Bye Bye Baez? NO! Read the motion

A Michigan inmate has asked Judge Perry to have Jose Baez removed from the case. 

 

CURTIS JACKSON

This morning, April 5, the Orange County Courthouse issued this statement regarding the motion filed yesterday with the Clerk of Courts:

Please see attached Motion (Defendant’s Motion for Withdrawal of Appointed Counsel) in the State vs. Casey Anthony. It is not filed by Casey Anthony.

It is filed by an inmate in Michigan.

He also wrote a letter to Linda Drane Burdick on June 8, 2010.

The Teflon Judge

During the closing remarks of the final presidential debate between then candidate Ronald Reagan and President Jimmy Carter, the GOP hopeful asked the nation a simple question, “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” As simple as it was, the query was powerful and poignant enough to resonate deeply within the minds of the American people, who went on to elect Reagan as our 40th president. The rest, they say, is history.

Today, just over 30 years later, I’d like to ask Casey Anthony’s defense team, particularly Jose Baez and Cheney Mason, a very similar question. Are you better off now than you were one year ago? Actually, by the time Casey goes to trial, by that I mean sitting in the courtroom facing a jury, precisely 2 years and 11 months will have passed since Caylee was last seen alive. For the first month, Casey was living la bella vita, although it was probably more la vida loco, until she was stopped dead in her tracks by her own flesh and blood; her mother. From there, it quickly plummeted from a lofty peak to the depth of the deepest ocean. I’m only interested in the past year, though. A lot of serious changes have taken place. One year ago today, Judge Stan Strickland sat firmly on the bench. Did the defense do the right thing by filing the motion for his recusal?

On January 25 of last year, Casey pleaded guilty to 13 third-degree felony fraud charges. She threw herself at the mercy of the court and came out a convicted felon, but ultimately, she was given no more time behind bars. Judge Strickland sentenced her to time served. In my opinion, that showed how fair, just and lenient - yes, lenient - he was. He could have slapped her silly, and the defense might have taken that punishment as a good sign; what to look forward to from this judge down the road. Instead, they threw caution to the wind. As a matter of fact, two days later, I wrote on my The Wisdom of Solomon post:

Judge Strickland gave the defense an opportunity to challenge the charges. We can discuss the lack of brevity or the levity of the arguments, but let’s cut to the chase – it came down to the judge. First, it should be noted that Casey had no prior convictions and she did make full restitution and Baez did bring up “equal justice” for his client. He asked for one year of probation and credit for time served, rather than the five years of incarceration the State sought. In the end, His Honor sentenced the 23-year-old Casey to (jail) time served – 412 days – plus $5,517.75 in investigative costs and $348 for court. The amount may be discussed and negotiated at a later motion hearing because the defense found the investigative charge too high and not justifiable. He also adjudicated Casey guilty on six of the fraud counts and withheld adjudication on seven, plus he tacked on a year of supervised probation, which could be problematic and complex later on, given that she still faces a huge mountain of charges ahead.

I finished the article with:

This was a sign of things to come, and what I saw was a very compassionate man behind the bench.

In his ruling, the judge wrote:

“I’ve done what I thought is fair based on what I know.”

One year ago, on February 12, I wrote on Why Casey Pleaded Guilty to Fraud:

Personally, I think the defense risked it all and I think it was the right call. Aside from any appeals, which she would lose had she gone a different route, she took her chances with a well-respected judge; one with a very fair track record. The Honorable Stan Strickland is not a hanging judge and odds were, he was going to mete out some fair medicine, certainly after she swallowed all 13 bitter pills.

What went wrong after that? Clearly, everyone knew that Judge Strickland was fair. Some argued too fair. Meanwhile, the defense filed motion after motion and in most cases, the judge denied them, but he based his decisions on case law, something somewhat alien to the defense as we have seen time after time.

It’s a fact no one can deny; that Judge Strickland heard the most motions this defense has filed to date. In the more than 20 months he held court, he judged wisely, and it is because of his focus and direction that this trial has stayed the course. Last January 25, the State submitted its NOTICE OF FILING that included a PROPOSED ORDER SETTING DISCOVERY, MOTION and HEARING DEADLINES and TRIAL DATE. On March 5, the judge responded with his AMENDED PROPOSED ORDER SETTING DISCOVERY, MOTION and HEARING DEADLINES and TRIAL DATE. I strongly recommend that you read Judge Strickland’s order. There, you will see all of the deadlines and a trial date of May 9, 2011. The State originally wanted May 2, but the judge accommodated Andrea Lyon, whose daughter was to graduate college that week. It is of importance to note that Judge Perry is following the schedule set by his predecessor. As a matter of fact, he has allowed deadlines to come and go, and in some instances, has reset them, primarily for the defense. In any event, this trial has been on schedule since the date was first set by Judge Strickland and it’s important to remember that. Today, Andrea Lyon is long gone and Judge Perry could have readily reset the date back to May 2. He didn’t.

