Drowning in a Pool of Lies?

What do I think the defense will argue in it’s opening statement?

Read my article on Orlando Magazine. See if it will take you as long to read as what Jose will say tomorrow.

Click the image

Feel free to add your thoughts.

THANK YOU!

A Snail's Pace

Jury selection is moving at the same pace as a race between a tortoise and a snail.

Hurry on over to Orlando Magazine and take your time reading my latest post…

Click the image

Feel free to add your thoughts.

THANK YOU!

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.

Hark the Judge Reserves a Ruling

Yesterday, a hearing was held in courtroom 19D, four flights down from the main attraction on the 23rd floor. That courtroom is undergoing renovations at the moment. 19D is familiar because that’s where Judge Strickland held many of the hearings while bench pressing Casey Anthony and her many motions, too many to repeat here. What’s interesting to note is that he did the bulk of the work, meaning that he heard and ruled on the majority of motions filed in this case so far, # 2008-CF-015606-A-O.

I generally leave about an hour-and-a-half before the hearings are slated to start. That affords me plenty of time to arrive and relax or mingle with others for awhile, where we can discuss what we expect to hear in the courtroom. I’m certainly glad I left early yesterday because I usually drive down 17-92, Orlando Avenue, and hang a right onto Orange in Winter Park that takes me right in front of the courthouse. As bad as the economy is right now, you never would have known it by the heavy amount of traffic I had to deal with. Either people are wasting $3.00 gallons of gas driving around, or they are doing some serious Christmas shopping, which tells me it’s not as bad out there as we are led to believe. My less than half-hour trek took forty-five minutes, but I did arrive early enough to talk to a couple of deputies and to go to the 23rd floor to take a look around and sneak a picture in. Please don’t tell the court I did that.

Click to HERE enlarge

I ran into Attorney Ann Finnell before going down the elevator, and let me tell you, she is one fine lady. We had a nice chat about traffic and her drive from Jacksonville, which was very similar to my story. Lots of cars everywhere. That leads me to a wonderful person who traveled from the frigid north to spend Christmas on the west coast of Florida. I’m reminded of the old saying that caught me off guard when I first moved here in ‘81 - SOLD COAST-TO-COAST, only it really meant from Cocoa Beach to Tampa, or something like that. Growing up in New Jersey, coast-to-coast meant NY to LA. I was very pleasantly surprised when she walked up to me. I’d tell you who she was, but there are nasty, nasty trolls out there. Needless to say, it was a wonderful experience and I’m extremely happy to have met her.

On the 19th floor, a gentleman called me over to introduce himself. I’d like to share his name, too, but he doesn’t need the riff raff, either. Although he doesn’t always agree with me, he said I’m an excellent writer and to keep it up. He said that he’s more of a Hinky-Blinky guy and I said that’s great. Everyone is entitled to an opinion and who they like to read. The mere fact that he enjoys my writing is plenty enough for me. He then called his wife over and introduced me. It was a nice encounter.

We entered the courtroom and Chief Judge Belvin Perry made an entrance right around 1:30. Before the hearing started, my friend, who drove to the courthouse from the west coast, mentioned that the judge was late at the last hearing. I told her it was because Casey was late. A judge never starts without the defendant. After Judge Perry took his seat on the bench, he asked to hear the first motion dealing with sealing the penalty phase witnesses. As Ann Finnell walked up to the podium, I took a quick head count. Absent from the courtroom were Cheney Mason, Linda Drane Burdick, and Frank George. She opened by asking the court to temporarily stay access to the list of penalty phase witnesses. “Judge? We are simply asking, in this case, that penalty phase discovery… that the public be temporarily denied access until the issue of the penalty phase becomes a right, which would be after a jury has determined Miss Anthony’s guilt… or not guilty of first-degree murder.”

She said that there’s no constitutional right to pretrial publicity, especially if it would deny the defendant’s right to an impartial jury. She noted that the court had already agreed to a jury coming from a different county due to the immense publicity. To back up her motion, she emphasized that only the witnesses expected at trial were mentioned in public, and to “out” potential penalty phase witnesses would prejudice the jury. It is the trial judge’s duty to minimize publicity. The bottom line is, she asked the court to deny penalty phase discovery until after the jury decides whether Casey is guilty or not. Plain and simple.

I understand the request because it could be legally argued that it’s like putting the cart before the horse. In the 1966 case that overturned Dr. Samuel H. Sheppard’s 1954 murder conviction, the U.S. Supreme Court noted that his trial generated so much publicity, it was a veritable media circus. Set in Cleveland, the jurors were exposed to intense coverage until they began deliberations. Found guilty, he spent ten years in prison before the court ruled that the publicity deprived him of his right to a fair trial. Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 86 S. Ct. 1507, 16 L. Ed. 2d 600 (1966). He was acquitted at his second trial.

Ms. Finnell brought up a 1988 ruling. Finally, a case study! In that case, Florida Freedom Newspapers, Inc. v. McCrary, was ruled in favor of the defense by the Florida Supreme Court. The separation of powers within the legislature and the judiciary’s responsibility of providing a fair trial allow the court to, on occasion, step around the laws of the legislature in order to ensure a defendant’s constitutional rights and freedoms. Florida Statute 119.07(4) grants the court the right to close a part of a court file. She told the judge that this case was a fly speck compared to the national exposure the Anthony case has garnered.

