Last Laugh?

I’m sorry. I did state that I planned on walking away from the Casey Anthony case, and it’s still my intent, but I just had to say something about today’s news. I couldn’t resist, especially when it comes to Judge Strickland…

On August 1, 2011, Judge Stan Strickland ordered Casey Anthony to serve one year of supervised probation, nunc pro tunc. Nunc pro tunc is Latin for now for then. In other words, the judge issued a new court order showing that the earlier order was in error in its interpretation by the Department of Corrections. The words upon release were omitted in the original document.

According to the Orlando Sentinel, Strickland said, “From my reading of this, she should be reporting to probation in Orlando probably within 72 hours. I suspect she’s going to be required to report to probation.”

On January 25, 2010, Anthony pleaded guilty as charged to check fraud. Her attorney, Jose Baez, asked Judge Strickland to give her credit for time served and to place her on probation for a year. He obliged by sentencing her to time served, 412 days for each of the six charges he found her guilty of , followed by one year of probation. The 412 day sentences were to be served concurrently.

At issue, upon her release from jail on July 17, 2011, was whether she had served her probation during the year following her guilty plea to fraud. Clearly, a person cannot violate probation while sitting in a 4’x9’ jail cell 23-hours each day. The judge’s intent was for Casey to serve her probation upon her release from jail, not during. Therefore, he made that very clear in his amended order today.

Casey was also ordered to pay the following amounts: $5.00 for court costs, $50.00 for CCF, $225.00 for LGCJTF, $3.00 for TEENCT, and $65.00 for the Criminal Ordinance program. She must also pay the costs of investigation and prosecution. Attached to the new order were special conditions, along with the year of probation. Of course, there’s to be no contact with the victim, Amy Huizenga, which should be no problem at all. Each month, Casey must make a “full and truthful report” to her Probation Officer, along with $20.00 (payable to the state of Florida) toward the cost of supervision, and a 4% surcharge.

Here’s where the order gets tricky. The order states that Casey “will not change [her] residence or employment or leave the county of [her] residence without first procuring the consent of [her] Probation Officer.” Oddly, her last place of residence was 4937 Hopespring Drive. Something tells me she will fight tooth and nail to keep herself away from that house.

The order carries a total of 13 legal stipulations she must follow, such as not being able to own any sort of weapon. Attached are the two documents released by the Clerk of Courts today. I think we can fully count on her defense challenging this new order, but what judge will hear the motion? None other than Chief Judge Belvin Perry, according to the Orlando Sentinel write-up.

I do not believe Judge Strickland intended to have the last laugh. His design was for Casey to serve her probation upon her release from jail. Isn’t it ironic, though, that in the end, while Cheney Mason claims he was able to take the judge down, he couldn’t take him out? Rich indeed!

OneTouch Aug 01, 2011 (1)

OneTouch Aug 01, 2011 (2)

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.

Linda Kenney Baden calls it quits

According to a WESH-TV news report, Linda Kenney Baden filed a motion in Orange County Court today to withdraw from the Casey Anthony defense team.

She was hired to do most of the forensic work, but Dorothy Sims will more than foot the bill. My guess is that we are seeing Cheney Mason at work. He tried to cash in his chips at the courthouse in April, when he filed a motion for Judge Stan Strickland to step down. This time, he’s shuffling attorneys around. There is no doubt he is well known in Florida and the two newest attorneys to join the team, Sims and Ann Finnell, hail from Ocala and Jacksonville, respectively.

No reason for Baden’s resignation was cited in the motion. Todd Macaluso resigned this past April stating that he is on “involuntary inactive status with the California State Bar…for an undetermined period of time.” Andrea Lyon resigned at the end of June. She blamed costs that the JAC would not pay, such as travel expenses.

See: WESH

A formidable presence

As quiet as a church mouse, Ann E. Finnell entered into the Ninth Circuit Court, a Notice of Appearance last Thursday, September 30.