Judge Strickland scheduled an indigency hearing for March 18, 2010. It was at that hearing that J. Cheney Mason made his debut. I remember it well because it was almost comical as he made his grand entrance outside the courtroom doors. While awaiting to enter, we all stood there. As he approached with Baez and Lyon, one journalist asked him if he was joining the defense team, to which he responded, “I will be in about five minutes or so once the judge arrives.” The comical part was that I had never seen so many thumbs tap away on cell phones. Tap, tap, tap. Text, text, text. It was the big news of the day up to that point. Of course, we remember the discourse between the judge and Mason:

If you watch the video, you’ll see I said to “Stay Tuned for Round 2!” Of course, the second round was a knockout blow to the judge, but did the defense really win anything? Well, yes. Sort of. The judge did grant Ms. Anthony indigent status, but everything went downhill from there. After a series of motions¹ denied by the judge, this defense showed how disgruntled it was with Strickland by filing the ridiculous motion on April 16 for him to step down. The DEFENDANT, CASEY MARIE ANTHONY’S AMENDED MOTION TO DISQUALIFY TRIAL JUDGE (amended version refiled Monday to correct expired notary) was filed at 4:48 pm on a Friday afternoon and it left the judge and myself incredibly shocked in what turned out to be a very bad, and I mean a VERY BAD, weekend to agonize. Of course, the people who matter in this (what I would call) legal fissure were quick to assure me it wasn’t my fault; that it was purely a defense strategy. In any case, the point of this article is not to argue the merits of the defense strategy as it relates to me, it’s all about whether or not this was a move in the right direction for the defendant. I must say that to a person, I was told, “Be careful what you wish for” in reference to the defense, and those words came from professionals in every field that had an element of interest in the case - journalists and attorneys, civil and criminal. It was a bad move.

What came down was simple and I’ve mentioned it before - Cheney Mason decided to throw his weight around the courthouse. By that, I mean he thought he had some big brass chips to trade in to get the judge of his choice; one who would be more inclined to remove the death penalty and be more amenable to his motions. I also know that the entire courthouse was stunned when the defense filed the motion to recuse. Strickland was (and remains to this day) one of the most respected judges on the circuit court. As a matter of fact, he’s highly regarded throughout the state. What Mason did was blow a circuit breaker. In the end, and there are things I’d love to discuss but won’t until the trial is over, Chief Judge Belvin Perry, Jr. had no choice but to take on the case. No other judge wanted it and his docket was not as thick. It’s called a backfire.

Today, after the defense changed horses in midstream, is their defendant better off? Let’s see… many of Judge Strickland’s orders were left with the door ajar. In other words, they were ordered without prejudice, which means they could change some of the language and refile the same motions, which is exactly what they did after Perry took over². Did the judge overturn any of Strickland’s decisions? Not a one. Nothing. Zip. Zil. Nada. Do I feel subsequent motions ruled by Perry would have the same outcome today had the defense stayed the course? Yes, absolutely. Strickland did not become a reputable circuit court judge by making many mistakes. As I’ve also stated many times, the defense went from Strickland to stricter.

COMES NOW, the recent defense motions denied by the presiding judge:

