Casey Anthony Probation Hearing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The State Attorney unofficially stated she had served her time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judge Perry then opined that it is a legal maze

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

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

Another jurisdiction says she has successfully served probation.

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

Gave more legal citations.

Judge Strickland was merely correcting a scrivener's error.

Oral pronouncements trump written.

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

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

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

Perry then asked his position on administrative probation?

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

Judge Perry said that he didn't know.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Watch the hearing:

Part 1 Part 2 Part 3

Will Casey Have To Return For Probation?

Update #3August 3, 2011

WESH has just reported that Judge Perry has issued an order and there will be a hearing at 9:00 AM.

Update #2August 3, 2011

WFTV has reported that Judge Belvin Perry will sign an order tomorrow to stay the order for Casey's return to Orlando to serve probation. This will allow time for the defense's emergency motion to be heard in a hearing.

Update

August 3, 2011

InSession carried a live news conference by the Probation Office. From the sounds of it, they are fully expecting Casey Anthony to return to Orlando to report in. This occurred in spite of two recent events. First, the defense filed an emergency motion stating that, among other things, Casey served her probation while in jail and it would be a case of double jeopardy. They also pointed out that it would put Casey in harm's way should she be required to return to Orlando.

Judge Stan Strickland recused himself from the case and it is now back with Judge Belvin Perry.

There is still a large difference of opinion between TH attorneys following the case. Bill Sheaffer of WFTV feels she will not be required to serve probation. Richard Hornsby wrote an interesting blog about the situation.

View presser here.

Check back for updates.

*****

On January 25, 2919 Casey Anthony pled guilty to check fraud charges before Judge Stan Strickland. You can read her plea form here. She briefly spoke and apologized to Amy Huizenga for "what she did to her" and was sentenced to time served in the Orlando County Jail and serve one year of probation on her release.

At the time, there was a problem with her probation: she was in jail. At the time of the hearing, prosecutor Frank George suggested that the probation be served while in jail. Jose Baez suggested a "decent bond" would make it possible for Casey to serve her probation while awaiting trial on the murder charges. Judge Strickland stated that it was problematic and would deal with it at a later time. For more details on that hearing read HERE.

On July 29, 2010, Judge Strickland filed an order. There were two important provisions:

• The Defendant is to report to Probation upon release.
• No personal contact with the victim, Amy Huizenga.

Somehow, Casey ended up serving "probation" while in jail. According to the Orlando Sentinel today,

Orange Circuit Judge Stan Strickland signed amended court documents Monday that he said will have the effect of requiring Casey Anthony to serve one year of supervised probation as he originally intended back when he sentenced her in her check fraud case.

"From my reading of this, she should be reporting to probation in Orlando probably within 72 hours," Strickland said early Monday. "I suspect she's going to be required to report to probation."

Will Casey actually serve additional probation in Orange County? Will she return from wherever she is? I hope she will, but I'm not counting on it. So far, she has managed to avoid responsibility for any of her actions and she has some people around her who continue to enable her as much if not more than her family enabled her.

I won't report on the gossip and hoopla that is going on. I don't trust any of it to be factual and I won't add one iota to that sort of discussion. Casey Anthony doesn't deserve that sort of attention.

Stephanie Lazarus Pretrial Hearing 6

Updated 9:50 PM below

This is just a short entry to let everyone know that the Stephanie Lazarus case has been set for trial to begin on October 17th, 2011 and hopefully opening statements on October 24th. Jury selection will start on the 17th with pre-screening questionnaires. A pretrial hearing is scheduled for August 15th - 17th to hear two defense motions regarding "chain of custody" and redaction of portions of the video taped interview with Lazarus.

I'll have a complete update on the entire hearing when I get home, since my computer is acting up. I've decided not to stay for the Kelly Soo Park hearing at 11 am.

Update: 9:50 PM
Mr. Sprocket worked for about 4 hours on my laptop today taking it completely apart and replacing some items. It's not totally back together yet but it's functional. Sprocket.

Traffic was exceptionally light driving into downtown LA. It only took me about 25 minutes to reach the budget parking lot. When I arrived on the 9th floor of the Criminal Court Building, Stephanie Lazarus' mother was sitting on the hallway bench closest to Judge Pastor's courtroom. She had an attractive woman friend with her I've never seen before. The friend is about my height with blondish-brown wavy hair about to her upper back.