ANN E. FINNELL, the undersigned attorney, hereby enters her appearance on behalf of DEFENDANT, CASEY ANTHONY, joining attorneys Jose Baez, Esq., and Cheney Mason, Esq., inter alia as an attorney for Defendant.

Inter alia, for those not familiar, is Latin for “among other things,” meaning she is joining the crowd. The more, the merrier, so to speak.

What you may not have noticed, though, are two motions rolled into one that came attached with it; something she filed on behalf of her new client, Ms. Anthony. The nerve. Judge Perry wasn’t even given a chance to acknowledge her notification yet.

MOTION TO DETERMINE REASONABLE BUDGET FOR DUE PROCESS COSTS IN A CAPITAL CASE AND MOTION TO INCUR CERTAIN SPECIFIED COSTS

In this two-for-one motion, Ms. Finnell asks the Honorable Court to “set a hearing to detemine a reasonable budget for the penalty phase of a capital proceeding.” This is not in anticipation of a guilty verdict. No, this is more of a “just in case” scenario. Juries can go either way and it’s better to be prepared, and to be specific, this is a motion requesting money for services rendered BEFORE the trial, not after.

On March 19 of this year, Judge Stan Strickland officially declared Casey Anthony indigent and her defense stated that they would continue to work on her case pro bono. Regardless of how Florida taxpayers felt at the time, the state was ordered, through the JAC (Judicial Administrative Commission) to pay for her experts, investigators and other costs incurred. At the indigence hearing, her then-new attorney, Cheney Mason, said the total amount could be about $200,000. Unfortunately, I am of the opinion that it will exceed that price tag.

Ms. Finnell, in her motion, assumes that “since Defendant has been adjudged indigent for costs it would seem appropriate that undersigned counsel attempt to establish a reasonable budget for a capital case.”

I’m afraid, in this case, I have to agree with her, but it has nothing to do with siding with the defense. It is because Casey has a right, like any other who stands accused, to have a solid defense, particularly because of the nature of the beast. This is a capital case, and as Judge Perry has stated more than once, death is different. However, just because I agree does not mean he will write a check in the amount she is requesting. He has several options.

1. He can agree 100% and grant her wish.
2. He can agree and ask her to submit individual bills to JAC as they come in.
3. He can disagree and tell her to work with what she’s already got; Jerry Lyons and Jeanene Barrett. Is Mort Smith still in the equation?

Ms. Finnell is very good at what she does. She is a seasoned veteran at this sort of thing. I noticed elsewhere in comments that the defense doesn’t need this attorney since Cheney Mason is already death penalty qualified. Her joining the team has nothing to do with that. It is all about taking care of the penalty phase if Casey is convicted of first-degree murder. That is her specialty and in order to be fair and just, any defendant in a capital case needs someone precisely like her. Indigent or not, they usually get one, and Casey is no exception.

Just what is the Jacksonville attorney requesting? Let’s take a look.

She believes the utilization of a private investigator will be required to provide services in the realm of “locating and interviewing mitigation witnesses,” and“locating and securing documents and other evidence relevant to the penalty phase,” among others I will get to. One of the things that I get a kick out of are those pesky little “other evidence” phrases that one never quite understands. Exactly what it really means is anyone’s guess. It’s almost the same as saying, “well, that’s what they say” to back up a claim, only no one knows for sure who “they” are. Oh, you know, them, those, that evidence.

On with the show… Performing background checks is a reasonable request. So is “researching any other factual issue relevant to the penalty phase such as the credibility and character of the witnesses.” She adds that she does not anticipate the costs for investigative services to exceed $5,000.00 and specifically requests the court to “enter an Order authorizing such costs not to exceed $5,000.00 without further Order of the Court.” That’s rather interesting, because she places this fiscal limit on each of her court requests and it’s the first time I have seen any defense attorney related to this case take responsibility for any money at all, except for what the JAC is willing to pay, and there have been issues already. Judge Perry stated that any bill JAC refuses to pay falls back into the hands of the Baez Law Firm. This woman has, what seems apparent, experience in this department. On this particular issue, she says that the private investigator would be one with whom JAC has a contract and would provide services at JAC rates. So far, so good.