• The motion to exclude testimony that Casey had a history of lying and stealing. The judge wrote the State successfully argued that getting caught lying and stealing by her relatives may have provided a motive to rid herself of the financial and social burden of raising a young child. Also, the lies are inextricably intertwined with the evidence of the defendant’s activities between June 16, 2008 to July 15, 2008. “Evidence of a defendant’s collateral acts is not admissible to show bad character or a propensity to commit the crime charged,” wrote the judge in his ruling. “However, the state may be able to introduce evidence of collateral acts – such as lying or stealing – which are inextricably intertwined with the crime charged if necessary to adequately describe the deed, provide an intelligent account of the crime charged, establish the entire context out of which the charged crime arose or adequately describe the events leading up to the charged crime.”
• The motion to prohibit the use of references attributed to her Myspace Diary of Days. The defense argued that her posts weren’t relevant and that they were unfair to use at trial. The State countered by saying the posts were inconsistent with a mother actively looking for her kidnapped daughter. The judge wrote, “It is relevant to show the defendant’s state of mind during the time when Caylee Marie Anthony was missing and ultimately, when it was determined that she had died. The weight of this evidence is a matter for the jury.”
• The motion to exclude testimony from the neighbor, Brian Burner, who Casey borrowed a shovel from him. The judge decided, “There is nothing inherently prejudicial about borrowing a shovel, nor is a shovel ‘gruesome’ evidence that would tend to inflame the passions of the jury.”
• The motion to disallow jurors from learning about the La Bella Vita tattoo Casey got on July 2, 2008, roughly 2 weeks after Caylee’s disappearance. The judge wrote, “There is nothing inherently prejudicial about tattoos, which are increasingly prevalent among the population, nor is this particular tattoo likely to inflame the passions of the jury. Thus, the potentially prejudicial effect of this evidence does not outweigh its potentially probative value. It is relevant to show the defendant’s state of mind during the time when Caylee Marie Anthony was missing and ultimately, when it was determined that she had died.”

I don’t think I need to mention the impatience of Judge Perry with this defense. We have all seen it live, up close and personal. Come hell or high water, there will be no delays. More motions will be filed. The court must address some outstanding ones, too, like the one to exclude any references of the decomposition odor coming from Casey’s car. The motion also makes note of statements made by an Oak Ridge National Laboratory official who described chloroform levels recovered from a piece of  carpet removed from the trunk liner.  There’s also the matter of the stain in the trunk and whether it was organic in nature. The FBI could not make a determination, but Oak Ridge wrote that it showed the presence of “volatile fatty acids consistent with the byproducts of decomposition.” Once again, I’m afraid the judge will rightly allow the jury to hear arguments from both sides.

As I’ve said a hundred times, a good defense will throw everything in its arsenal at the wall in hopes that something sticks. I must say I can’t blame them, but in a sense, Baez & Company remind me of the Democratic party under Ronald Reagan’s reign, at least during his first term. He was given the nickname the Teflon President by the media because nothing seemed to stick. In his administration, it dealt with scandals, but in Judge Perry’s court, it’s all about defense motions. No matter what they file, there isn’t much that sticks. If I were Casey, I’d be nervous right now. Her defense seems to be moving from the frying pan into the fire, and that’s no recipe for success.

Baez team announces new attorneys

The Baez Law Firm announced last week that Dorothy Clay Sims, an attorney specializing in cross-examining medical expert witnesses, had joined Casey Anthony’s defense team pro bono.  She specializes in debunking junk science and cross-examining medical experts. She is a founding partner of the law firm Sims & Stakenborg in Ocala, Florida and was the first woman chair of the Worker’s Compensation Section of the Florida Bar. Orlando attorney William Jay, who represents Anthony Lazzaro, said that she has been known to anger forensic experts.

At a press conference this morning, Sims said she hasn’t owned a television in more than ten years and has kept herself up-to-date with the case through the Internet.

Also at this morning’s press conference, Jose Baez announced the addition of two new pro bono attorneys, one to handle her civil case, and the other to help challenge the state’s demand for the death penalty.

Civil attorney Charles M. Greene, of The Law Offices of Charles M. Greene, P.A. replaces Jonathan Kasen, who had been representing Casey in the civil lawsuit filed by Zenaida Gonzalez through attorney John Morgan, of Morgan & Morgan. Greene specializes in a variety of civil and criminal legal areas, including criminal defense, civil litigation, trial practice and product liability.

Ann E. Finnell graduated from Duke University and the University of Florida School of Law. According to her Web site, she “has handled homicide and death penalty cases since 1981.  She specializes in complex homicide litigation including death penalty mitigation.  In addition, she has tried serious felony cases including second degree murder and manslaughter cases, capital sexual battery, and other sexual battery cases, kidnapping, armed robbery, armed burglary and violent personal crimes.”

She was featured in a 2002 documentary that won an Oscar. The film, Murder on a Sunday Morning, chronicled the successful defense of young man falsely charged of murder. She is very experienced. Baez noted that she will serve as the defense team’s death penalty expert. “Her experience is second to none,” he noted this morning.

Casey Anthony’s defense is filling up with distinguished attorneys. No matter how dumb anyone thinks Jose Baez and Cheney Mason are, they know how to surround themselves with smart lawyers who specialize in areas where they need the most help. I wouldn’t call those stupid moves. Not in the least.

