Casey Anthony: Macaluso Off The Dream Team

Todd Macaluso is now officially off the Casey Anthony "Dream Team" of high powered attorneys brought in by Jose Baez over the past year or so to help defend his client, Casey Anthony, who is accused of capital murder in the death of her daughter, Caylee.

When Macaluso first came on Team Anthony in March, 2009, he was already facing charges with the California Bar Association. The Notice of Disciplinary Charges against him were filed on January 13, 2009. At that time, Macaluso was charged with eight counts. They consisted of one count of Moral Turpitude-Issuing NSF Checks, two counts of Failure to Maintain Client Funds in Trust Account, three counts of Moral Turpitude-Misappropriation, on count of Failure to Maintain Client Funds in Trust Account, and one count of Misuse of Client Trust Account.

Apparently, Macaluso had used about $170,00 from clients trust accounts for expenses in his business, including the leasing of a jet. While he is not accused of stealing any money and states the money was returned to the accounts, this definitely fits into the category of misappropriation of funds.

He filed a response on February 13, 2009. This document is interesting to read because it is chock full of various defenses in the case. I copied some of them from the document, but have not included the affirmative defenses at the end. Please go read them!

Firstly, Macaluso indicates that none of his clients ever complained about the situation. The banks involved, however, were required to report the problem to the Bar.

His major defense concerned his brother, who died in early December, 2005. In his reply, Macaluso stated the following, over and over:

3. Any errors that were committed by Respondent were a direct result of mistakes by his office staff in administering and supervising the trust account, because of his inability to attend to those duties at that time.

My friend who is an attorney pointed out to me that it is not allowed for anyone but the attorney himself to be responsible for the accounts. He said a lawyer may not delegate this crucial responsibility to anyone. He also told me that this is a very serious allegation. It also bugs me that he blames his staff. There's nothing worse than passing the buck and refusing to take responsibility for his actions as Casey stated (whether she meant it or not) at her check fraud trial.

5. Respondent specifically denies any wilful (sic)violation of Business and Professions Code, section 6106. Respondent’s actions in failing to know that his trust account contained insufficient funds at those particular times were not a result of gross negligence, moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption, but the result of insufficient training and supervision of his office staff, due to a personal tragedy in Respondent’s family, the sudden and unexpected death of his only brother, which caused him severe emotional and psychological trauma.

Out of respect to Mr. Macaluso and his family, I won't post everything he wrote in his defense here, but you can read it in the original document.

As I was watching Jane Velez-Mitchell tonight, Judge David Young made an interesting comment about Macaluso's reasoning. He said that the excuse that he was grieving the loss of his brother in the mismanagement of the funds was , "a bunch of malarkey".

On March 2, 2009, Macaluso was brought in to the case. At the time, he told reporters that he was joining the team because he excels at cross-examining technical experts.

March 12, 2009, Macaluso submitted an AMENDED VERIFIED MOTION FOR ADMISSION TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE. I've never located his original motion, but I would assume that he had to present and amended motion to include his situation with the California Bar. He included a list of informational items which I've copied here:

STATEMENT IDENTIFYING PENDING DISCIPLINARY ACTION

COMES NOW the undersigned foreign attorney, TODD E. MACALUSO, In support of the Verified Motion for Admission to Appear Pro Hac Vice, and states the following:

1. That it has come to the attention of the undersigned counsel that there is a pending disciplinary action
that was filed January 23, 2009.
2. The pending investigation case number is 6-0-14552.
3. That a response was filed February 13, 2009. See attached Response to Disciplinary Action.
4. In December of 2005, Attorney's brother, Glenn Macaluso passed away unexpected (sic) of an
undiagnosed heart condition.
5. As a result thereof, the Attorney was away from the office for approximately one year and three months
consoling his family due to the tragic loss.
6. During that time, two checks were drafted that were returned by the bank due to an accounting error by
the office staff.
7. The accounting error was immediately and swiftly corrected.
8. No client complaint was ever filed to the State Bar.
9. The only reason the matter was reported to the Bar was because the bank reports automatically by
State Law.
10. The Attorney is a member of the California State Bar and is in good standing. A certificate of good
standing will be provided forthwith.

In his motion, Macaluso included a copy of his response to the charges.

On March 17, Judge Stan Strickland admitted Macaluso to practice law for the Casey Anthony case. By August 21, Macaluso had taken the lead in the fight for TES records with his now-famous statement to the Court:

As Your Honor knows, the body of Caylee Marie Anthony was found very close to the Anthony home, and the body was found in a wooded area that if one were to search for a missing child, this is the first place you would go search. There is substantial evidence that we’ve discovered, and that’s been set forth in our brief, Your Honor, that the body or the remains of Caylee Anthony were placed there after Casey Anthony was locked up in the Orange County Correctional Facility. There is substantial evidence, and that proves, Your Honor, her innocence. That’s exculpatory evidence, it proves that somebody else placed the remains in the area where it was ultimately found.

Apparently, Macaluso's case didn't turn out to be "a simple mistake that is still being worked out". Instead, he is facing an Alternative Discipline Program and will be ineligible to practice law since he will be placed on the inactive list during this time. Darren Kavinoky, another attorney on JVM indicated that the reasons Macaluso gave were probably what got him the alternative program rather than a stronger discipline.

Whatever the future may hold for Todd Macaluso, his role in the case is over.

Sources

Casey Anthony: August 21 Hearing Report
Video: March 13, 2009
Casey's New Attorney In Trouble With California Bar
Attorney Steps Away From Casey Anthony Defense

Casey Anthony to appear in hearing Monday, January 25

It's been quite a crazy week in the Case Against Casey Anthony. Every day, we are getting different messages about what will happen on Monday, January 25 in Judge Stan Strickland's courtroom at 1:30 PM. At this point, we officially know that the fraud trial will not take place. The fact that the trial will not take place has led to the conclusion that Casey Anthony may be taking a plea.

What we don't know is what road to a plea Casey will take. Will she plea bargain through the State's Attorney's office? Will she plead no contest? Will she plead guilty? Will she throw herself on the mercy of the Court in hopes of delayed adjudication or a sentence of time served?

Stay tuned to your favorite live stream to find out!

Yesterday, NEWS13 indicated that there will be two motions heard during this hearing.

The first one is the MOTION TO MODIFY COURT'S ORDER ON EQUUSEARCH DOCUMENTS SUBPOENA APPLICATION. This is the motion which was filed in November asking TES for more records. The defense claims that TES lied in saying that only 32 searchers were in the area where Caylee Marie Anthony's remains were discovered.

The defense will have to deal with the fact that one of the searchers cited searched the area with others and were not under the direct supervision of TES. The second individual, Joe Jordan, illegally taped his interview with defense PI Mort Smith and Judge Strickland sealed it for the time being.

According to NEWS13, the MOTION TO TAKE DEPOSITION TO PERPETUATE TESTIMONY OF JILL KERLEY would be addressed in court. Jill Kerley is Roy Kronk's ex-wife who was also interviewed by Mort Smith. In the video, Ms. Kerley has a great deal of nasty information about her former husband, to whom she was married for just over four months.

It's pretty obvious where the defense is heading with these motions. Jose Baez and Andrea Lyon filed a motion in November with the impressive title: DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO INTRODUCE PRIOR BAD ACTS AND OTHER CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO ROY M. KRONK.

Although the defense never states in the motion that Kronk killed Caylee, there is information "out there" from Kronk's ex-wife, son and the daughter of another ex-wife to consider him a serious suspect in the case.