$5,000.00

The next matter at hand concerns the services of a licensed psychiatrist or psychologist at a “reasonable hourly rate” - whatever that may be. Of course, the JAC has a menu that lists recommended rates:

JAC is also rather particular about what it offers. “Prior to retaining an expert, defense counsel must file a written motion seeking authorization to incur the expert services. The motion needs to establish the basis for the expert services by setting forth the reason why the expert’s services are necessary for the defense of the case. The defense has the burden to show the particularized need for the expert’s services.”

Since this leads the court to assure the JAC that what it hands out will have to be meticulously explained by the defense, Casey and her team will get no free rides. In the case of “seeking a comprehensive forensic psychological examination of the defendant, the attorney should ask the expert the number of hours the expert anticipates will be necessary to complete the evaluation,” which translates into: the defense should obtain a good faith estimate from the expert first. I believe Ms. Finnell has done that.

Whoever the expert is would examine and conduct forensic testing on Casey and “render an opinion regarding relevant mitigation” and be available to consult with the defense regarding state experts’ cross-examinations. If necessary, it would include testifying at the penalty phase. The price tag? Her guestimate runs at $7,500.00.

Now, we’re up to $12,500.00

Next up in her list is $1,000 for copies, medical records, school records, photographs and “any other record relevant to any statutory or non-statutory mitigating circumstance or to rebut any aggravating circumstance, and the preparation of trial exhibits of said records.”

$13,500.00

The next item up for the defense is the mitigation specialist and here’s where the instructions are clear. Ms. Finnell does not seem to be asking for anyone new. Instead, she seeks money for who’s already there, in which case, I would have to point the finger at Jeanene Barrett, left over from the Andrea Lyon days. Here, Ms. Finnell “anticipates needing additional hours for the mitigation specialist who has already been approved by the court.” Bingo! She’s not looking for anyone else. She expects this expert to work for an additional 100 hours at a rate the court had already established, and if I can find that out, I will let you know, but if we assume it’s $75.00 per hour, we’re talking an additional $7,500.00, which pushes the bill over the $20,000.00 amount initially reported in the media.

$21,000.00

The esteemed attorney expects to travel “to and from Orlando, Florida and Jacksonville, Florida and Ft. Myers, Florida, to visit with Defendant and Defendant’s family, friends and associates. Multiple trips will be required prior to the start of the trial in this cause.” She intends to use her own vehicle, which is not a 1987 Yugo, incidentally. Let’s see, the JAC states that, “When travel is more than 50 miles or out‐of‐county, an expert may bill for mileage pursuant to section 112.061, F.S. The state rate for mileage reimbursement is $.0445 per mile.”

The distance between Jacksonville and Orlando, from her office to the jail, is 145 miles each way. The distance from her office to Fort Myers is roughly 300 miles. She anticipates at least one trip per month to Orlando and back, and at least two trips to Fort Myers. Overnight lodging is expected for the trips to Fort Myers and some of the trips to Orlando, all of which is feasible. She’s asking for $4,000.00. Let’s see… a round trip from Jax to O’do runs about $134.00. Jax to Ft. Myers would be double that - $268.00. We are 7-8 months away from showtime, so 7-8 Orlando trips would run… let’s give her the benefit of the doubt and say 8 months. 8 trips would cost almost $1,100.00.  To Fort Myers and back twice would add up to around $540, bringing our total to $1,640.00, not including hotel stays, and I think it’s safe to assume she’s not going to spend the night at the No Tell Motel, but still, that’s over $2,400 in lodgings. Nope, that one should be questioned by the judge. If the court chooses to approve, it brings our tally much higher…

$25,000.00

Ms. Finnell further anticipates “travel expenses for either one investigator or one mitigation specialist to travel to Ohio, to obtain records and interview potential witnesses.” Of course, this travel would have to require roundtrip airfare, lodging, and per diem expenses, which she expects to be approved at JAC rates. Air fare shouldn’t exceed $600.00 and total travel should not be any more than $1,500.00. That adds another $1,500.00 to our bill.