Here’s some food for thought. It’s not the same as the Anthony case, but it illustrates how trials sometimes work. Originally, there was speculation that Miami attorney Roy Black would be joining the team. That turned out to be nothing more than a rumor, but in the criminal evidence workshop he runs at the University of Miami School of Law, he likes to cite a favorite example of a courtroom experience from some 50-plus years ago. An attorney was representing a murder suspect in a case where no body was found. He announced to the jury that the victim would be walking through the courtroom door at that very moment. When the jury turned to look, the attorney said that their turning proved reasonable doubt existed. Without missing a beat, the prosecutor stood up and replied that it was a cute trick, but while everyone turned to look, “I turned to look at the defendant, and he never turned around, because he knew she was dead.” [See Florida Superlawyers, Roy Black Bio]

Does that sound like banter that could come from a particular defense attorney and prosecutor in this case?

Lyon Down

This is an opinion piece based on my observations in and out of the courtroom.

"You're really not going to notice any difference in the way the team operates."

- Cheney Mason

I never planned on writing anything about my interaction with Andrea Lyon because it wasn't all that relevant. Yesterday, that changed when she stepped out from the Casey limelight and the shadow of Cheney Mason. To be honest, it came as a complete surprise to me and I'll be the first person to say I thought she would be there until the end; that she would do her very best to keep Caylee's mother from the clutches of death, if it comes to that. Whenever anyone asked me if she would stay or leave now that another death qualified attorney joined the team, that was my standard answer. To me, she was the best chance Casey had. Well, that's no longer the case, and when I think about it and try to put everything in perspective, I never would have guessed that Judge Strickland would be off the bench, either. Interestingly, Judge Strickland and Andrea Lyon have something in common. Both left after Cheney Mason joined the illustrious defense. He's the common thread and the one that, in my opinion, had something to do yesterday's Motion to Withdraw Counsel. Time will tell if her absence becomes noticeable or not, but so far, I see no improvement after one fair judge stepped down, only to be replaced by another. I make it a point to say he went from Strickland to stricter, and because of his lengthy and seasoned career, he should have known you don't change horses in mid-stream. With yesterday's turn, I'm afraid it was brought about by conflicting viewpoints, along with other factors such as money and scheduling issues. We must consider that Mason had already assumed many of her responsibilities involving the death penalty and this should have been an overt clue. It was a natural transition I never recognized, but I still feel she was and could still be extremely essential to the case.

Under Mason's tutelage came a complete shift in strategy as witnessed at the last hearing and press conference. No longer was Roy Kronk the defense's main target. No longer will it embrace the theory that TES searchers went into those woods earlier on, when the area was flooded. Remember, it was Mason who said there's a difference between missing and disappearing. I'm not suggesting that there were problems with those issues. What I will strongly hint at are bones of contention we may never know about, and when push came to nudge in a battle of intellectual supremacy, was it really worth the trouble from all the way up Chicago way?

Today, I sense a strong possibility that, with Andrea gone, the trial date could be moved ahead at least a week. After all, it is her daughter who is graduating college the week of May 2nd. Judge Perry wanted it to begin that week but he graciously accommodated her. Suddenly, as the judge continues to poke and prod both sides to speed things up, it takes on a new and earnest meaning and that could come to fruition, only don't bet the farm just yet. Trust me, I've been wrong before.

♦

When Andrea Lyon's book, Angel of Death Row, was published, I wrote apost about it based on excerpts published on the Scribd Web site. Soon after, I attended a hearing and had a chance to talk to her. That was the day I "famously" handed my business card to Jose Baez. You know, the card that DOES NOT have my address on it. Walking to the parking garage, I had a friendly chat with Mort Smith, the defense team's private investigator who will, incidentally, remain with the team. As we continued to walk, I asked Andrea what she preferred to be called, ANN'-drea -- AHN'-drea, Ahn-DRAY'A or Ms. Lyon?

"ANN'-drea is just fine," she responded. Okay, Andrea it is.

I told her I had written a post about her new book. I also told her I found a typo in it. A couple of weeks earlier, I sent her an e-mail pointing it out and I wondered whether she received it or not. She acknowledged that she had and then thanked me. She said it would be corrected by the next printing. Along with several other bystanders awaiting the elevator, we all boarded together. Jose asked me if I was going to buy the book. I said, yes, if she would autograph it. Then, he turned to her and jokingly chuckled, "Good, at least one person will be buying it."

Needless to say, the garage elevator is a lot faster than the courthouse ones that go up 23 floors, and in a snap, we parted ways.