Let's see, the hearing is on the 25th of January, exactly one week before the February 1 deadline that Strickland imposed on the defense to prove the words of Todd Macaluso August 21 that:

As Your Honor knows, the body of Caylee Marie Anthony was found very close to the Anthony home, and the body was found in a wooded area that if one were to search for a missing child, this is the first place you would go search. There is substantial evidence that we’ve discovered, and that’s been set forth in our brief, Your Honor, that the body or the remains of Caylee Anthony were placed there after Casey Anthony was locked up in the Orange County Correctional Facility. There is substantial evidence, and that proves, Your Honor, her innocence. That’s exculpatory evidence, it proves that somebody else placed the remains in the area where it was ultimately found.

Well, although we won't have a trial to watch, this hearing should be one hum-dinger!

Casey Anthony: The State Files Motions

UPDATE!

Jean Casarez, is on InSession and has just reported that George Anthony, Cindy Anthony, and Brad Conway were subpoenaed by the STATE! While the State isn't speaking, she surmised that they may be testifying in the situation with Dominic Casey.

Yesterday, the State filed two motions concerning the case against Casey Anthony. They are very interesting, so I thought I'd mark my time waiting for tomorrow's hearing by reviewing them.

The first motion is yet another request for a witness list and discovery concerning the murder trial.

Penned by Assistant State's Attorney Linda Drane Burdick, the STATE OF FLORIDA'S SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL RECIPROCAL DISCOVERY and MOTION FOR DISCOVERY SCHEDULE, again asks for information concerning the defense case.

The motion addresses the defense in 11 paragraphs:

Paragraph 1 states that

At a scheduling conference with the court on July 7, 2009, counsel for the defendant Anthony advised that trial preparation in the case would take approximately one year...

In addition, Drane Burdick mentions that Andrea Lyon would present motions after Labor Day and provide a motions schedule to the court. Lyon has certainly presented motions, we haven't seen a proposed motions schedule yet.

In paragraph 2, Drane Burdick indicates that based on the volume of information, a date of January 21, 2010 was set for a trial status hearing and the trial was moved to summer, 2010.

In the third paragraph, she reiterates that the only discovery presented by the defense to date are a Defense Witness List (November 20, 2008) and an Amended Defense Witness List (January 22, 2009). She also points out to the court that the original form of the witness list was improper and had to be refiled.

Paragraph 4 starts to get to the heart of the matter.

... Miss Anthony has filed motions with attached statements from witnesses purporting to have information regarding specific aspects of the case.

This, of course, refers to the Motion and Memorandum of Law filed by the defense on November 19, although dated the 18th.

DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO INTRODUCE PRIOR BAD ACTS AND OTHER CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO ROY M. KRONK
MEMORANDUM OF LAW

Read HERE for discussion of the motion.

It also refers to another defense motion filed November 23, MOTION TO MODIFY THE COURT'S ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S APPLICATION FOR SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM FOR DOCUMENTS IN THE POSSESSION OF TEXAS EQUUSEARCH.

This motion asks Judge Strickland to allow the defense access to all the records from Texas Equsearch. They claim that there were more than 32 searchers in the area and that they had found two people who searched the area and were not on the TES list. I'll discuss this motion and the other new motion later on.

In the 5th paragraph of the State's motion, Drane-Burdick states that

Neither motion was filed with a list of the names and addresses of witnesses as required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(d)(1)(A). Instead, upon inquiry, the undersigned was informed initially via email from Andrea Lyon on Friday, November 20, 2009 that the "potential witnesses should be obvious from the filing", and then ultimately an email was received from Jose Baez on Tuesday, November 24, 2009 with "witness contact information" listing lawyers for Crystal & Brandon Sparks (in Washington DC), Jill Kerley (in Knoxville, TN) and Laura Buchanan (in Woodbridge, NJ). At that point, the undersigned made a specific request for a formal witness list with current addresses as required by the Rule and was advised that the defense feels they have no "further obligation to file anything" and "...the witnesses do not want the media harassing them in the meantime."

Applause for Ms. Drane Burdick here. She clearly states that the defense is playing by its own rules, to the neglect of the requirements of the rules of law.

Ms. Drane Burdick goes on in paragraph 6 to point out that the "unilateral decision" of the defense to hold required information about potential witnesses to run "afoul of the basic tenents of the Rules of Criminal Procedure".

Paragraph 7 details the circumstances under which the defense could hold this information confidential.

Beginning with the 8th paragraph, Drane Burdick addresses the issue of witness lists.

... the State of Florida can not adequately address the schedueling of the trial without the legally appropriate notification by the defendant of ALL witnesses she will call during trial.

Paragraphs 9 and addresses some very telling information about the investigative work done to date by the prosecution.

At a hearing on December 12, 2008, the defendant suggested that she had retained a bevy of expert witnesses to assist with her defense. Yet, a year later, not one of these individuals is listed by the defendant, nor have they sought to examine any of the evidence collected either before or after December 11, 2008. The only evidence review to date occurred on November 14, 2008 when Dr. Henry Lee examined the defendant's vehicle at the Orange County Sheriff's Office noting that he would need to return to finish the exam at a later date. He has yet to do so.
(9)

Certainly the defendant can choose to not review the evidence, or depose particular witnesses, or even file additional motions.... (11)

This rather startling information leads me to believe that the defense just may lack sufficient funds to have their own experts travel to Florida and inspect the evidence. Or, it is possible that the defense will rely on the OSCO, FDLE, and FDI results to build a case based on the banner phrase "junk science"? Another possibility is that the defense experts have already reviewed the material and have informally told the defense that the testing is well done and the methodology only should be attacked at trial.

Paragraph 10 addresses other witnesses who should be listed for the case.

The defendant has conducted depositions of a few "civilian" witnesses, including several that were not completed and has done no depositions of the law enforcement investigators or any listed expert witness.

This certainly sounds like delay to me. The defense has had over a year to get this case together. After a flurry of depositions last summer, the only notice for deposition that has been submitted is for Roy Kronk's ex-wife, Jill Kerley which involves an attempt to pin the murder on the meter-reader.

In her closing, Linda Drane Burdick tells the judge she wants to see the defense get moving on these matters.

...the State of Florida respectfully request that this Honorable Court conduct a hearing on this matter, or alternatively, order the defendant to immediately turn over any and all evidence to include the names and addresses of witnesses, and any statements or reports generated by those witnesses, and any tangible papers or objects to be used at hearing or trial. The State additionally requests that this Court enter a pretrial order setting discovery, motion, and hearing deadlines, applicable to both parties, so this matter can proceed to trial as expeditiously as possible.

I am convinced that Baez & Co. are spending the majority of their money and time desperately hunting for reasonable doubt in the case. Recently, the motions have dealt with Roy Kronk's character and the circumstances surrounding the discovery of the remains. No doubt, they are impelled by the February 1 date by which they have to provide concrete facts to back up Todd Macaluso's claim that the defense has proof that Casey did not put Caylee's body in the swamp on Suburban Drive.

In terms of the discovery of Caylee's remains, the defense filed a MOTION TO MODIFY THE COURT'S ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S APPLICATION FOR SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM FOR DOCUMENTS IN THE POSSESSION OF TEXAS EQUUSEARCH on November 23.

In the motion, Baez essentially calls Tim Miller of being a liar and of having not included all searchers of the area on Suburban Drive. Baez states in the motion that

The Defense, through its own independent investigation, has interviewed sever TES searchers who not only searched the area where the remains were found, bu who were not among the thirty-two (32) identified by TES. As reflected in their individual signed statements, these individuals each submitted detailed reports of their search to TES, none of which were disclosed to the Defense.