$26,500.00 grand total prior to trial

The final request is a very important one as far as I’m concerned, because it makes it clear when she expects this money. It makes absolutely no sense that the court would hold this amount until a verdict is rendered and the penalty phase begins, if Casey is found guilty. No, there’s not nearly enough time to collect all of this information. At the same time, something may come to light that is important to the outcome of the trial. This is money the state must hand out very soon in one form or another. Clearly, Ms. Finnell anticipates this because she says that “if this case goes to trial, travel to the site of the trial and lodging associated with the days required to attend the trial will need to be incurred at JAC approved rates. Counsel cannot at this time estimate the number of days required to select a jury, try the case, and conduct a penalty phase if necessary.” You see? This is money she intends to spend leading up to the trial, if it reaches that stage, which it will. The trial and possible penalty phase are not included.

We may not be happy with this price tag, but taking everything into consideration, and I mean everything, Ann Finnell has laid out an expense package that is within reason. Like I said, as much as some of us will disagree, it’s the first thing that’s come out of this defense that makes concrete sense. Finally, an efficient planner has emerged - one who’s not afraid to open her hand and show a couple of cards. No “I’ll have to get back to you on that,” or “I need to look into that.” Here it is, take it or leave it. Personally, I think Judge Perry is going to like her style. She’s no nonsense.

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?

Judge Perry’s lightning speed steals Mason’s thunder

“Be patient and you will finally win, for a soft tongue can break hard bones.”

- Proverbs 28:13

The last time I was inside the courtroom on the 23rd floor, Casey Anthony pleaded guilty to all fraud charges. That was four months ago on January 25. In June of 2009, I wrote a post titled, Guilty as CHARGED? that clearly spelled out why I thought she had no solid defense against those charges. The word CHARGED was my way of saying she charged her purchases on a checkbook she stole from her friend, Amy Huizenga. Why this defense chose to take it completely out of context in its motion to dismiss Judge Strickland is far beyond me, but so it was written, so it was done. God save the judge.

This time, on Friday, the courtroom took on a completely different atmosphere, as a new judge sat on the bench. Known as a no-nonsense jurist, Chief Judge Belvin Perry, Jr. lived up to his reputation. The mood was clearly stoic and reserved. As much as Judge Strickland deserved the same dignity and respect that Cheney Mason did not afford him, quite clearly, this time he sat quietly in the courtroom like a timid church mouse. Was he expecting this sort of outcome after Judge Strickland dismissed himself? Only time will tell, but if there is true justice in the world, Cheney Mason will not stand between it and the mockery he made of the court by filing the motion to dismiss and the later objection he filed in response to the court’s order.

When I got to the courtroom, it was a matter of minutes before Judge Perry entered. I noticed that Casey was wearing a light pink shirt and her hair was tied snugly back in a ponytail. She seemed to be in good spirits until Judge Perry entered the room. From that point on, gone were the smiles and hand-rubbing. As serious as the judge was, so was she. The more relaxed attitude of Judge Strickland’s court was washed completely away. This was business as usual, but a tougher version of it mixed in with a heavy dose of reality. Judge Perry had no qualms about discussing the dreaded death penalty.

He first addressed the monumental list of State witnesses, over 250, and the small number, 36, that had already been deposed. This is something he wants done. Let’s get a crack on it. MOVE, MOVE, MOVE!  He told the defense to file a proposed deposition schedule. He will not allow for any excuses. In light of this, he gave prosecutors and the defense strict orders to get their evidence and witnesses in order. Prosecutors said that some out-of-state witnesses were reluctant.