♦

The next time I spoke to her was after a later hearing. We were standing outside the entrance/exit doors at one of the now familiar post-hearing press conferences. Standing by her side this time was Linda Kenney Baden, who will also stay on. As Jose was finishing answering questions, I moved closer to the women and asked, "Andrea?"

"Yes, David," she quickly responded. What I discussed with her was of no relevance here, but we stood within inches of each other and I was surprised at how approachable, charming, and downright friendly she was. She was very relaxed, open and candid, too. She even introduced me to Kenney Baden. What I could see in her eyes was an extremely caring individual. Of course, I witnessed it in the courtroom, but, for the brief moment we talked, I sensed - up close and personal - a lot of compassion despite her well known courtroom theatrics. I was impressed that, out of all that was going on in her life, she remembered my name. That was duly noted and appreciated.

I will say this. When she joined the defense team 13 months ago, I thought she was a dedicated woman, it was certainly a step in the right direction, and she was a most positive addition. Up until yesterday, she was the only person of the main three members - meaning her, Baez and Mason - I had the most respect for. I guess I will always have a soft spot for a deeply humanitarian woman, but it was more than that. I happen to hold the same opinion regarding the abolition of the death penalty and I know how committed she is to that cause. That's precisely why her decision to part company came as such a surprise, but I should know better by now. Look what happened to one key player, not to mention little old me, but speaking of judges, here's something you never knew. Neither did she. She felt that a certain judge didn't like her. In the end, and I can say this in all honesty as I bid her well in her present and future endeavors... Andrea? You were dead wrong about that. Take heart, and as you take leave, take that with you.

Hot off the grill...

It's been almost two years since my friend Rick died. He drank himself to death. No matter how much I tried to rescue him from the bottle, he wanted no help, and in the end, it was alcohol that pushed him to an early grave. Years earlier, Rick ran an NCAA Basketball Tournament betting sheet where you pick 32 of the 64 team field, eliminating each bracket until only 2 teams remain to play the championship game. In this particular bet, there were two winners to split the pot. I was one of them. When it came time to collect, Rick made every excuse in the book. He forgot to bring the money. He forgot where he put it. After several weeks of this, I hit him with the truth, "You don't have the money. You spent it on booze."

Yup, he wasted money that didn't belong to him. Such is the life of an alcoholic. Of course, we now know where Todd Macaluso stands in the legal community after stepping down from Casey's defense team for writing worthless checks from a client’s trust account. It reminded me so much of Rick. I'm glad Todd entered the Alternative Discipline Program, which addresses the substance abuse and mental health problems of attorneys when disciplinary action is taken in the California State Bar Court.

304 days ago, Todd Macaluso stood before the Ninth Circuit Court of Florida, in front of Judge Stan Strickland, and made this blanket statement:

“There is substantial evidence that we’ve found … that the body or remains of Caylee Anthony were placed there after Casey Anthony was locked up. It proves that somebody else placed the remains in the area.”

For ten months, we were led to believe this would be the tack the defense would take at trial, based on statements made by TES searchers, off-record, who said the land where Caylee was found three months later was not flooded in September when they searched. What made this so senseless was the undisputed fact regarding summer weather in Central Florida. Roy Kronk said under oath that the woods were too flooded to enter in mid-August of 2008. Soon after he reported his sighting, T.S. Fay rolled into town, adding over 12" of rain to an already flooded and low-lying location. Come September, no one could go in there to search, and TES leader Tim Miller instructed his teams to keep away from areas under water; that it may destroy evidence.

I believe Cheney Mason was smart enough to recognize that, because yesterday, he did an abrupt about-face. Huh? What's this all about? In a post-hearing press conference, Mason said:

"They did not search the exact areas where the body was found. So everything they said before that is not relevant."

Did Brother Cheney speak out of school? Is he spanking the numero uno defense attorney, Jose Baez, by taking the lead, or is it part of an orchestrated effort because of one simple truth - the area was too flooded to search and the State has the proof to back it up? I think the answer is yes. The area WAS flooded and the statement of Macaluso past must be erased from the memory bank of future defense maneuvers. Of course, we won't discuss plant and insect forensic evidence at the moment. That comes later.

On July 16 of 2009, Jose Baez and Andrea D. Lyon filed two motions. One was to certify Tim Miller as a material witness and/or to subpoena him for documents in the possession of TES. The motion makes several claims:

1. "This area [8750 block of Suburban Drive] was searched by several individuals, including Orange County law enforcement and TES volunteers, between July and December 2008."
2. "Several searchers have made statements to Orange County law enforcement and to the media stating either that they searched the 8750 block of Suburban Drive with TES, or they encountered TES searchers in that area."
3. "... that Orange County law enforcement provided TES with documents identifying the area in question as an area of interest; that witnesses have made various statements (including in a sworn interview) to the effect that they searched the area in question on behalf of TES or saw TES searchers in that area..."