Exhibit A in the defense motion is the statement of Joseph Jordan. He met with his attorney and an investigator (not identified) for the defense team on October 27, 2009. In his statement, Jordan made the following four statements:

a. On September 1, 2008, I was a volunteer member for Texas Equu Search (TES).

b. On September 1, 2008, I and a group of approximately 30 TES volunteers went to the area of Suburban and Hope Springs Streets in Orlando, Florida. We went to that area to search for the remains of Caylee Anthony.

c. Although I was in the area with over 30 people, only five to six volunteers and I searched the area by the stockade fence along the south side of Suburban Street near Hope Springs Street. Among the five to six volunteers with me were Danny Ibison and his dog and a Panama City Sheriff's Deputy with one of his two dogs.

d. All of the information concerning the search was reduced to writings which were placed on specific forms provided to me by TES. I am a very detailed person and I kept a detailed list of the items I saw and there (sic) location which I believed were important to a missing person investigation. All of this information was provided to TES.

When I first read this statement, I was very confused. During the searches in September, I followed Mr. Jordan's group of people through his and web site. I was aware that he had searched on his own and posted pictures at his site. I imagine these searches were not with TES, which prohibits searchers from taking pictures. I had not been aware he had searched with TES. My question would be, was he searching OFFICIALLY with TES or did he and some of his fellow searchers break off on their own. My second question was how far from the stockade fence they searched. Mr. Jordan did not include in his statement any comments about the search conditions such as standing water or dense vegetation. The area near the stockade fence was high and dry and clear as it abutted a house.

Well, that wasn't the end of the story concerning his statement. Yesterday, Linda Drane Burdick
filed another motion.

STATE OF FLORIDA'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING RECORDING OF INTERVIEW OF JOE JORDAN

The very same day that he signed the statement, Joe Jordan called the OCSO and spoke to Cpl Eric Edwards. He indicated he had been interviewed by a defense investigator that morning and has surreptitously recorded the interview in violation of Florida Law. Since it was illegally recorded, Ms. Drane Burdick couldn't listen to it.

Subsequently, she was present for an interview with Jordan and states in the motion that

Based upon representations made during the course of that interview, the illegally recorded statement may materially conflict with the subsequent interview.

The OCSO and the defense team both refused to press charges against Jordan and Drane Burdick asks the court to not allow it to be released as it was illegally obtained.

It sounds to me as though Mr. Jordan tried to do the right thing for himself and went about it in the wrong way. Did he have a concern that somehow. the interviewer phrased questions in such a way as to paint his actions differently than they really were? Anyway, this leaves Mr. Jordan pretty much out of the equation to support the defense motion!

The other person interviewed by the defense was a New Jersey woman, Laura Buchanan. In her statement, she asserts that

1. My name is Laura Buchanan and I currently live in Mendham, New Jersey.

2. On September 3, 2008, I was a volunteer for Texas Equus (sic) Search.

3. On September 3, 2008, the team in which I was assigned went to Suburban Street in Orlando and searched the area near where the remains of Caylee Anthony were found.

4. We were not officially assigned to search that area. We went on our own.

5. We were in that area for approximately 3 to 4 hours.

6. I personally searched near the privacy fence and worked my way towards and then beyond the spot where the body was found.

7. I did not notice anything unusual.

8. I did not notice a strange smell. I noticed no buzzards, nor unusual animal or insect activity.

9. It is my opinion that the remains of Caylee Anthony were not there during the time of our search.

Well, this lady can't be used to bolster the motion to compel TES to turn over the documents for all searchers, she wasn't searching the area with TES. This is strike two of two available to the defense.

I do find her statement a bit strange. It sounds as though she was asked specific questions with yes/no answers and then put in statement form. For example, the interviewer could have asked, "Did you see any buzzards?" and she could simply have said, "no". Anyway, the statement says more that the searchers were looking for a body and not skeletal remains. Buzzards and bugs do not hang around bones. Nor would there be any noticeable smells emanating from bones. She is probably not an expert and her opinion that the remains were there, in many cases, buried under the soil or hidden by heavy plant growth. Notice that again, there is no statement concerning the "lay of the land" on the day she searched. She wasn't in a meadow, it was a swampy morass!

If the defense believes the body was placed on Suburban Drive when Casey was in jail, they will have to come up with better witnesses. I am hoping that the scientific evidence as to plant growth through the bones and the locations where they were found will disprove any of this nonsense!

See you in court for the hearing tomorrow at 9:30 AM. InSession will be covering it as well as the local TV stations.

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.

Casey Anthony: The Case Goes On...

It was not a smooth day in court today for those of us who watched it on InSession or live-streamed. The first part of the hearing was blacked out due to feed problems. Fortunately, I've been able to fill in the blanks from the media accounts and reporting by the wonderful Beth Karas. Prior to the hearing it was announced that the Motion To Dismiss Due To Spoliation Of Evidence would not be heard today since the defense had not provided a witness list.

On September 10, the State filed a Motion To Compel Reciprocal Discovery concerning defense attorney Todd Macaluso's claims at the August 21 hearing that the defense had "substantial evidence" that the body of Caylee Anthony had been placed in its final location while Casey Anthony was in jail. Macaluso added that the defense had "substantial evidence" that Casey Anthony was innocent. In their motion, the State requested a witness list of those who would testify to these facts. According to the Orlando Sentinel,

Strickland ordered the defense to provide a witness list to the state by Feb. 1 or else explain why it can't do so. Prosecutors want to interview the witnesses who can support the defense’s claim.

Based on the ongoing media presence of members of the defense team, it appears to me that they are making broad statements about the evidence, but are loathe to disclose any specific evidence to the State to back up their claims. More than once, Jose Baez has stated that what the defense has to support their claims will come out at the trial. Likewise, Baez has frequently stated that Casey Anthony had "compelling reasons" she had acted as she did and it would come out at the trial. Unfortunately, Baez and his defense team is required to provide reciprocal discovery prior to the trial. While I can respect that the defense wants to keep as much information as possible in their pocket, it is necessary to disclose information to support their motions.

Next, Judge Stan Strickland addressed the State’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Legally Flawed Motion to Dismiss Counts I and II.

In their original motion, the defense had argued that the judge should dismiss Count I (murder charge) because,

Even viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the undisputed facts of this case show that the prosecution cannot prove its prima facie case for first degree murder.

The defense, in support of dropping Count II (the child abuse charges) indicated that,

There is no evidence showing that Miss Anthony ever harmed Caylee Anthony. In fact, the facts show that Miss Anthony was a good mother and provided Caylee Anthony with a safe and secure living environment.

The prosecution came back with their motion to strike indicating that it was legally flawed for a number of reasons.

The defense's Addendum filed October 6, included the same vague language as the original motion and included a sworn statement by Casey Anthony which stated,

I, Casey Marie Anthony, do hereby swear and affirm that the matters contained in the (sic) her previously filed Motion to Dismiss Counts I and II of the Indictment, and this Addendum, are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

I do hereby swear to the following:

1. I did not report my daughter missing until my mother called on July 15th 200.

2. I did tell law enforcement that I had dropped off my child with a person named Zenaida Fernandez Gonzalez when questioned by Law Enforcement.

In court, Linda Drane Burdick attacked both the original motion and the addendum. She told the court that the addendum was as flawed as the original motions. She stated that having beliefs or believing someone would testify to something wasn't appropriate in a motion. In addition, she pointed out that the motion and addendum contained no facts and use such terms as "allegedly" and "reportedly". She also indicated that the motion was essentially a farce and full of impermissible language. It's my opinion she totally slammed the defense in her presentation. If she was correct, there was nothing permissible in the entire motion and addendum.

Defense attorney Andrea Lyon spoke on behalf of the defense. She indicated that the Florida legislature never intended for a person to swear to something of which they had no knowledge. She also said that the motion contained sworn police reports and self-authenticating documents. She indicated that Casey Anthony could not swear to information in reports such as those of the medical examiner.