Nine minutes into the hearing, she was finished and the judge asked if there was a response from the state. Assistant State Attorney Jeff Ashton said no, so Rachel Fugate arose and walked to the podium. Ms. Fugate, who represents the Orlando Sentinel and, by default, all of media, acknowledged that there could be prejudice, but the defense must demonstrate it to the court first. She cited the McCrary case as the standard which gives the court the right to temporarily seal the penalty phase witnesses, but she emphasized that a prejudice must be shown to the court.

While explaining her side, defense attorney Jose Baez stood and apologized to counsel (Fugate) for breaking in. “I would ask that the court instruct the photographer in the room to not photograph my client as she’s passing notes…”

The judge was right there and on the spot. “Mr. Baez, one counsel has the floor… She needs to object and not you…”

Ann Finnell then stood and objected.

“Well,” the judge added, “unfortunately, the objection will be noted and overruled.” Rachel Fugate continued. She felt that the release of the names of the penalty phase witnesses would not jeopardize Casey’s fair trial rights or taint jurors coming in from another county. It would not frighten potential witnesses from testifying because of all the public exposure.

Ann was allowed to counter, and she said when the media chases after counsel, down the sidewalk, for 3 minutes worth of sound bites, imagine what they will do to potential witnesses. She said the press doesn’t have the same interests as the SAO. She made a valid point.

Ultimately, the judge decided that he was going to take his time before making a decision. “The court will reserve a ruling on the motion.”

At the tail end of the hearing, Jose, Ann and Jeff approached the bench for a sidebar at the judge’s request. A gentleman sitting behind me tried to take a picture with his cell phone. That’s a no no and a deputy told him so. As the attorneys went back to their seats, the judge said he was changing the next status hearing from January 10th to the 14th since he has an out-of-town Innocence Commission meeting.  He asked Jose if he had abandoned addressing the situation with Roy Kronk and the admission of prior bad acts. Jose said he had until December 31 and the judge reminded him that he will not be near the courthouse next week. It could be heard on the 23rd. He also said he will be presiding over a murder trial the week of the third, so any issues would have to be worked out after 5:00 PM.

Jeff Ashton brought up issues over depositions of defense experts in January, particularly Dr. Henry Lee.

“Maybe Dr. Lee is not planning on testifying. There was some suggestion in his email that he might not, depending on the resolution of this issue,” Ashton said.

Apparently, costs of travel are what’s holding up Dr. Lee. The prosecutor said that he might not be testifying depending on the resolution of this issue. The defense attorney said that he would settle it by the end of the day.

“Mr. Baez, if you get me that, and whatever you need to do to get that cleared up, let’s get it to me. OK, we’ll be in recess.”

I left the courthouse with my newfound friend; new only because we had never met. We said our good byes and as I walked away, I ran into the gentleman with the cell phone. I told him that other than the video cameras, only Red Huber from the Sentinel has exclusive rights to still photography in the courtroom. Me? I can take pictures and I took some as I walked out. Plus the one inside.

§

Before the hearing began, I was discussing how the judge might rule with Mike DeForest from WKMG. He felt the judge would probably compromise and I agreed with his assessment. To me, one of the underlying factors in the case, and it reaches its claws all over the United States and in other parts of the world, is the insurmountable prejudice that does already exist. For example, I talked to Jim Lichtenstein after the hearing. On the elevator up to the 19th floor, someone (who shall remain nameless) asked him if he intended to continue making money off a dead child. This is what we face out there in the real world. Jim is a consummate gentleman and I know for a fact that he befriended George and Cindy from Day 1. He’s been there ever since. Regardless of what anyone thinks of George and Cindy, should outsiders make decisions for him over who he can associate with or not? His interest is not about money, but there’s no denying the media must be able to cover this case or you, the public, would have no access to any information whatsoever. You can’t have it both ways. He works in the media industry. The media people pay for information from the court, including TV rights in the courtroom. They, in turn, make tons of money off advertising revenues. ALL OF THE MEDIA, I might add, including the ones who ask the tough questions. That’s the nature of the business - ALL BUSINESSES. So what if one reporter is more aggressive than another? The bottom line is ratings because that’s what pays the bills.

He also mentioned something about where he sits. The person who accosted him in the elevator addressed the issue over where he sits in the courtroom. I went through the same thing. You sit where you want and it has no bearing whatsoever over which side we agree with. I told him I sit on the side of the cameras because it ticks off the password stealing trolls who broke into my e-mail accounts and a password protected page on my old WordPress blog, where up until then, it was a secure place to comment . Since they continue to try to make my life a living hell, they are going to have to put up with my face in the courtroom. I will try to be as up close and personal as I possibly can; absolutely more so from now on and its got nothing to do with fame. It’s all about the trolls who broke the law. Fa law law law law law law law law.

I Swear

I have done my best to head to the courthouse early so I don’t have to rush once I arrive. Sometimes, going through security can be very time-consuming. Fortunately, Monday wasn’t all that bad. I never have to park in the parking garage, either, and that generally saves me $6-10 per hearing; not much, but in this tight economy, every bit helps. Because of where I park, I walk by the television trucks with their high microwave towers extending from the roofs. It’s interesting because they are filled with very expensive electronic equipment. On most days, that’s where the reporters put their well choreographed on air segments together. That in itself is a real talent. The trucks are all parked in an area designed for them, in front of the courthouse, in a nook off Orange Avenue.