In another defense motion filed November 23 of 2009, the defense had this to say:

"The Defense, through its own independent investigation, has interviewed several TES searchers who not only searched the area where the remains were found, but who were not among the thirty-two (32) identified by TES."

This was the now famous motion containing the statements of Joseph Jordanand Laura Buchanan, in which the bold claim was made that:

"The signed statements from Joe Jordan and Laura Buchanan, included with this Memorandum of Law, indicate that there were several people who searched the Suburban Drive neighborhood but were not among the thirty-two (32) names disclosed by TES.

Why did the defense decide to run diametrically opposed to previous statements and motions? Clearly, this is something Cheney Mason conjured up because Jose Baez and Andrea Lyon filed motions that are contrary to this new revelation. They are also motions this defense did not win, and there lies the crux. Since this didn't work, let's try something else. Gone with the old, in with the new, and most certainly, Mason is not naive to the ins and outs of criminal defense strategies. Here's the brand new slant:

“What do you have that shows she was not there in June?” WFTV reporter Kathi Belich asked him.

“That's when Caylee was missing. We don't know when she disappeared,” he replied.

AHA! The linguistic switch! No one knows when Caylee disappeared. As President Clinton once responded, "It all depends on what your definition of isis," there are discrepancies in the meanings of missing and disappearing. I guess we could establish the fact that my keys may be missing if I lost them, but they certainly didn't disappear because they would have to be where I left them, unless, of course, they were taken by someone else. Then, they would have disappeared and they are missing. Got that? You see, it's all in the semantics. Instead of admitting it can't win the flooding argument, the defense concedes by manipulating the verbiage. What it will attempt to prove in court is that Casey lost Caylee, but she didn't disappear. It was precisely like losing a set of keys, only she wasn't where Casey last left her. Let's see... was that at Sawgrass, or was it at Jay Blanchard Park? Oh. She lost her at Sawgrass, but she disappeared from Blanchard. Today, Casey misses her more than anything else. Gotcha!

No matter what twist the defense tries, the prosecution is going to present evidence that shows Casey never lost her. She never went missing or disappeared in her mind because she knew exactly where she left her all along; in the woods on the southern side of Suburban Drive, 8750 block. What interests me now is one simple question about why the defense still needs those TES documents. If Cheney Mason has concluded that no one searched in those woods, what difference should it make? Has someone else, another TES member or an independent searcher, stepped forward; someone who looked inside at an earlier or later date when the ground was dry enough? Or is there a slim possibility that a searcher joined the TES team in order to conveniently dispose of a body? If that's the defense plan, then I could almost justify wanting to go through those records, especially now that Roy Kronk is no longer under a defense microscope as a suspect, as Cheney said. That's whole different story, too.

Whatever it is, it's a pickle. When Judge Belvin Perry denied the defense access to the illegal tape recording made by Joe Jordan, Mason knew it would have to shift gears. Jordan's defense statement was unreliable and would hold no credibility in court. Would Laura Buchanan's words be enough? I doubt it, but hopefully, we'll know more answers after the July 15 hearing, when the issue of TES records is heard, or by August 31, when the defense must present its list of witnesses. Most likely, what Mason uttered yesterday is just a new way to create an element of doubt; another soft-shoe shuffle. Personally, I think it's nothing more than hot air, something Mason and the summer months of Florida are famous for. And, they're all wet.

Closer to the edge

"This gender bias has something to do with the decision to seek death in this case. I would only ask, your honor, that you think about this, and I know you will carefully.

“People don’t say, you know, ‘She’s a... it’s an impolite word... but, you know, she’s a whore, so she should die. Right? They don’t say that out loud. Oh well, they do in the blogs, your honor, but they don’t say that here in court ... but underneath, that is what’s going on.”

- defense attorney Andrea Lyon, in court today

"She doesn't like the fact that our law permits jurors to assess the character of individuals in deciding the death penalty. That's the way the law is whether it's a man or a woman."

- prosecutor Jeff Ashton, in response to Andrea Lyon today

[For the record, Judge Perry entered the courtroom at precisely 9:02 AM. Two minutes late. Cindy came in a little late, flanked by two family friends, but no George. Read into it what you will. Also absent was Brad Conway.]