She also indicated that some of the arguments in the State's response were more appropriate to a demurrer. She asked the judge to dismiss the Motion to Strike and allow the State to come back with a demurrer if they chose and then set another hearing date. She indicated that it was a simple matter.

Judge Strickland added a slight bit of humor by wondering if the matter were so simple, why was he having a hard time with it. He indicated that since he had not had the opportunity to read all the defense material, he would rule on it later today.

Later, Strickland did rule, granting the State's motion. In his decision, Strickland stated that,

...While the lengthy motion is both thoughtful and interesting, it does not meet the requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(c)(4) which allows a defendant to move for dismissal alleging that there are no material disputed facts, and the undisputed facts do not establish a prima facia case of guilt against the defendant. While certain facts are undisputed, the bulk of the material facts are disputed.

The motion was granted without prejudice, so I would imagine the defense will be back when they have some facts to offer and Casey Anthony can swear to them. For the time being, Counts I and II remain firmly in place.

Next up was a motion I never got around to discussing. It was filed by the defense on October 12, and I thought I had some more time to read it and digest its content. However, the defense Motion To Modify Order Compeling(sic) Access To Crime Scene Photographs For Defense Experts ties directly to the motions on "spoliation" not discussed today. Apparently, the defense experts are having a difficult time working with the photographs of the remains. They are unable to have hard copies of them or to manipulate them as they need to conduct their investigations.

This is one motion I had mixed feelings about. As Drane Burdick indicated at the hearing, the main concern was that if the defense experts were out of state they would not be easily held liable for unexpected dissemination to the tabloid media. Once a disk was in the hands of the experts, there would be the possibility that someone could steal it or make unauthorized copies and make a small fortune. The thought of pictures of what little remained of Caylee Anthony after so many months in the elements getting out into the public is totally abhorrent to me.

On the other hand, I want Casey Anthony to have the best possible defense. I want the defense experts to have every opportunity to study the pictures for themselves under the best of circumstances. I want future defense motions to be based on solid, factual information that can be rationally discussed in the pre-trial hearings.

Judge Strickland did grant the motion. He will allow Baez and Lyon to have copies of the disk burned and personally delivered to the experts. With that decision, the defense team has taken on the mighty burden of protecting the privacy of Caylee Anthony. I hope that they do.

I would like to cite what to me was an electrifying moment in the discussion of the photographs.

Judge Strickland: State, your principle objection is just that the nature of the photos and to protect the family even though they're on the other side of the fence, right?

Linda Drane Burdick: No, I, actually my position is not to protect the family, my position is to protect the child who is deceased....

When she made that statement I am told by those who attended the hearing that Cindy Anthony began to say something and was restrained by her husband, George. Casey has a visible reaction to the comment and was comforted by Andrea Lyon.

I give kudos here to Ms. Drane Burdick. She made it clear to one and all that her one and only concern as a State's Assistant Attorney is to stand up for Caylee Anthony and getting justice for her.

Shortly after granting the motion, the hearing broke up. As people were milling around, it was amusing to hear Judge Strickland ask to see the man in the second row with the striped gray shirt. It turns out it was Marinade Dave! We should be hearing about his experiences soon, so do check out his blog for his take on the hearing and his meeting with Judge Strickland.

Video of the hearing

One additional note: Judge Strickland has set January 25, 2010 as the date for Casey's check fraud trial. He also set December 18 for a status hearing. I will post about this trial and the motions for it once I've had a chance to wade through them.

Catching Up With Casey Anthony

OK, I took a vacation. It was just a short one, but it managed to coincide with the latest doc dump and a couple new motions. I missed the Defense Team Media Blitz and there has been a new hearing scheduled for next week. The prosecution has been granted their motion for George Anthony's grand jury testimony. Where to start?

HEARING SCHEDULED FOR FRIDAY OCTOBER 16, 9:30 AM

Judge Stan Strickland has announced that he will hear five motions concerning the murder case at this hearing. The hearing will also address the status of the check fraud trial. Hopefully, he will set a date for this trial then.

According to clickorlando, "Judge Stan Strickland wants to put lawyers from Anthony's defense and the state attorney's office in the same room in an attempt to resolve several issues and get the case moving." Among motions still pending that won't be discussed at the hearing are the ones dealing with change of venue, videotaping, and the dropping of the death penalty filed by the defense in September.

The Motion to Dismiss Due to Spoliation of Evidence is the first motion up today. I discussed this one at length in an article posted September 17. The defense has been aiming at getting the physical evidence and the case tossed since the day Caylee's remains were discovered.

The State filed a Response on September 22. In my T&T entry on September 23, I went over this response at length. State's Assistant Attorney Jeffrey Ashton clearly pointed out that the defense needed to use correct terminology as they had used a civil term, "spoliation" to cover destruction of evidence and preservation of possibly exculpatory evidence. He asked for a list of witnesses to support the substantial burden of proof that the defense would bear. Well, the hearing is a week away and there has not been any response to this motion. I am going to assume at this point that the defense will argue that they don't need to present any more information than they have. The State and the defense at this point keep tossing the ball back and forth as to who has the burden of proof. Somehow, no proof is ever offered!

As with some of he other motions to be discussed at the hearing and some which are not, the defenses motions seem full of broad generalizations without specific facts to back them up. I've read the Memorandums that have accompanied some of the motions, and they seem to do the same thing. They repeat accusations with little argument as to proof. I expected more from the "Dream Team" defense attorneys.

Next up is the State’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Legally Flawed Motion to Dismiss Counts I and II. This is an interesting situation. While I was on vacation, the defense filed a Motion to Dismiss Counts 1 And II Of The Indictment Against Casey Marie Anthony.

Since I didn't get a chance to review the motion, I'll discuss it briefly here.

Count 1 is for First Degree Murder. The defense stated that the State had not established a prima facie case of guilt against Casey and that the Court had the right to dismiss the charge. One of my favorite lines from the motions state that:

5. There are no material facts in dispute in this case. Even viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the undisputed facts of this case show that the prosecution cannot prove its prima facie case for first degree murder. Specifically, the State cannot establish whether Caylee Anthony's death was accidental, natural or the result of an intentional or negligent homicide. Most importantly, there is no evidence to substantiate that Miss Anthony unlawfully and with premeditated design killed Caylee Anthony.

That left me with my mouth agape. No proof? Dr. Jan Garavaglia, the ME in the case clearly doesn't know exactly how Caylee died, but she knows it was a homicide, most likely due to the duct tape and the location of the remains wrapped in two black plastic garbage bags and a white laundry bag.

The motion goes on to say that this is a strictly circumstantial case and therefore should be dismissed. I am going to assume that the defense assumes the judge will assume that all the science is junk or tainted, therefore it doesn't exist. Likewise, the defense makes a huge leap here in saying that it's "only" a circumstantial case!

Remember Scott Peterson? There was no cause of death and precious little physical evidence, just the cement buoys and a few of Laci's hairs on a pair of pliers on his boat. He's on death row as we speak. What nailed Peterson more than anything else was his pathological lying. Sound familiar?

Well, we really don't need to spend a lot of time on this motion because it's not on Judge Strickland's to-do list for the hearing the 16th. Instead we have the State’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Legally Flawed Motion to Dismiss Counts I and II.

In the motion, State's Assistant Attorney Linda Drane Burdick indicates that while the Court is permitted to dismiss criminal trials prior to trial under a few circumstances, the defense motion does not move to dismiss under "any particular rule of procedure..." She does point out that under the Rule of Criminal Procedure 3,.190(c),

... it is the defendant's burden to specifically allege and swear to the undisputed facts in a motion to dismiss...