I ran into Mike DeForest from WKMG, the CBS affiliate. I hadn’t seen much of him since the judge debacle, so it was nice to chat for a few minutes before I decided it was time to head up to the 23rd floor. He’s a good guy. Off to the side was Jacqueline Fell, from Central Florida News 13. She’s a very nice person and very approachable. She was the first one to interview me months ago. As I briefly chatted with her, I noticed Ann Finnell walking by herself. She had an almost lost look on her face, so I walked up to her. I promised I would say hello from her cousin, who comments occasionally on my blog. Last time, I didn’t remember her name. This time, I did. She was looking for the rest of her team and I couldn’t help her there, but she did ask what floor the hearing was on. I said it’s always on the top floor. I asked her if she wanted me to show her, but she said she’d wait and see if they showed up. We parted.

It was one of those days where the line that winds through the lobby to get to security wasn’t as jam-packed as usual, but it was moving rather slowly. About five minutes into it, Ann walked in and stood at the back of the line, where I was already halfway through. I beckoned her to join me. After all, she had important work to attend to. I lifted the rope attached to the stanchions and let her through. No one complained to me about letting her skip through the line, but I would have handled it. She went through security before me. I have to remove my belt every time I go through, so while I had to put it back on, she politely waited for me to finish. Besides, she wasn’t quite sure where to go since she was in the courthouse only once before, at least for this particular case. I thanked her and we walked toward the elevators. I was mostly making small talk about my trip to Jacksonville and the proton accelerator at Shands Hospital, where my best friend, Stewart, recently underwent treatment for prostate cancer. All in all, it was a delightful encounter and I must say she is a very nice and refined lady; every bit of what I thought she would be. When we got to the courtroom doors, they were locked. I peeked through the crack between the doors and saw that Jose Baez was already in there. We knocked on one of the doors and she was let in. As she entered, she thanked me for my help.

“You’re very welcome. See you in there.” Only lawyers were let in at that time.

I always feel comfortable around the media people, and in particular, Bob Kealing. He has been one of my strongest supporters as a blogger and he’s a very personable guy. Bob has authored three books and won three Emmys for his work. I’ve always admired him for his professional appearance and reporting and, no doubt, he did a great job on the Neal Haskell piece he put together during his trip to Indiana. After we took our seats, Casey entered and we could hear the now familiar clink-clank of ankle chains. Within a minute or two, Cheney Mason nodded and called Bob up for a brief, very hushed, chat. When he returned to his seat, I quietly asked him if he had a good story. Yup. The courtroom hushed as the judge entered at precisely 12:58. Dang, known for being prompt and on time, I was disappointed he was early. This is two times in a row. His track record was slipping, I thought.

The first order of the day was the motion the state filed to compel discovery. The judge made it clear that he had to leave by 1:40 because of a trial he was presiding over in Courtroom 19-Delta. That’s a familiar courtroom - the one Judge Strickland used and the one that changed my blogging life forever.

The motion addressed six key points:

1. Any contracts or agreements, in any manner or form, setting for the scope of work or expected compensation.
2. Any communications between expert and any member of the defense team, either past or present, or any member of their staff, or any one working on behalf of the Defendant.
   
3. All records of bills submitted by or payments made to the expert.
   
4. All records pertaining to payments for travel, meals or entertainment paid to or for the benefit of the expert or anyone traveling with the expert, by any member of the defense team, either past or present, or any member of their staff, or any one working on behalf of the Defendant.
   
5. Any notes taken by the expert or for the expert during, or referencing their examination of any evidence in this case.
   
6. Any photograph or video taken by the expert in connection with this case.
   

These were rather interesting demands because it encompassed a lot more than mere work product, which is privileged information, it also covered the entire time prior to Judge Strickland’s ruling on Casey’s indigence status. Personally, I thought the state was asking for more than the judge was willing to give, and as Jeff Ashton finished addressing his points, the judge made asked for a response from Mr. Baez.

“There is nothing that entitles the state to this.” He said there was no wining and dining going on, so there’s nothing like that to turn over. Besides, he said, he had no reports from his experts, which I found unusual. He said it was burdensome and it doubled the work for experts. Also, a lot of the work was done pro bono.

As Jose Baez, Judge Perry and discussed all six points, the judge asked Ashton a specific question that signaled, at least to me, that he did not fully agree with the motion.

“What in that rule or in what case authority does it signal the proposition for your request on 1, 2, 3 and 4?” It was then I realized the state was only going to get 5 and 6. The way he explained it to the prosecution was pure Perry style. If you want the information, you can get it through depositions and/or subpoenas, not through this motion. As much as the judge is perceived as a prosecutor’s judge, he is very fair to both sides of the courtroom aisle. 1, 2, 3, and 4 were denied without prejudice. The defense would have to turn over notes taken by the experts, and all videos and photographs. Incidentally, yesterday was the deadline for the defense to give the state their list of experts, but the judge did give them a two-week extension.

Time was drawing nigh for the judge to set sail for another courtroom, but he soldiered on. He asked about the defense’s outstanding motion on Roy Kronk. Baez said he may withdraw it until a later date; closer to trial. The judge reminded him, in no uncertain terms, that once the deadline for motions comes and goes, he will not hear them. He asked Baez if all the state’s witnesses had been deposed. Baez said yes. He told the state that all depositions of defense experts must be done by February 28. On that same date, all motions related to forensic evidence must be in. Any non-forensic related motions must be filed by December 31.