While I was trying to get my laptop screen to come up so I could check my mail, the friend next to Lazarus' mother asked me, "Did that deputy just come out of the women's restroom?" From where we were sitting, it certainly appeared that way but I smile and told the ladies, "No." I explained that the entrance to the ladies restroom is an alcove where there is also a private elevator/access that the sheriff's use to sometimes bring detainees into courtrooms.

We all smiled and then right after that, Lazarus' mother mentions an experience she had at a business (or a theatre or something like that) where the ladies restroom was closed due to a plumbing problem and the women waited in a line where they had to "share" the men's restroom. We all agreed that in those situations (when there's no other available ladies restroom and faced with a long drive home) you make do and use what's available. It was the first time I'd ever spoken with the woman whom I've sat next to or behind in all the hearings I've attended.

A few minutes before 8:30 am, Mark Overland shows up with one of his private investigators (not Bert Luper; I'm drawing a blank on this man's name at the moment) and the ladies go inside Dept. 104. I follow them in and decide to sit in a different spot this time.

Inside, Nels and Loretta Rasmussen are already in the first row sitting with two other women supporters. I sit directly behind them in the second row. Their attorney, John Taylor is with them. I don't see Greg Fisher, the producer from 48 Hours but the tall, bespeckled Dateline producer is here. Two very young interns from the DA's office soon arrive and sit in the back row. Shannon Presby and Paul Nunez are at the prosecution table. Lazarus is deep in conversation with the defense investigator. She's wearing the white, long-sleeved long-johns type shirt underneath her orange jumpsuit. Presby and Overland pleasantly chat. The two Robbery-Homicide detectives who interviewed Lazarus are sitting off to the right.

It's 8:33 am and Judge Perry is on the bench. From my new seat, I can see that Lazarus is wearing black framed glasses. Judge Perry goes on the record. It's 21 of 60 and there are some scheduling issues. Presby states that he has been in informal conversations with Overland regarding the jury questionnaire. Judge Perry asks Overland, "Mr. Overland, Hows trial preparations?" "Excellent Judge, excellent," he responds. Presby states they've been talking about a trial date, jokingly states he doesn't want to speak for Mr. Overland (Overland, smiling replies, "Don't.") but they have different views on a start date for the trial, in regards to several motions to be heard pretrial.

Overland has filed two today and will possibly file two or three more. Overland tells the court one motion will take two to three days. Overland asks the court to consider getting all the pretrial issues resolved in September and also picking a jury. Then go on recess until the court comes back (from Judge Perry's scheduled vacation). Judge Perry doesn't think it would be "helpful" to select a jury between now and October and go into trial afterwards. Judge Perry would like to set the motions sometime in September. Judge Perry outlines what he thinks is the best course for selecting a jury. He doesn't see this as a case that would have a particularly unusual voir dire, or that can't be dealt with in a (pre?) fashion. Judge Perry asks Overland when he will have his motions ready.

Overland states that one of his motions, he will have to wait for his expert to get samples from the serology lab. This motion is a Kelly-Frye motion. Judge Perry asks if the big motion, (that will take three days) involving "chain of custody" will involve testimony. Overland replies, "Absolutely." Judge Perry then suggests that they do the motions "piecemeal" and Presby states he has no problem with that. (In other words, as the motions are finished, they have separate hearings on them.) Judge Perry states something to the effect that they can take care of them "as they're ripe." (I thought that was an interesting description of a motion.)

Presby informs the court that he anticipates filing two motions and he will have them prepared (later?) today. Judge Perry questions if there will be prosecution witnesses as to the chain of custody. Presby answers that some of these witnesses testified at the preliminary hearing. Judge Perry asks him about the availability of these witnesses and Presby states he has not checked on that yet.

Matthew McGough from The Atlantic slips into Dept. 104 and sits behind me in the last row.

Judge Perry briefly goes over the two motions that Overland has filed. One is to redact portions of the video tape of Lazarus (when she was interviewed in the basement of Parker Center) and the other motion is for chain of custody (two to three days for that) and the last motion, Kelly-Frye, that can't be filed until the expert looks at evidence. Judge Perry asks if there are any others that come to mind?

The people mention that they want to file a motion to have an expert testify if this was a "staged burglary." Presby states that he has another motion, but he would like to talk to Overland informally about it before bringing it to the court.