Once again, we have a motion which lacks any proof. There are more sweeping generalizations, no specifics.

Drane Burdick also pointed out that there were some "fatal flaws" in the motion in that Casey Anthony would have to swear to the facts and that there were no "facts" in the motion to swear to, and Casey had not supplied the affidavit which so swore.

On October 6, perhaps in an attempt to fix those "fatal flaws" the defense filed an Addendum to the motion. One would assume that Mr. Baez and Ms. Lyon would manage to affix the pertinent facts to the document to make it legit. But no! Instead they whine about not getting discovery from the State fast enough to do so!

3. Miss Anthony should have also included in that paragraph the fact that much of the discovery which forms the basis for this motion was not made available to the defense until August and September of this year despite repeated requests...

At this point, this motion is obviously very premature. Shouldn't the defense take their time to get which facts they have into shape to include in the motion? It's rather clear at this point that discovery is ongoing and there are many months left to go until the trial. I would imagine that there is still laboratory testing going on.

The best part of the motion is Casey Anthony's affidavit. Baez and Lyon point out that all the "facts" they have are based on lab results (which they didn't have time to put in the motion) to which Casey cannot swear. So, Casey swears to "any old thing" just to make the motion legit.

Casey writes:

I do hereby swear to the following:

1. I did not report my daughter missing until my mother called on July 15th 2008.

2. I did tell law enforcement that I had dropped off my child with a person named Zenaida Fernandez Gonzalez when questioned by Law Enforcement.

Personally, I don't think the judge will think much of this amendment. In fact, he may be highly insulted by it.

Lastly, there are the State of Florida’s Motion to Compel Reciprocal Discovery and the defense's Response to State of Florida’s Motion to Compel Reciprocal Discovery. Once again, the State is calling out the defense to put its money where its mouth is. Todd Macaluso made broad statements in court claiming they had proof that Casey was innocent and that someone else had put Caylee's body in the swampy area. I posted about these motions and if you want to review my comments about them, you can find them HERE.

There is only one motion left on my blotter now. It is a defense Motion To Preclude The Death Penalty Procedures, apparently penned by Andrea Lyon, the Angel of Death Row. I won't comment about it now for two reasons. First, this motion is not included in the hearing next Friday and second, Linda Drane Burdick just issued a response to the motion today. It's not out on-line yet, but WFTV published the following about it this evening:

In a new document filed Thursday, prosecutors are accusing Casey Anthony’s defense team of filing yet another bogus motion, this time over the death penalty.

The defense wants the judge to take the death penalty off the table, but prosecutors say judges don't have that authority.

Prosecutors went as far as saying either the defense team doesn't understand the law or is purposely misstating it to grandstand.

Prosecutors say a hearing on the issue would be a waste of the court's time.

Well, that's it for now. I hope this article and the others I've linked here will help you get ready for the hearing Friday. They are so much easier to follow when you've gone over the motions. I look forward to your comments and seeing you in court Friday, October 16, at 9:30!

Casey Anthony: The Defense Files More Motions - Part 2

As I look at the motions filed by the defense last week, I am sent on a trip into the past. I find myself looking at old motions and old interviews. I find it fascinating to look at where the current motions are coming from. By doing a little research, the maze that forms the defense seems to come into focus.

On September 10, Assistant State Attorney Linda Drane Burdick filed a Motion to Compel Reciprocal Discovery. This motion was in response to a speech made by Casey Anthony's attorney Todd Macaluso as he began to argue for his motion to have Tim Miller certified as a material witness in the case in order to peruse the TES records of the searches around Hidden Oaks Elementary School.

Macaluso stated:

As Your Honor knows, the body of Caylee Marie Anthony was found very close to the Anthony home, and the body was found in a wooded area that if one were to search for a missing child, this is the first place you would go search. There is substantial evidence that we’ve discovered, and that’s been set forth in our brief, Your Honor, that the body or the remains of Caylee Anthony were placed there after Casey Anthony was locked up in the Orange County Correctional Facility. There is substantial evidence, and that proves, Your Honor, her innocence. That’s exculpatory evidence, it proves that somebody else placed the remains in the area where it was ultimately found.

T&T reference

On September 17, Jose Baez fired back a response to the motion stating that:

5. The defense is not in violation of their obligation under the reciprocal discovery rule by stating in court that Caylee Anthony's remains were deposited after Miss Anthony was incarcerated because the defense logically interpreted the State's own materials disseminated in their voluminous discovery to support Mr. Macaluso (sic) contention. In addition, much of what has been learned regarding the timing of the depositing of Caylee Anthony's remains has come from depositions taken to date.

In short, the defense claims that it has a different interpretation of material submitted by the State. It does not have any independent information to offer in discovery. When the defense filed the motion for Tim Miller, it included a number of appendices to support it. It is to these appendices that Macaluso referred when he stated that "there was substantial evidence" that was "set forth in our brief."

I went back to the brief and it's appendices and read what it contained concerning LE interviews and other discovery. Then, I went back to the original interviews and reports to see what the defense was not referring to. I came up with the following:

Joy Wray

According to the defense, Wray spoke with Sergeant John Allen and Special Agent Scott Bolin sometime in October, 2008. From reading the entire transcript, I tend to believe that the interview took place on Suburban Drive sometime after the remains were found since her visits to that area seemed to be the focus of the questioning.

The closest I can come to gleaning that she knew the condition of the remains site comes where she states on p. 33 of the interview (discovery page 6404) that she had been all the TES searches and took pictures, which is against TES rules and that she and her husband had visited the same site other times:

SB: Let's start with number, the time number three. Was it, was the water getting deeper or less, or do you recall when that was? JW: Uhm, I think it was getting, it was getting deeper. Because the most rain we has was in October.

If she is to be believed, the site wasn't dry in October, the month when Casey was arrested for the last time. Wray also indicated there was a lot of rain in October. To me this content, if it is to be believed, would put lie to the area being dry then!

What the defense may be looking for in the TES records is information that Ms. Wray was indeed a team leader with TES and officially searched the area where the remains were found. I can't see anything she said to support that the body was not there.

Former Deputy Richard Cain

The defense included one page of Deputy Cain's December 18 interview with Yuri Melich and John Allen. Cain was the officer who responded to Roy Kronk's call on August 13, 2008. The key quote from the page included in the motion was:

RC: Uhm, I went into the woods, kind of stepping on the, where I could step without falling into the water. It was kind of, I believe there was a, another couple bags around it. And I reached down, lifted the bag up. It was pretty heavy. But when I lifted it up it tore, you know the bottom. All leaves fell out, some sticks... Uhm, and I took my baton out and kind of poked around. I didn't see anything. And went back out to Suburban.

That would indicate that the area was still wet and he didn't find a body. Unfortunately for the defense, a complaint was lodged against Deputy Cain and there was an investigation.

The results of the investigation were included in a letter dated March 30, 2009. (pp. 5273-4)
The letter was adressed to Cain from Captain Larry D. Krantz, Office of the Undersheriff, Professional Standards Section.

On August 13, 2008, you were the primary deputy sheriff dispatched to investigate suspicious items in a wooded area described as a bag possibly containing bones. You were directed to an area by Mr. Kronk, but you failed to locate any items described by Mr. Kronk. You allowed Mr. Kronk to depart the scene without seeking any assistance from Mr. Kronk to locate the suspicious items. You failed to thoroughly investigate the call for service which ultimately delayed the discovery of the remains of Ms. Caylee Anthony...