Ann Finnell finally had a chance to speak. It didn’t last long. Some may think Judge Perry cut her short as a, sort of, way of snapping at her, but I didn’t interpret it that way. I may be wrong, but the judge had no more time to hang around, and he told her he wasn’t going to be available the week leading up to Christmas, although a tentative date to hear her motion was discussed and the 20th and 21st were tossed about. December 20 was the agreed on date, at 1:30 PM. The week of Christmas. He also reminded her that attorneys for the media would object to her motion

Cheney Mason quickly stood up and told the court that the JAC is having issues over payment and he has a motion ready to file. Judge Perry said if it’s not resolved, he will gladly take care of it.

While we thought the hearing was over, it wasn’t. Jose asked for a sidebar. The judge complied and both camps stepped up to the bench. Whatever transpired, we weren’t privy to, of course, but it was very interesting to everyone when the judge raised his right hand and began to give some sort of oath to a young gentleman who was in the mix. It was also during this time that a legal assistant had Casey laughing. To be honest, I didn’t see it. Casey was directly in front of me, so I have no idea what it was all about.

Diana Tennis, Dominic Casey’s attorney, sat in the row in front of Bob, Jim Lichtenstein, Mike DeForest and myself, directly to the right of Cindy Anthony and her friend.  She surmised that it was the swearing-in of a new attorney. Some balked at that suggestion, but she was right. While no one knew who he was, I approached him after the hearing ended. William Slabaugh told me it was awfully nice of the attorneys to permit  Judge Belvin Perry, Jr. to swear him in as Orlando’s newest lawyer. It was an honor and a privilege. I congratulated him and wished him all the best. This is something he will forever remember, because a simple notary public could have done the same thing. I’m sure the judge enjoyed the moment tremendously, but back to the matter at hand…

The final thing the judge brought up was the reminder that the defense must give the state the list of new TES witnesses by January 31, so they can be deposed by March 30. With that, the hearing ended and I had my agenda in mind to find out who that new gentleman was. At the same time, I had something I wanted to say to Jose. Meanwhile, Cheney and Bob picked up their discussion where they left off. What Jose and I discussed was between us, but what appeared to be an embrace to some was far from that. Attorneys are used to talking up close and personal to keep inquisitive ears from eavesdropping.

When Jeff Ashton was walking out of the courtroom, I asked him if Judge Perry had addressed the John Huggins¹² case. Had he rendered a decision? If so, it passed me on by. No, he said and we walked to the elevators. Riding down to the first floor, he was asked about the decision on parts 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the motion. Would he refile? He said the judge did rule “without prejudice” on those key points and that leaves the door open.

As we left the courthouse, I thought to myself, the hearing didn’t get over until almost one o’clock. Oh me, oh my, Judge Perry was going to be late to his trial. Perhaps that’s why he asked for a deputy to approach the bench; to alert the deputies in 19-Delta.

Watch Bob Kealing

Bob Kealing has a BIG story on WESH. Watch it if you can!!!

Online and live on WESH-TV.

Here is his report: http://www.wesh.com/caseyanthony/25951506/detail.html

Nunc pro tunc no slam dunk

In Latin, nunc pro tunc literally translates into “now for then.” In other words, retroactive. Chief Judge Belvin Perry, Jr. listened to several matters brought up at the hearing held on October 29, including issues over funding that dated back to May, hence, nunc pro tunc. Four days later, on November 2, the judge delivered his ORDER ADDRESSING RETAINMENT AND PAYMENT OF EXPERTS, INVESTIGATORS, MITIGATION SPECIALIST, AND OTHER COSTS. Written in chambers, without bravado and with his usual brevity, it addresses three separate motions filed earlier by Casey Anthony’s defense.

MOTION ONE

On September 30, Ann Finnell filed the Motion to Determine Reasonable Budget for Due Process Costs in a Capital Case and Motion to Incur Certain Specified Costs. A long-winded title, indeed, that came with a short reply from the judge on each specific element. Casey had requested authorization for anticipated costs for the penalty phase, if this case ever truly reaches that stage, plus mitigation costs addressed previously in an order dated May 12, 2010 nunc pro tunc to May 6, 2010.

Private Investigator

The defense asked for the authorization of a $5,000 cap on the use of a private investigator “to provide services for the penalty phase such as locating and interviewing mitigation witnesses, documents, and other relevant evidence.” Judge Perry reserved judgment and told the defense to submit an itemized list, by November 5, of the investigative services needed to support the request. It sounds reasonable enough. After all, one of the key points the judge made at the hearing was that he was not going to write an open check.

Psychiatrist or Psychologist

Here, Casey’s defense asked for the authorization of a $7,500 cap “for services by a licensed psychiatrist or psychologist to examine and conduct forensic testing on Defendant, to render an opinion regarding cross-examination of any State expert, and if needed, to testify at the penalty phase.” The court granted this part of the motion, but set the cap at $2,500 for pre-trial services at JAC rates. Please note that this is pre-trial work and not money going to a possible penalty phase. That money will be addressed at a later date the judge left unclear. I also get the feeling the defense may be able to ask for more if needed, although there was no mention in his order.