Judge Perry sets a date of August 15th, 16th and the 17th to do the two defense motions already filed. The issue of availability of witnesses is mentioned again. The Kelly-Frye motion is basically on hold. Presby states that's fine. Judge states that by that week, Overland should have a better idea on the Kelly-Frye motion. Judge Perry asks if once they have these rulings, could they start the trial on August 22nd. Overland quickly responds, "No. There's still some discovery we haven't received." Overland states that they're compiling a list of missing discovery documents that they are going to give formally to the prosecution. Overland states they are having a problem with the "computer issues seized" and they are dealing with Mr. Presby informally on that. "Will I be ready in August, the answer is no."

Judge Perry asks the defense, "What do you want to do?" Overland responds, "Why don't we start after the court's vacation?" Judge Perry responds, "I would start you on the 17th of October. I would hand out questionnaires on the 17th.... (snip) give you a couple of days to process those and come back possibly Thursday or Friday (for voir dire) and start the opening statements on the 24th."

Judge Perry then goes over the options of prescreening the jurors. One option is to have the jury assessment room prescreen. (He goes into detail what this would encompass.) Judge Perry states (the jury room) tells us, that to get a panel of 250 to 300 you have to talk to about 1,000. Judge Perry feels that they should do the prescreening in his courtroom. That a set distribution would be for his courtroom. They would have like, 70 jurors arrive at 10:00 am; 50 jurors arrive at 10:30 am; 50 more jurors at 11:00 am. And we would keep going until (they have what they need for the jury questionnaire). Judge Perry states he would prescreen and announce the case in the courtroom. In his experience, his opinion, this works better than having the jury service prescreen them for the court. Judge Perry states, (with this process) "I think you would have jurors that would want to serve. (snip) I don't think the jury room does a good job of prescreening (jurors), but we can talk about that."

Judge Perry states that with this process, they would have the questionnaires in their hands by the 18th. Judge Perry goes onto explain that since this is not a death penalty case, there will only be 20 peremptory challenges. Judge Perry states his thought is, they could probably go with sixty or seventy at most, to get a base. They will have 12 jurors and 6 alternates. "The advantage in me prescreening the case, is they come here, it's more effective getting a group that will sit on a case. (snip) Then set the next round of voir dire. (snip) My major concern is pretrial publicity.

Overland asks Judge Perry about cameras in the courtroom. Judge Perry states that he has had requests but he has not granted any. Judge Perry states he understands that it is the position of the DA's office not to oppose. The defense states they are opposed to cameras, and Judge Perry responds, "And so am I." Judge Perry states, "I feel having cameras is anti-(ethical?) to the search for truth." Judge Perry then goes onto say that he's been involved in many high profile cases. He mentions the John DeLorean case. "I'm not at all inclined to allow cameras in this court. "

Back to the issue of prescreening jurors. Overland requests the court to prescreen the jurors. Judge Perry states again that it's a chance of getting better jurors is increased. Presby states that's fine with the prosecution. Regarding the jury questionnaire, Perry states, "We may even agree on each and every question..." but it's said with a smile on his face. Judge Perry replies, "And I'm going to strike some."

Judge Perry sets the trial at 0-60 for the August 15th chain of custody hearing. With it set at 0-60, (I) hope we can set trial at October 17th. We will come back with the trial tentatively set for October 17th and opening statements October 24th. Judge Perry also states if the trial goes to Thanksgiving week, we will take the entire week off. It's easier to select jurors if we are not in session the entire week. Once they get closer to the trial date, they will be able to tell more to the jurors.

Judge Perry then addresses Lazarus and asks her specifically if she waives her right to a speedy trial. "Yes, your honor," she replies. "That will be the order then," Perry rules.

Overland has one last issue, in respect to Lazarus' clothing. They want to take her measurements. Perry doesn't have a problem with that. Presby has one other matter that he will speak informally with Overland about. It's regarding the defense firearms expert and releasing property (exhibits) to her for testing. The prosecution want assurances that none of the defense expert's tests will be destructive tests. Overland confirms this. Presby states that the prosecution did get from the defense a list of witnesses. He goes onto say that he has every (belief?) they will have all discovery from the defense (before trial).

I miss something. The deputy is handing back a bag to the friend who came with Lazarus' mother. Maybe this is the clothing that Lazarus is going to try on. Someone states Lazarus is not going to keep them. And that's it. Next hearing August 15th.

Stephanie Lazarus Case Coverage Quick Links