On December 18, 2008 during a sworn interview regarding questions involving your employment with the Orange County Sheriff's Office you were untruthful when you said, after Mr. Kronk pointed out a suspicious bag in a wooded area, you picked it up and the bottom fell out. You later acknowledged you did not pick up a bag during your contact with Mr. Kronk.

I find the defense extremely disingenuous here. First of all, Cain's interview stated that he had to be careful not to step in the water. Then, they used Deputy Cain's interview of December 18 to buttress their argument that Cain had located a bag that did not contain the remains. Unfortunately, Cain lied and eventually was forced to resign. Some proof!

Keith Williams

Keith Williams was the young man who, based on a psychic's report went to what we now know was the remains site and found a bag of stuffed animals and clothes approximately 30 yards from where the remains were found. He stated that the items in the bag were in good condition and seemed suspicious to him considering that a little girl was missing.

The deputy who came out to assist was Richard Cain. According to his interview, the part posted with the motion, he deputy (then unnamed) was very dismissive of his find. It should be noted that Williams took that bag from the site and brought it to the Anthony home. The Anthony's rejected the bag and Williams went back to the site and called LE. When Deputy Cain came out, Williams took the bag from the trunk of his car, not from the actual site where he found it.

In the full interview, Williams gives more specific information:

KW Yeah, I pulled it out of the trunk and I handed it to him and said, "Look, this. I found this right over here and there's other stuff over her, if, you know, I, I think you should look" and I also explained the whole psychic and the whole story. MR Okay. What did he do with the bag? KW He, uh, he held it, he told me the bag looked, looked too deteriorated for it to have been it and, uh, right when we process of, you know, right when this everything, right when our conversation ended, he, uh, he tossed it back in, in the woods. pp. 5463-5464

As far as I can tell, there is no proof that the body wasn't there.

Still looking for the information that Mr. Macaluso and the rest of the defense team found so compelling that the court should immediately declare Casey Anthony innocent, I turned to the next interview snippet I found in the appendices. I found a blog entry by Criminal Report Daily blogger David Lohr from Discovery ID. The only pertinent thing I found was that he had been with the TES search team behind Hidden Oaks Elementary School where the organization had conducted a sweep of the area.

Kiomarie Cruz

This brings me to the topic that has intrigued me since the remains were found. The remains were located just behind the last two houses on Hopespring Drive. Across the street are more woods and a cyclone fence. Further down the road is the school. When the press and searchers describe the area behind the school, I tend to think of the area at the far end of Suburban Drive. The last interview cited in the motion was that of Kiomarie Cruz, who is hailed as having figured out where the body was dumped first.

In the appendix to the motion, there is a section where Kiomarie describes the location where they used to hang out as:

Um, well first of all there's tons and tons of shading. Not a lot of people know about this spot unless you're a teenager or a kid... And most of the kids don't come down here now because I guess they have the fences and I didn't know about that...

The area she is describing has fences. The site where Caylee was found doesn't have fences. As we all saw from photographs of the site where Caylee was found is certainly not conducive to socializing and hanging out. So, I went back to Kiomarie's interview from August 18, 2008 and found a complete description of the place they hung out:

...Um, then Jessica showed us this hiding spot behind Hidden Oaks Elementary School. And back in the day there was no fences put up here, there was just ah, like a dirt hill and you can go back there with your bicycles and there's two different spots back there where we used to hang out at...

Here is a Google Earth map of the area. The remains were found in the lower left-hand corner. The area described by Kiomarie is obviously at the end of Suburban where there is a dirt road and trails. The area is fenced and there is a gate across the end of the road, as in Kiomarie's description of the area. I don't know how information about behind the school relates to whether or not Cayee's remains were just off Hopespring Drive.














Finally, the defense documents cited Dominic Casey and his own search of the area in November. At this point, Mr. Casey is a total mystery. We know he poked around the area and there are various opinions as to how near or far he was to the actual site. The State will depose Mr. Casey in November and perhaps we will get a clear story from him then!

Coming soon: the last two motions.

Casey Anthony: Prosecutors tell Baez to Put Up or Shut Up

At the beginning of the August 21 hearing before Judge Stan Strickland, Todd Macaluso, a member of the defense team began his request for TES documents by stating:

As Your Honor knows, the body of Caylee Marie Anthony was found very close to the Anthony home, and the body was found in a wooded area that if one were to search for a missing child, this is the first place you would go search. There is substantial evidence that we’ve discovered, and that’s been set forth in our brief, Your Honor, that the body or the remains of Caylee Anthony were placed there after Casey Anthony was locked up in the Orange County Correctional Facility. There is substantial evidence, and that proves, Your Honor, her innocence. That’s exculpatory evidence, it proves that somebody else placed the remains in the area where it was ultimately found.

The bolded part of his assertion is now the focus of a new motion by the prosecution. Filed in court yesterday, the motion asks the defense team to show them the evidence. Linda Drane-Burdick wrote in regards to this statement:

Mr. Macaluso further suggests that the defense team has spoken to one of the team leaders of Texas Equusearch "some time ago" and were informed "over one-hundred people" searched the area where the body was ultimately found. (#4)

She also indicated that:

On October 15, 2008, the defendant filed her Notice of Intent to Participate in Discovery... (#5)

The motion goes on to indicate the huge amount of discovery that has been supplied to the defense and the minute amount of information given to the prosecution (the witness list). It also mentions that discovery must be turned over within 15 days of when it was received by the defense.

So, the 15 days have passed, and Drane-Burdick want this information because,

Since Counsel has proclaimed that the evidence they have discovered is "exculpatory", it is difficult to imagine that the defendant would not call witnesses to these "facts" at hearing or trial, or that they do not possess statements, reports,, or other tangible papers or objects that support their claim. (#8)

We can only hope that the judge will address this issue in a hearing. I would love to read the depositions, the papers to which Ms. Drane-Burdick refers. I would love to hear Mr. Baez or Mr. Macaluso explain that this major development in the defense case has no documentation. It would surely put an end to defense posturing about the case without facts to back up their assertions.

State's Motion

T&T

Caylee, it's all about Caylee Anthony

According to George Anthony, the last time he saw his granddaughter Caylee was June 16, 2008. If we believe this, then the anniversary of the date that Caylee was last seen alive by someone other than her mother, Casey Anthony, is coming up this week. Casey is in jail awaiting trial for first degree murder.

The public didn't become aware of Caylee's "disappearance" until one month later. On July 16, 2008, news broke that Cindy Anthony had made 911 calls the previous day informing the authorities that her granddaughter had been missing for 31 days, ostensibly "kidnapped" by Zanny the Nanny. Casey Anthony led detectives on a wild goose chase that ended up in a conference room at Universal Studios where she admitted that she had told a pack of lies with the exception that the nanny had kidnapped her child. She was arrested for child neglect forthwith. In a phone call home that night, Casey insisted she was arrested on a whim and complained to a friend that nobody was thinking of her. They were only worried about Caylee.

Since then, this case has been a roller coaster of events. Many tips were called in to police and followed up to no avail. Texas Equusearch searched and nearly went broke. George and Cindy went on television to "keep Caylee's face out there" and ended up spending more air time defending their jailed daughter. Detectives and FBI agents questioned many people. Jose Baez filed motion after motion only to have the vast majority of them denied by Judge Strickland. He also began to assemble a veritable "dream team" while onlookers wondered where the money to defend Casey was coming from. The death penalty was withdrawn. A trial was scheduled for January, 2009.

The mystery of Caylee's disappearance finally ended on December 11, 2008 when her skeletal remains were found down the street and around the corner from the Anthony home.