Did Casey's defense team take a big risk when it demanded that Judge Stan Strickland step aside? Did it expect the top judge, Chief Judge Belvin Perry, Jr., to take hold of the reins, or was it expecting a judge more favorable to its cause, one less inclined to keep the death penalty on the table? For certain, it took that gamble and the outcome is real. The court wanted none of that. Today, the defense did its best to remove the onus of death that's been hanging over Casey like a heavy cloud waiting to pour down its reign of punishment with each stinging drop in motions lost. Today, Casey began visualizing the prospect of dying at the hands of the state as a harsh reality. There is no stopping it now. This is no game; no dress rehearsal. No one in their right mind would ever act or play games with life and death. This was all too real today. Whether her tears were or not is a matter open for discussion, but cry she did.

I must admit, I was almost certain why Cheney Mason asked the judge at the tail end of the hearing last Thursday if Casey had to attend all hearings. I am convinced it was to spare her from the torturous tirade that would ensue during the motions heard today regarding death as a possible punishment. I am certain the judge made sure she would hear every word of it. DEATH. DEATH. DEATH. That's why she must attend her hearings. She needs to face reality; something she's never had to do all her life. Welcome to the world, Casey. Welcome to Belvin Perry's court.

Today, the hearing dealt "strictly" with death penalty motions. It wasn't a complete bloodbath for the defense, but they do have a few wounds to lick. First of all, let me say that I had the opportunity to ask three separate attorneys about the motion filed to recuse Judge Strickland. All three remain puzzled, even after I mentioned the motion to reconsider earlier rulings by Strickland filed by the defense. Could that have been the motive behind asking for the recusal? To, perhaps, get some decisions overturned? All I can say is that they still couldn't understand the reason. It was a very stupid move by the defense. That brings my total to 15 attorneys I've asked, with every response the same. Also, I had a chance to talk to two of the deputies sitting in the back row of the gallery. They are the jailers who bring Casey to court and take her back to 33rd Street. They deal only with high-profile and/or dangerous inmates. Since they are there, why not watch the proceedings? By the way, they were quite nice; professional and approachable.

THE MOTIONS

Gender Bias

Casey's defense team, "manned" by Andrea Lyon, argued that the death penalty is sexist. Ms. Lyon brought along an expert on gender and its relationship to capital punishment. Elizabeth Rapaport is a University of New Mexico law professor. Jeff Ashton objected to her presence by arguing that the defense witness was not listed and the prosecution had no time to prepare. Judge Perry overruled and allowed her testimony. She said she has found that white middle-class mothers accused of filicide get a lot more media coverage than other cases. She asserted that issues such as whether the defendant has a tattoo, how she dresses or if she goes to see male strippers have nothing to do with a criminal case. They are irrelevant. A woman can still be a good mother. She said that mothers who are considered deviant are harder to defend. When Andrea Lyon began talking about Caylee being healthy and happy, Casey began to cry.

Initially, Judge Perry offered the prosecution the chance to reserve the right to cross-examine within 30 days if they needed time to prepare to question Rapaport. Jeff Ashton decided not to opt on that, but he stressed that she had no background in psychology. Ultimately, the judge ruled against the defense.

Automatic appeal of death sentence

All defendants who are sentenced to death get an automatic appeal to the Florida Supreme Court. Lyon argued that the state's supreme court can't legitimately review the case without a report written by a capital jury, which isn't a requirement in the state. Lyon tried to stress that the appellate review is inadequate because the jury doesn't have to explain what aggravators it had found beyond a reasonable doubt that triggered the death penalty. Judge Perry denied the motion.

Why the state is seeking death

The defense requested statutory aggravators - legal reasons - that clearly define why the State is seeking the death penalty. Florida law requires a jury to weigh aggravators, such as whether the murder was premeditated and if the victim was 12-years-old or under. In order for the defense to prepare its side, they need to know what aggravating circumstances the State will try to prove if the case reaches the penalty phase.

"We should be told what changed and what we are facing and what exactly the aggravating factors are and how they will prove it," Lyon told the judge. "The indictment itself… doesn't even tell us their theory or evidence on how this homicide happened."

She said there are 14,000 pages of investigative documents to sort through. "We don't know what the theory of the case is from the prosecution's point of view."

Ashton said the State is not obligated to provide legal theories on this case. Of the fifteen aggravators, only six apply. He said the fact that the defense can't figure out what is what and which ones apply is absurd and incredible.

Lyon struck back by saying the burden of proof is on the State. Ultimately, Judge Perry agreed with her. He told the State it has 10 days to provide the aggravating factors to the defense. At the same time, he said, "the Court at this time will deny the request at this time of the State of Florida a list without prejudice... Whether we like it or not, death is different, therefore, the motion will be granted."