Copying Costs

The defense asked for a $1,000 cap to cover copying costs during the penalty phase. Think Xerox. The judge gave them $500 at the approved JAC rate. When the judge asked Ms. Finnell whether that amount would work, she said it most likely would. She didn’t sigh, in other words, or beg for more.

Mitigation Specialist

Casey wanted the court to authorize an additional 100 hours for services of the mitigation specialist, Jeanene Barrett. The court granted her request in full - 100 hours to be provided by Ms. Barrett or another in-state investigator at the JAC rate of $40 per hour. That gives her $4,000 to work with at the full rate. Can she request more? Probably, but the judge wants everything to be itemized and explained.

Attorney Travel Expenses

Ann Finnell wanted a $4,000 cap for expenses she expects to incur as she travels back and forth between her office in Jacksonville and Orlando. The amount covered anticipated trips to and from Ft. Myers. George has family there. Despite public arguments over whether Jeanene Barrett has already been there, done that, it’s moot and nothing more. The judge denied the request because of JAC policies and procedures, and the earlier court ruling entered May 12, 2010 nunc pro dunc to May 6, 2010. This means the order is retroactive to May 6. No money, honey.

Travel Expenses for Investigator or Mitigation Specialist

Casey requested the authorization of a $1,500 cap on travel expenses for one investigator or one mitigation specialist to journey to Ohio to obtain records and interview potential witnesses. At the hearing, Judge Perry said to use the telephone wherever possible, and/or to try to hire someone within the state of Ohio who will work at JAC rates. That would save Florida a lot of money on round-trip airline tickets. Here, he reserved any ruling until the defense can offer reasons in support of their initial request. Explore the options first. Whatever the defense can figure out, the judge will meet with them in camera in order to shield the strategy from the prosecution.

Attorney Travel Expenses for Trial

The defendant asked the court to authorize payment of Ann Finnell’s anticipated travel expenses to attend the trial commencing in May of 2011. The judge had no choice but to deny the request because of JAC guidelines and the earlier order entered May 12, 2010 nunc pro tunc to May 6, 2010.

MOTION TWO

Motion for Additional Hours of Investigation (guilt phase)

On October 25, Jose Baez filed a motion on behalf of his client. He asked the court to authorize an additional 300 hours for in-state investigative services in order to “continue investigating the evidence alleged in the State’s on-going discovery.” Of course, this request was above and beyond the hourly cap addressed during the May 12 nunc pro tunc to May 6 approval. What he ended up with this time is not what he asked for, though. The judge granted an additional 60 hours to the tune of JAC’s $40 per hour rate. Instead of $12,000, he ended up with $2,400. For now. Although not stated in the order, the judge did leave the door open for additional funds later on, if the need arises and the defense can account for every single dime.

MOTION THREE

Motion for Clarification of the May 12th Order regarding both Travel Time and Reimbursement for Travel Expenses and Mileage of Out-of-State Experts, Mitigation Specialist, Investigators, and State Experts

This is in response to a motion filed by Jose Baez on October 25 “because the order entered on May 12, 2010 nunc pro dunc to May 6, 2010 did not specifically address the travel time and expenses incurred or anticipated for these persons. Accordingly, clarification is needed as to the authorization for payment of such costs” according to the order. The court granted this motion, nunc pro tunc to May 6, 2010, and authorized “the payment for travel time and reimbursement for travel expenses and mileage of out-of-state experts, the mitigation specialist, investigators, and state experts at the JAC approved rates and in compliance with JAC’s policies and procedures in this motion and its attachments.” In the May 12 order, ORDERS ADDRESSING MOTION TO SEAL RECORDS RELATED TO THE JUSTICE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSION/RETAINMENT AND PAYMENT OF EXPERTS, INVESTIGATORS, MITIGATION SPECIALIST, AND OTHER COSTS/RECONSIDERATION OF DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO WAIVE APPEARANCE AT CERTAIN HEARINGS/PROCEDURES FOR FUTURE MOTIONS… hold on, I need to catch my breath after that one… the judge addressed many areas of the defense’s earlier motion. I’m not going to go over every aspect of it. This is merely to sort out the reason Judge Perry had to take another look at his order and why he decided to respond now. In essence, the earlier order listed the approval and caps for each individual he cited, but omitted travel expenses:

• Dr. Henry Lee - Criminologist Expert: A cap of 8 hours for in-court services and a cap of 25 hours for out services.
• Jeanene Barrett - Mitigation Specialist: 384 hours for services.
• One investigator (in-state): 300 hours for in-state services.
• One Investigator (out-of-state): 100 hours for out-of-state services.
• One K-9 Expert (out-of-state): 20 hours for services.
• One postmortem hair banding expert: 20 hours

For the following experts, caps as to the number of hours to be incurred has not been determined. Therefore, the judge ruled that they shall be approved by subsequent order:

• One forensic entomologist (out-of-state)
• One forensic anthropologist
• One forensic botanist (out-of-state)
• One forensic pathologist (out-of-state)
• One digital computer forensic expert (out-of-state)
• One DNA expert (out-of-state)
• One forensic chemist (in-state)
• One forensic chemist (out-of-state)

Also in that order, he found that the following experts were not relevant and necessary to provide Casey with adequate representation:

• Jury consultant (denied with prejudice)

I recall the judge saying at the motion hearing that Cheney Mason is a qualified jury consultant and that was enough. This was also before Ann Finnell came along.