“I’m quite sure that Sheriff Jerry Demings will aid us in going to make those witnesses available for deposition,” Judge Perry said. In other words, depose them or the court will. There will be room for one courtesy call ONLY.

On record, Jose Baez listed himself as lead counsel for the day. Will that change by the time the trial gets underway? That’s anyone’s guess, but I did notice he addressed the judge as “Judge” on several occasions, instead of “Your Honor.” Some habits die hard.

Moving on, His Honor was irked that the defense still hadn’t talked to the JAC (Justice Administration Commission) about how much money the case will cost Florida taxpayers.

“I got time next week and the following week. That needs to be done like yesterday,” Judge Perry said. A hearing on the matter has been scheduled for this Thursday. He ordered attorneys to block out several days the following week (next week) to argue over unresolved motions, including all non-death penalty motions, whether the state’s death penalty is unconstitutional, whether jurors will be allowed to view pictures of Casey partying, and allegations of Roy Kronk’s domestic violence. This will most likely be held on the 10th or 11th.

Judge Perry really got down to the nitty gritty of changing the venue. Stating that it would be too cost prohibitive to move the entire trial to another county, he proposed moving a jury here if one could not be seated within the confines of Orange County. He said, “I have done a number of change of venue cases. Once I grant it, the location will not be disclosed. It will be disclosed at the last possible moment.”

He does not want the media to know until the last minute. That way, all publicity surrounding the location and jury selection will be kept under wraps. It seems apparent this judge wants the trial to take place right here in Orange County due to the massive costs of uprooting everyone, including over 250 witnesses, mostly from the Orlando area. He has no problem moving a jury here instead, if necessary. Most assuredly, this is something I was positive Judge Strickland would have decided. Many of us felt the same way, so it’s nothing new, but what may be is sequestering. If the judge decides to sequester jurors, which cuts them off from all outside influences, it could make jury service much more tiresome.

When asked, Jose Baez said, “This is really not just about the publicity. This community is intimately involved in this case by way of searches, by way of protesters.” He noted that the types of people the defense would want to hear the case may not be able to handle the stress of two months away from home and family.

“It is no secret that this case has received widespread publicity,” Perry said. He went on to say that the only way to make sure they are not infected or polluted during this proceeding is to sequester them.

Judge Perry asked the prosecution how long it expected to take to argue their case. Linda Drane Burdick responded that it would take about 3-4 weeks. The judge asked the defense the same question. Baez answered, about 3 weeks. The judge then set a working schedule of five-and-a-half days per week, meaning a half-day on Saturdays. He said that he would submit a list of movies for the jury to watch and each side could strike any from that list, no questions asked. Remember, there will be no TV for a sequestered jury.

Finally, he brought up the DEATH PENALTY phase. This was something Casey could not order her attorneys to “make him stop.” I almost swear I saw the hairs stand up on the back of her neck. Her parents were in front of me and I watched Cindy cringe.

How long will it take the state to argue? Jeff Ashton stood and said it would be done in a day. Baez then stood and said it would take the defense anywhere from 3-5 days.

Judge Perry reminded the court that we live in an adversarial system of justice, which is “the two-sided structure under which criminal trial courts operate that pits the prosecution against the defense. Justice is done when the most effective adversary is able to convince the judge or jury that his or her perspective on the case is the correct one.”¹

He wanted to move the trial date up a week, to May 2, but Andrea Lyon reminded the court over a speaker phone (in absentia) her daughter graduates college that week. The judge accommodated her and allowed the date Judge Strickland set to stand at May 9, 2011. Meanwhile, he expects to hold status hearings every 45 day. With that, the hearing came to an abrupt – no, not yet… Baez corrected the judge, who called Andrea Lyon “Miss Lyons.”

“There’s no ‘s’ at the end of her name, Judge, and it’s Professor Lyon.”

The Honorable Judge Belvin Perry, Jr. stood corrected and walked away from the bench. So it was written, so it was done.

Order Regarding Deposition Schedule

Order Setting Motion Hearings 5-03-2010