Here is a direction I feel the defense could have taken today. At least, it was worth a look, in my opinion. Sprinkled throughout the motions was a reference to Ring v. Arizona. Ring v. Arizona is, according to Wikipedia, a case in which the United States Supreme Court applied the rule of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), to capital sentencing schemes, holding that the Sixth Amendment requires a jury to find the aggravating factors necessary for imposing the death penalty.

Former Florida Supreme Court Justice Leander J. Shaw, Jr. wrote an opinionthat, in certain circumstances, would vote to grant a capital habeas petitioner relief on the basis of Ring v. Arizona. A writ of habeas corpus directs a person, usually a prison warden, to produce the prisoner and justify the prisoner's detention. If the prisoner argues successfully that the incarceration is in violation of a constitutional right, the court may order the prisoner's release.

Justice Shaw expressed his view that the Florida death penalty statute violated the principle enunciated in Ring v. Arizona:

Nowhere in Florida law is there a requirement that the finding of an aggravating circumstance must be unanimous. Ring, however, by treating a “deathqualifying” aggravation as an element of the offense,imposes upon the aggravation the rigors of proof as other elements, including Florida’s requirement of a unanimous jury finding. Ring, therefore, has a direct impact onFlorida’s capital sentencing statute.

At another point in his opinion, Justice Shaw concluded that Florida’s statute was flawed:

I read Ring v. Arizona, 122 S.C. 2428 (2002), as holding that “an aggravating circumstance necessary for imposition of a death sentence” operates as “the functional equivalent of an element of a greater offense than the one covered by the jury’s verdict” and must be subjected to the same rigors of proof as every other element of the offense. Because Florida’s capital sentencing statute requires a finding of at least one aggravating circumstance as a predicate to a recommendation of death, that “death qualifying” aggravator operates as the functional equivalent of an element of the offense and is subject to the same rigors of proof as the other elements. When the dictates of Ring are applied to Florida’s capital sentencing statute, I believe our statute is rendered flawed because it lacks a unanimity requirement for the “death qualifying” aggravator.

I am a bit surprised the defense didn't capitalize on Justice Shaw's statement regarding this lack of unanimity for the death qualifying aggravator. Later, perhaps.

Information related to the potential penalty phase

During the penalty phase of a trial, the defense tells the jury why its client does not deserve a particular sentence. In this case, it may come down to life or death if Casey is found guilty. Her attorneys want the judge to issue an order protecting her from having to "reveal any information relating to any potential penalty phase proceeding to the State prior to the time she is actually convicted of first-degree murder."

Andrea Lyon feels there are witnesses who may be afraid that media will focus on them. So far, every witness has faced scrutiny by the press, she said. Jeff Ashton argued that since the defense agreed to take part in the discovery process, everything of that nature - witnesses, documents and other material - becomes a matter of public record.

Judge Perry denied the defense motion, but did tell the attorneys that if a witness faces any harassment, the court can withhold some personal information from the public record, such as a person's address.

State's motive in seeking death

Initially, the State announced it wasn't going to seek the death penalty. Four months after Caylee's remains were found, prosecutors changed their minds. Casey's defense wanted to know why. It accused the State of wanting to financially break the defense. Lyon said that the timing was suspicious. She questioned the State's motives.

Ashton argued that for the defense to suggest their interest in seeking the death penalty was borne of a plan to bankrupt the defense is untrue. "There's nothing in this record that would tend to suggest that the State sought the death penalty for any improper motive. It's the third one we've had alleged. The record does not support and the court should deny the motion."

Lyon requested a sidebar with the judge to discuss whether she can keep some of the arguments under seal. They returned and nothing was offered.

"Defense failed to meet their burden of proof," Judge Perry stated in his final ruling of the day.

With all of the motions heard, the judge wanted to take a look ahead at some of the other pending death penalty motions. "Now, there are eight to twelve death penalty motions left. I will give the defense five days to list, to be sure which ones have not been ruled on, and then I'll give the State ten days."

When the defense balked at five days and asked for seven, the judge relented."OK, seven days to respond."

End of hearing!

We took a ten minute break earlier. At some point during the hearing, Jeff Ashton said he had been prosecuting for 30 years. I ran into him in the hall and said something about those years. "You must have started quite young."

"Yes, when I was 23."

"So, you're 53..."

"No, not yet. Not until October."

Something tells me we'll all be around come October. Who wants to be in charge of sending him a card?