On February 10, there were two memorials for Caylee. One simple one was held by those unwelcome at the "official" public memorial at the site where Caylee's remains had been found. The other, hosted by the Anthony family took place in a large venue and was fairly well attended. I watched it and felt bad that it was more for Casey than Caylee. While George and Cindy Anthony did pay homage to their granddaughter, they spent considerable time asking those in attendance and those viewing to have compassion for Casey. George even suggested we write her letters. Uncle Lee never mentioned the tot's name once, substituting the homogeneous CMA and left listeners wondering about what had been said and to whom his comments were directed.

Now, the dream team assembled by Baez has grown to include Todd Macaluso of California and the Angel of Death Row, Andrea Lyon. There had been more motions filed and the Anthonys have popped up in the media again with little talk of Caylee and much talk about the innocence of her mother.

There is so little mention of Caylee anymore. There is no one at the motions hearings sitting behind the prosecution in support of the toddler whose death came before she had had the chance to relish her life. Her memorial has been dismantled by some unknown entity. Any respectable cross at the site has been removed or destroyed. We do know who has done that.

Now, it is up to us, strangers who never met Caylee, to stand behind her at the trial. It is up to us, who hoped and prayed she would be found alive, to keep at least her memory alive. There will be a memorial service for Caylee at Blanchard Park; it will not be hosted by the family of the slain toddler. It will be those who came to love her during the past year.

I have been following the latest motions to be filed. I have read all of the discovery. Somehow, my heart hasn't been into writing about them lately. I suppose it's because I keep thinking of Caylee. She's the one who was wronged. She is the one who needs justice.

It's time to focus on Caylee. There will by plenty of time to focus on the trial once the anniversary of her loss has passed.

The Case Against Casey Anthony: All about motions going nowhere...

Today, one motion was shelved for future reference and one was half-granted.

Jose Baez topped the list. He spoke briefly and stated that the purpose of his original motion remained the same (to have the jail video of Casey's reactions sealed). The only difference was that his new motion, filed yesterday, merely added more information to assist the judge in making his decision.

Linda Kenny Baden then began discussion of the motions. She requested that the motions be adjourned until the defense was able to complete the deposition of Lt. Tammy Uncer and possibly take others. She indicated she would be willing to pass the additional information on to the judge as the depositions continued.

State's Attorney Linda Drane Burdick then explained to the judge that in the original motion filed in March that the defense intended to seek action against Orange County.

Tammy Giffin, the attorney for the Orange County Department of Corrections pointed out that she had received the new motions last night and still did not have copies of the related depositions. She also stated that the new motion contained many allegations against the county and she needed sufficient time to prepare for a hearing on the matter. She also said that she had already filed a motion on this issue.

Drane-Burdick then pointed out that the State now had the tape and that it was turned over to Mr. Baez, making it now a public record. In addition, the new motion had not been delivered in a timely manner for her to prepare to respond to it. Lastly, Drane-Burdick pointed out to the judge that the media had not been "noticed" on either of the motions and had the right to speak. As there were no attorneys for the media, Judge Strickland gave them seven days to respond.

From what was said in court today, both the State and the defense have no problem with keeping the video under seal. It's too bad Baez didn't "notice" the media and the whole issue of the video could have been over today. Now, the media attorneys have a week to come up with arguments to convince Judge Strickland that it should be released.

I have another issue with these motions that someone who knows the law a lot better than I could help me with. Wouldn't the defense have been better off separating the issue of the release of the video from any actions they would like to take against the entities which plotted to violate Ms. Casey's rights (State, Federal, medical, etc.) and make it a separate motion? That would have made life much simpler. At this point, this layperson feels that the whole issue is a terrible mess, or perhaps a "loco-motion"?

At this point, there was a pause in the hearing and Jose Baez "introduced" the new death penalty qualified attorney, Andrea Lyon (The Angel of Death Row), to the court along with a mini-curriculum vitae. State's Attorney Jeff Ashton tossed out a zinger to Baez, saying that while he appreciated the "commercial," he would appreciate receiving her documents which would admit her pro hac vice and certify her as being death penalty qualified.

Baez didn't take the comment well and mumbled something about "... not to belittle it to a commercial when some one's life..." He was interrupted by Judge Strickland who commented that, it was a "plug for her successes." Jeff Ashton laughed at that one.

With the first two motions addressed and postponed yet again, the hearing moved on to the motion for the phone records.

Attorney David Evans spoke for Roy Kronk, the meter reader who discovered Caylee's remains. He had already spoken with Baez and had agreed to a time restriction of January, 2008 to the present. However, he objected that the motion needed to be carefully crafted to limit the records to those numbers related to the case. He cited case law which promoted Mr. Kronk's right to privacy. He asked that the defense provide a list of numbers and why they want them. Judge Strickland agreed that this solution was agreeable to him.

Attorney Kirk Kirkconnell then spoke for Amy Huizenga. He agreed with the case law provided by Mr. Evans and went on to state that he wanted an end date of the day Casey was arrested since the two had no unrecorded communication since that date. He also made a distinction between phone calls and text messages. He indicated the difference was that phone calls have no content, text messages do. Mr. Kirkconnell's main objection appeared to be the release of the phone numbers of Amy's doctors, family, pizza delivery man. He stated that the media would be calling them all. Kirkconnell also indicated that Baez had an alternative way to find out the record of calls and messages between Amy and Casey. He has Casey's phone records, and Amy's are all there!

Somehow, I think Baez wants more numbers than that.

My favorite attorney of the day was Jesse Gund's lawyer, Marty White (I hope I got his name right.) He approached the podium and proceeded to give a well-organized, fully documented presentation. He cited both statute and case law. First, he indicated that as a former policemen, Jesse Grund has the same rights to privacy as every other citizen and in addition has special rights. While his records could be turned over to the defense, they could not be made public. This aspect even surprised Judge Strickland, who had never heard of it before.

White went on to discuss materiality and necessity. He pointed out that, in his motion, Baez had provided neither. Baez had asked for "any and all" records without giving the judge a good reason. In the end, Judge Strickland agreed with the lack of materiality in the motion and indicated he needed to study the information concerning the special statute for law enforcement and ex-law enforcement personnel.

Former Deputy Richard Cain's objection has apparently been moved and wasn't addressed at the hearing today.

Jose Baez then stood to reply. He started out by stating he was at a disadvantage because he had to address different issues with different lawyers. (He's lucky all the people subpoenaed didn't have attorneys present!)

Baez began to argue his motion and was immediately interrupted by Judge Strickland who stated that he had no problem with what Baez was asking for, except for the motion being overly broad. He mentioned that Baez had seemed to have worked out the time line issue with the individual lawyers. However, he felt that Baez had not given good reason for wanting the information. The judge said that he could look at the names and figure out why he wanted them, but that he needed Baez to amend the motion to include his reasons.

Baez began his reply to the judge by pointing out that law enforcement had thought the phone records important enough to get them for all but Mr. Kronk. Then, he went on to address the issue of Jesse Grund. He said, "Mr. Grund was, for all intents and purposes a suspect in this case" and had taken a polygraph.

Okay, I blew my stack here. Jesse Grund was just one of Casey's former friends, boyfriends who took a polygraph. Every one of us knows that in such cases, polygraphs are used to exclude people. My goodness, if you go back and listen to one of Cindy Anthony's interviews in August, one of the detectives told her Jesse did not have Caylee! To make matters worse, Baez then went on to toss Amy Huizenga into the same category. Balderdash!

Baez then went on to point out that the records LE had asked for were limited. (I suppose that's because they only asked for what had materiality and necessity as pointed out earlier by Mr. White.) He said he was not on a fishing expedition and His Honor could see the materiality by just looking at the names.