• One additional DNA expert (denied with prejudice)
• One additional forensic botanist for consulting only (denied with prejudice)
• One additional forensic Biologist for consulting only.
• One trace evidence expert (denied without prejudice)

With prejudice is another way of saying forget about it. It’s a done deal. Without prejudice means a motion can be re-addressed later by taking on a different tack, or by rewriting an incorrect motion, or because - as is the case here - the defense needs an opportunity to decide whether Dr. Lee can provide the trace evidence services. If not, counsel could then request approval from the court for someone else.

• One taphonomy expert (denied without prejudice) to allow defense counsel to request a Rogers hearing.

In my unqualified opinion, a Rogers hearing (in this instance) may be requested if the defense’s expert opinion testimony is incomplete. Taphonomy, from the Greek taphos (death), is concerned with the processes responsible for any organism becoming part of the fossil record and how these processes influence information in the fossil record. Many taphonomic processes must be considered when trying to understand fossilization. See: Taphonomy

• One cell phone expert (denied without prejudice - to determine whether this expert is needed after the state’s expert is deposed.)

In his May 12 order, the judge granted a cap of $3,500 for the costs of public records requests and denied all travel costs incurred by defense counsel, meaning attorneys only, but it didn’t address travel costs for experts. What the judge needed to clarify to both the defense and the JAC is what JAC will be held responsible for paying. In its own response to the defense motion, JAC did not make that clear. At the same time, the official JAC Expert Billing manual states that:

“Experts may not bill for time spent traveling on a case unless an hourly rate has been established by law or a court order for the travel time. Generally, travel time is not reimburseable.”

In this case, the judge did not establish an hourly rate, but the JAC manual does address a mileage rate for reimbursement of $.0445 per mile when out-of-county experts travel more than 50 miles. Will the judge set an hourly rate for the experts’ travel time? The order did cite attachments, which were not released to the public as far as I know. The answer may be in those documents.

Personally, I can’t imagine a better judge when it comes to knowing law. And I wouldn’t hold my breath if I were the defense, expecting him to flub somewhere down the pike. As much respect as I have for Judge Strickland, Judge Perry has a clear docket, and that translates into one important thing: He’s got more time on his hands to make sure this case is handled by the book. That means less things to consider upon appeal. Of course, that’s only if Casey is convicted. Meanwhile, stare decisis et non quieta movere.  The defense must maintain what has been decided. In other words, it cannot alter the legal principle under which judges are obligated to follow the precedents established in prior decisions. That’s why the judge denied the defense counsel’s Motion for Reconsideration that dealt with the previously rendered denial of its motion to seal jail logs, including commissary records and telephone and visitation logs. Oh, I could go on, but that one’s for another day.

Get Bent

Dura lex sed lex. That’s Latin for “the law is hard, but it is the law.” Such will be a lesson learned by the defense in the courtroom today, I’m afraid.

What was scheduled to be a status hearing has turned into one of greater magnitude, and one that Casey must attend. She hasn’t appeared in court since the July, when her mother and brother took the stand over the admission of Cindy’s 911 calls.

While the status of the case will still be discussed, two defense motions will also be heard, and that will include counter motions filed by the JAC and the Orlando Sentinel. Defense attorney Ann Finnell recently filed a motion that asked Judge Perry to set a cautionary budget for costs she expects to incur to properly represent Casey prior to a sentencing phase; to be prepared if she is convicted of capital murder. The next motion will once again ask the judge to reconsider prior rulings over the public’s right to see Casey’s jail records, including phone calls, visitor logs and commissary purchases.

I don’t want to venture a guess about the money issue. The defense is requesting an additional $12,000 for investigative work on top of the money their mitigation specialist is asking for. This is too tough to guess, so I’ll focus on the issue over the disclosure of certain records.

First off, let’s make it clear that the defense is once again asking for more than the judge needs to give. In the MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, the defense cited a recent ruling by the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Bent v. Sun Sentinel, which ruled that jail “audio recordings of the defendants’ phone calls are not public records subject to release.” What this did, in effect, is put a temporary end to releasing phone calls, which are recorded surreptitiously for security reasons. On the other hand, the ruling did not address any jail logs whatsoever. This means who called, when and how long they spoke, are not subject to the ruling.

Right now, Casey has “three Standing Objections of Abuse of Florida Statute Chapter 119.01 complaining of the release of public records,” according to the Orlando Sentinel’s motion. The Sentinel went on to suggest that this defense “essentially asks the Court to shut down the media and the public’s statutory and constitutional right to public information.”

The Sentinel continues to argue that neither the public nor the media “are required to show a legitimate interest or purpose in order to obtain public or judicial records.” Here, I have one slight qualm with the Sentinel’s mention of judicial records. The jail does not fall under the judicial branch, and for that reason alone, the judge cannot rule in favor of the defense. He has made it abundantly clear he holds no power over the legislative branch, which governs this sort of disclosure. Timoney v. Miami Civilian Investigative Panel, 917 So. 2d 885, 886 n.3 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) stated that “generally, a person’s motive in seeking access to public records is irrelevant.”

