains in the trunk of the car," the report stated.

In addition Haskell said the insects found in Caylee's skeletanized remains and near the body indicated insects started colonizing there in late June or early July 2008.

WFTV reported that:

There was very damning evidence found at the scene where Caylee's remains were found inside a Disney bag, including a bottle of Cool Blue Gatorade, but when they opened it they found instead a substance containing chloroform and cleaning fluid and a syringe holding a substance containing the potentially deadly chloroform.

Records show the Gatorade bottle they found was partially full of a fluid that was later through testing determined to contain chloroform and cleaning fluid. Inside the bottle was a plastic pouch containing a syringe where investigators also found chloroform.

During earlier investigators, computer searches were found on Casey Anthony’s computer on how to make chloroform months before Caylee disappeared and investigators found a web page about chloroform in Casey's ex-boyfriend's computer, which he says she could have seen, months before investigators say she went online researching chloroform.

Mr. Baez, Ms. Lyon, Ms. Kenney-Baden, Mr. Macaluso, I think there are enough facts out there that you can use to build your defense.

Perhaps the problem is that none of the facts work to the defense's benefit. I suppose you expect the State to provide you with the defense.

As a final note, I'd like to mention Mr. Macaluso's statement last summer that he had PROOF that Caylee's remains were placed there by another party and that Casey was innocent. He now has until February to present his proof to the court. I'd like to remind people that it was Linda Drane-Burdick who recommended that date to the court. Ms. Burdick is giving the defense enough time to hang themselves on their own petard.