Baez indicated that he didn't want to divulge who he's looking at and why (Mr. Ashton smiled at this.). He was shocked that LE didn't look into Mr. Kronk's phone records. He said, "what I am doing in this case is what law enforcement should have done."

Judge Strickland then said to Baez, "you're kind of straying a bit here, tell me why you want it, not what they didn't do."

Baez went on and on about how doing what the judge wanted him to do "crosses the line" and would essentially broadcast to the prosecution his defense strategy. (Oh yes, Mr. Baez, this is a fishing trip couched in terms of Ms. Casey's Constitutional Rights!)

The judge hauled Baez back to to the issue of what the law requires, materiality!

Baez continued on and on about how he isn't in the business of releasing people's phone numbers and he's even discussed a confidentiality agreement with Kronk. Essentially, Baez was giving his word, he wouldn't turn the "stuff" over to the media! In other words, I want it all and I will only turn over what turns out to be evidence in discovery! Oh, and I'll tell those whose information I'm using as evidence about it so they can file motions then.

Judge Strickland then told Baez that if he could come to agreement with the attorneys, it would be fine with him. He said he was only hearing the motions because of the objections of the attorneys. Baez replied that he had no plans to release or sell any information. (Sell information?)

Drane Burdick spoke to this issue, pointing out that if the material is turned over to her, she is under the obligation to make the information public.

Judge Strickland then introduced a couple of moments of humor into the proceedings when he got Roy Kronk's lawyer confused with Jesse Grund's lawyer. Once the confusion was straightened out, the judge, hoping to short-circuit the discussion, asked Mr. White if he wanted the request made in writing. Mr. White, citing case law again, stated he wanted specificity in everything Baez is asking for and went into great detail about it. Mr. White wanted to know this so HE could decide what is relevant. (I love this guy.)

When Baez attempted to address this, the judge interrupted him to point out that he (the judge), needed to follow the law and that Baez, in his motion had only listed names and not the reasons why.

Baez responded by saying that there wasn't a requirement in the rules to do so! The judge promptly corrected him, saying, "there is a rule about materiality (quote approximate). Baez said that he understood that. (Is there no wonder I'm confused here?)

The judge then asked if Baez had anything to add and Baez went back to the main issue for him. "The pleadings is (sic) opening the door...."

The fact is, Baez originally wanted to address the issue in private. When that didn't work, he submitted his broadly focused motion. He knows very well what is legally required, but he doesn't want anyone to know WHO he is focusing on and why. The trouble is, he never figured out a way to do this legally! There was an article at WFTV on April 21 in which explained how it could have easily been done without going through these hearings:

Sheaffer said Baez could've identified the witnesses' cell phone providers during depositions and then subpoenaed the companies' records directly. Instead, he's asked the judge's permission.

"That will force Baez to tell the court what relevance these phone records may have to the defense," Sheaffer explained.

Sheaffer was right! I highly recommend going to the link I posted and read the article and watch the raw interview. This is where some experience comes in handy.

Back to the hearing! Judge Strickland told Baez his request needed to be finely tailored. Baez
replied that putting the request in writing would only postpone the inevitable. He also indicated the case was moving at a snail's pace. He agreed that he wanted it "done right" and added that he didn't need to put everything in the pleading, just indicate the materiality. (I'm sorry, I don't follow this argument at all.)

At this point, Judge Strickland granted the motion for those who did not have lawyers present: Tony Lazzaro, Cindy Anthony, George Anthony, Lee Anthony, Ricardo Morales, Dominic Casey, James Hoover, and Keith Williams. As for Jesse Grund, Amy Huizenga, and Roy Kronk, Baez will have to go back and rewrite the motion. Richard Cain will be done at a later date. He also mentioned "tweaking" the dates and recommended from June until possibly the present.

Baez indicated that the State is not saying the death was an accident, that it was premeditated murder and that there was a need to have information prior to the in- (he almost said incident here), when Caylee disappeared. He said it's not a situation where there was an incident, and everything moved onward from there.

Eventually, Judge Strickland said that Baez would have to list the numbers he wanted from each and state the materiality. He also made it clear that Baez would not have to state his case strategy when filing the amended motion. He would only require a couple of sentences to determine materiality.

Baez then suggested that if a "special master" could deal with the situation to essentially keep him from revealing too much information the defense didn't want out there. The judge stated that if all the parties agreed, it could be done. He did point out that the court doesn't have special masters and it would be up to Baez to arrange for payment. He gave Baez a few days to try and arrange this.

Strickland again granted the motion for those who did not object and told Baez that he would withhold a denial of the motion without prejudice for one week. If all else were to fail, the judge said he would do so himself in camera. Baez asked if he'd have to pay him!

At this point, I thought the hearing would be over, but no!

Judge Strickland asked Linda Kenney Baden if she wanted to speak to her motion and the amended motion. She got up and introduced Todd Macaluso (See, I said there were a lot of lawyers!) to speak. At this point, my notes tell me he addressed the court using such phrases as "cruel," "inhuman," "illegal," and "unconstitutional"to describe the treatment of Casey the day that her reactions were videotaped. Macaluso also pointed out that there was a plot by OSCO and the jail personnel to videotape Casey. He cited Sgt. Richardson and Lt. Uncer's depositions. He said that the defense had learned more information when they deposed them.

County attorney Giffin objected at this point and asked that the matter be continued until she had the opportunity to read all the pertinent documents. The judge granted the motion and indicated Macaluso could continue his arguments.

As Macaluso started to read quotes from Sgt. Richardson, Giffin objected again, pointing out that she had not had the opportunity to read the depositions. She again requested a continuance so she could be properly prepared to answer. The judge sustained the objection.

Baez then stood and offered her a copy of the deposition. The judge wisely pointed out that giving it to her would not give her the opportunity to read it. Giffin went on to say that the county had no objection to the tape being sealed, she was only concerned about all the allegations contained in the motion. It was her duty to protect county employees.

Drane-Burdick then stood and indicated that the State had no objection to the tape being sealed. She continued by saying that the only party interested in seeing the tape unsealed was the public. She pointed out that the issue would be dealt with in a week. She felt that they were straying into a suppression issue.

The judge then told Macaluso to limit his discussion to why he wanted the tapes sealed and not get into details on the other issues. The judge wanted Macaluso to say why the release of the tapes would harm his client. Macaluso then stated that the tape wouldn't harm his client and didn't prove or disprove anything. He stated that the tape was a violation of her rights to medical privacy. He doesn't want the media to "spit" on the video. He also says he didn't believe the video would ever be used in trial. Finally, he indicated that during the 30-45 minutes Casey was there, her attorney was not permitted to see her.

Drane Burdick spoke for a few moments and suggested the judge view the video prior to the hearing on this issue.

Next up, Linda Kenney Baden told the judge she agreed with his decision to hear arguments on the motions correct (considering it was only filed the day before and the judge, prosecution, and county attorney had not had a chance to even read it). She went on to say that this was now a death penalty case and not an issue of the public's right to know. At this point, the defendant's rights trump the public's right to know. She also indicated that once admitted pro hoc vice, it would be the duty of death penalty qualified attorney Andrea Lyon's responsibility to address the issue. Kenney Baden also stated that there was also the issue of monitoring counsel in meetings with the client involved. She asked the judge if he wanted her to discuss the issue now. Judge Strickland stated it was pointless right now.

After some discussion of scheduling, Andrea Lyon rose to address the court. Drane-Burdick was on her feet immediately, objecting to her speaking, since her documentation for pro hac vice had yet to be filed.

There was more discussion of scheduling at the bench. While we waited, Attorney Jose Garcia and Casey had time to chat.

As the bench conference ended, so did the hearing. At this point, we should hear next week whether or not the tape will be released.

Video of the hearing:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3