Judge Perry has, on more than one occasion, stated that he was not going to reinvent the wheel, meaning he will not rewrite Florida’s Public Records Act, which we recognize as Florida’s Open Government in the Sunshine law. Today, he will rule the same way he has in the past. There is no doubt that jails and prisons in Florida will comply with the Bent v. Sun Sentinel ruling and keep recordings locked up for the time being, but I am certain it will work its way up to the Florida Supreme Court and beyond.

The defense believes that the disclosure of jail records will deny her the right to a fair trial. I disagree and so does the Sentinel. Although I don’t care about Casey and her orders of nachos, I find it hard to believe her phone log, visitor log and commissary purchases would prejudice a jury. Instead, perhaps the defense should halt all post-hearing press conferences and ask the court to place a gag order on this case. The judge might be willing to comply.

§

Veritas vos liberabit! See you in court.

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

Casey McDingles

HERE’S WHAT REAL WITNESS TAMPERING IS ALL ABOUT

There is a no-brainer running around like a chicken without its head who insists she knows what witness tampering is all about. She doesn’t, and this will serve to quash any and all rumors she keeps firing into wasted Internet bandwidth. At the same time, it will explain exactly what it is. Merely interviewing someone is not. Suggesting they change the truth most assuredly is.

In reality, two Texas EquuSearch volunteers told WFTV that a private investigator working for the defense tried to manipulate them into changing their stories about what transpired down along Suburban Drive in September of 2008.

Brett Churchill and Brett Reilly have accused PI Jeremiah Lyons of slinging words their way that would cause them to alter their testimony about searching the area where Caylee’s remains were found three months later by Roy Kronk, another defense target.

According to the WFTV report, Lyons was recently in court examining EquuSearch records. The station reports that he’s keeping low key while talking to volunteers who are not very happy about it.

In this case, both volunteers are prosecution witnesses. Churchill has been deposed by the defense and Reilly has talked on record to investigators. Both have stated that the exact area where the toddler was discovered was under water and unsearchable at the time. According to Churchill, Lyons went to his house and lied about Reilly’s story. “He basically was asking me if what I said in my deposition was the exact story because he had others who fared differently, one of them being Brett Reilly.”

Reilly had earlier warned Lyons not to twist his words after witnessing what Casey’s defense had done to others involved in the case. Lyons promised him he wouldn’t.

Let me tell you, from first-hand experience, I know all about what a professional manipulator Jerry Lyons is. They don’t get any slicker, but in my case, the defense ended up with the short end of the stick. What he succeeded in doing was to somewhat change the tenor of this court. It abruptly went from Strickland to stricter. Strickland to stricter… trust me, they will be words that linger.

The report also states that Reilly complained to Cheney Mason and that both volunteers contacted the sheriff’s office.

A DATE WITH CASEY

Great news is coming right up for those who want to see what Casey’s new tooth looks like. She is slated to appear at next week’s hearing, which will be at 1:30 pm on the 29th. It had been scheduled to be a status hearing, but with her attendance announced, it signaled that there would be more to the hearing than just an update from the attorneys. She has not been in court since her mother and brother took the stand back in July. Of course, plain old status hearings don’t require her presence.

What this should mean is that Judge Perry will hear several arguments, two of which should be the simultaneously filed MOTION TO DETERMINE REASONABLE BUDGET FOR DUE PROCESS COSTS IN A CAPITAL CASE AND MOTION TO INCUR CERTAIN SPECIFIED COSTS filed recently by new attorney Ann Finnell, and quite possibly the prior rulings over the public’s access to Casey’s jail records. This would include phone calls, visitor logs and commissary purchases. In my opinion only, I don’t care if she pigs out on nachos or not. I do not need to know how many hair barrettes, hair pins, hair claws, banana hair clips or how many other products she buys, including female doodads. With the latest ruling in south Florida, this information may have to be rerouted through the state and released through document dumps instead of coming directly from the jail. Hopefully, I will know more about that soon.

With regard to the budget request made by Finnell, the funding agency, the JAC (Justice Administration Commission) doesn’t like her cost estimates. The commission filed a response last week that questions some of the estimates as being too high and others that shouldn’t be billed to taxpayers. In a post I published two weeks ago, I wrote:

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…

The JAC is requesting it shouldn’t have to foot the bill for attorneys’ travel expenses; that the costs should come out of the money the Baez Law Firm was paid by Ms. Anthony or be absorbed by the individual attorney.

Any way we look at it, the mere fact that Casey will be in the courtroom almost demands that some semblance of verbal chicken poop will be flying into the fan come next Friday afternoon. I’m looking forward to it, so I must admit, I will not quit. I will attend, as I intend.

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.

Pie in the sky?

The term “pie in the sky” originally meant to be a promise of heaven while continuing to suffer through living in the material world. It was coined by Joe Hill in a song written by him in 1911. Joe was a Swedish-born itinerant laborer who migrated to the United States in 1902. The Web site The Phrase Finder described his songs as radical as he fought for labor organizations. “The phrase appeared first in Hill’s ‘The Preacher and the Slave’, which parodied the Salvation Army hymn ‘In the Sweet Bye and Bye’. The song, which criticized the Army’s theology and philosophy, specifically their concentration on the salvation of souls rather than the feeding of the hungry, was popular when first recorded and remained so for some years.”

You will eat, bye and bye,
In that glorious land above the sky;
Work and pray, live on hay,
You’ll get pie in the sky when you die.

Today, pie in the sky can allude to many things, such as asking for more than you end up with or expect, for that matter. You may ask for the sky and end up with pie, which is better than nothing. It reminds me of an experience I had while selling advertising for a newspaper many years ago. Ed Mack, now gone, was the editor. He was also a member of the Rotary, the Chamber of Commerce and very active in the Hunterdon County YMCA, volunteering many hours of his personal time.

Ed and I got along great. A wall about 7 feet high is all that separated the editorial department from advertising and my desk sat closest to the line of demarcation. The ceiling was high, so we could hear each other as one side got stories and the other sold ads.

One afternoon, Ed came over to my side with an idea. Bear in mind, in the world of newspapers, in particular, a common argument prevailed and it probably still does to this very day. The Advertising Department pays the salaries, we’d cry, while the Editorial Department would adamantly point out that its news that sells a newspaper and without news, there would be no newspaper. In the end, those key points were muted by the mere fact that, either way, we had jobs, and that’s what mattered most. Today, it’s not so easy.

Ed knew that I was a member of the now defunct Flemington Area Jaycees. On this particular afternoon, he wanted to know if I could get a band of fellow Jaycees together to man phones at the telephone company, which had already given its permission to do so. It was a simple request. The intent was to ask for donations from members of the Y and the general population in order to build the first installment of a large complex that was in the works, an Olympic-sized swimming pool to the tune of $150,000. He knew I was an officer of the club and, with mild coaxing, that I could easily table the idea at our next meeting. Sure thing, I said, and to fast forward, about 8 or 9 of us showed up to sit in open booths at the phone company the following month. Ed was the man in charge and he gave us stacks of 3” x 5” filing cards with the names, addresses and phone numbers of potential donors. My close friend, Frank Foran, was and still is a top-notch sales rep, and he was in fitting form for the occasion.

Of course, we all focused on the cards we had. Initially, I called people and introduced myself as a member of the Flemington Jaycees and that we were proudly supporting the YMCA in their effort to bring our area a large and highly professional educational and recreational sports facility. We all know the Y. All of Hunterdon County would shine because of it. Perhaps you saw it written up in the newspaper? Oh, yes, of course you did. Well, the first leg is the swimming pool and we need to raise $150,000. Could you please help out by donating $50 toward our goal? No? How about $25? No? Yes, I understand times are tough. [Gee, that was back in the late 70s.] OK, well, thank you, and if you can ever help, please call me at the newspaper and I will make sure you are contacted by the right people. That meant Ed, whose office was a mere stone’s throw away from my desk.

After about a half-dozen disappointing phone calls begging for money, I got zero results and I thought about it. I had to change my tune or I would end up a major flop to the man who was directly under the publisher, my employer. This wouldn’t sit well with Bengt Gaterud, the sales manager, either. I rewrote some of the lyrics. I had my eye in the sky for pie in the sky.

Hi, I said, as I gave the same opening spiel with the hundred-and-fifty grand price tag. There was no need to change that, but when they asked me how much I was expecting them to give, it wasn’t $25 or $50 I requested. Instead, I asked for $2,000. Yes, $2,000 would be great. Of course, they exploded with raw emotion.

“Two thousand dollars?!!! You gotta be nuts! I can’t afford anything like that!”

“OK, how about a thousand?”

“You gotta be kidding me?”

“No, I’m serious. How about fifty?

“Fifty, you got it.”

And with that change in tactics - the rapid-fire subtle suggestions, I ended up making the second-most money of the night and it was a huge success. Of course, Frank made the most, and no one expected less from him. He’s that good.

The next morning, Ed and I purposely crossed paths. He thanked me and the fellow Jaycees. I asked him how well we did. He said it was huge, a lot more than he figured. He told me one other thing.

“I don’t know what you did, Dave, but I gave you a list of deadbeats. I didn’t expect you to make any money at all, but you came in second. I gave you that list because you are a salesperson for this newspaper. I wanted to see what you had in you. You really surprised me.”

OK, now you may think I’m strutting my stuff, but I’m not. As long as I’ve known Frank, he’s encouraged me to go into sales. When he’s 95-years-old and I’m 90, I can hear him in his decrepid, soft and gravelly voice, “Dave, you need to go into sales.”

I never will. I’ve found my niche; it’s writing, and there’s a point to my story - the case against Casey. I constantly hear from people who think she deserves the death penalty, but won’t get it. Some people think she should get life without parole so she can live out her days in prison, wallowing in the memories of her precious daughter and what she, herself, could have become in life. Some people don’t think she’s guilty of murder, but none of that is my point. To use the old cliché and cut to the chase, the state has requested the death penalty. Does the state seriously intend to execute her? You bet, or it wouldn’t have been placed on the table to begin with. This ain’t no dress rehearsal, as my old friend Tom Corkhill always said. This is the real deal, only there is a ‘what if’ formula here, just in case. Because of the death penalty, the jury must be made up of people willing to sentence a person to death. It doesn’t automatically mean they will, but means they might be more prone to finding her guilty. The odds increase exponentially with a death qualified jury and the state knows it. There’s the sky, but will the aim be too high?

In the end, the defense is going to put on a much better show than originally anticipated by us, the general public. Perhaps, in all their seasoned wisdom, the state knew that as time went on in the sweet by and by, things would get tougher. Today, with the recent addition of several more well-seasoned defense attorneys, please allow me one more cliché. I think that, from now on, this is not going to be a piece of cake for the state.

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?