Leaving on a jet plane

Cause I'm leavin' on a jet plane
Don't know when I'll be back again

- John Denver

We've all heard the philosophical riddle, "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" This sort of conundrum raises questions regarding observation and knowledge of reality, with knowledge being a key word, because, at the same time, we can ask how we know the tree fell if no one was around to witness it. Suddenly, the philosophical riddle becomes more of a perplexing puzzle. That's the way I look at the latest motion filed by Casey's defense, the OBJECTION TO RELEASE OF DOCUMENTS RELATED TO INTENDED DEFENSE REVIEW OF EVIDENCE. If the media doesn't get a chance to fully question the experts about yesterday and today, do we know for sure that the Field of Dreamers actually examined the evidence? Without further digression, if we take a look at the motion itself, on the surface it may look ordinary, but it's not. To explain, let's start by looking at some of the key points noted in the document.

Page 1

5. This case is a criminal case that carries on in its investigation stages.

Of course it does. So does every other criminal case throughout the land. An investigation can continue until the bitter end, when the state and defense rest. So what's the point? What does that statement tell us the court doesn't already know? Nothing.

Page 2

6. The reviewing of documents and/or tangible evidence related thereto by the defense should not be publicized and disseminated by the news media. This is a case of the state of Florida versus Casey Anthony; this is not a case of the news media and John Q. Public.

Aha! It didn't take long to get to the meat of the motion. What the defense is saying, as Mr. Mason has stated in the past, it is no one's business. This is a capital murder case and the public doesn't have the right to know. Basically, the defense wants to muzzle the media. It's called a gag order. If the defense wishes to put a wall up between the court and the media, why not just file a motion to suppress, restricting information or comments from being made public? That's not what this motion is asking.

8. Defense submits that at some point this Court must recognize the superior rights and entitlements under Constitutional Amendments other than the First Amendment. The news media can report on any and all evidence or proceedings that occur in court at the time of trial.

To be real, this is like sequestering the entire court - prosecution and defense included. Keep the media away from everything until the trial is underway. While I can sympathize with the defense, it's too far fetched and completely unrealistic. This would mean locking the courtroom doors to everyone, because nothing would stop John Q. Public from running to the media as soon as a hearing is over. When I said sympathize, I can understand the frustration the defense feels from some of the reports filed by media outlets. They're not always accurate and they never admit their mistakes. At the same time, we do have a Constitution that protects freedom of speech, and Casey's defense cannot undo that. We also have an open Government in the Sunshine law in the state of Florida, which means government meetings and proceedings are accessible to the public, and the last time I checked, the court system is still a part of the government.

Here's a list of the Constitutional Amendments. Do any of them apply in the motion's argument?

• Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression
• Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms
• Amendment 3 - Quartering of Soldiers
• Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure
• Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings

Amendment 5 states that "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury." Been there, done that.

• Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses

Casey's defense waived her Right to a Speedy Trial a long time ago.

• Amendment 7 - Trial by Jury in Civil Cases
• Amendment 8 - Cruel and Unusual Punishment
• Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution
• Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People
• Amendment 11 - Judicial Limits

"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State." This one means that federal courts have the authority to hear cases in law and equity brought by private citizens against states. It has no bearing on Casey.

• Amendment 12 - Choosing the President, Vice President
• Amendment 13 - Slavery Abolished
• Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights

"... nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Again, the last time I checked, Casey is still living proof that due process of law has not been deprived.

• Amendment 15 - Race No Bar to Vote
• Amendment 16 - Status of Income Tax Clarified
• Amendment 17 - Senators Elected by Popular Vote
• Amendment 18 - Liquor Abolished
• Amendment 19 - Women's Suffrage
• Amendment 20 - Presidential, Congressional Terms
• Amendment 21 - Amendment 18 Repealed
• Amendment 22 - Presidential Term Limits
• Amendment 23 - Presidential Vote for District of Columbia
• Amendment 24 - Poll Taxes Barred
• Amendment 25 - Presidential Disability and Succession
• Amendment 26 - Voting Age Set to 18 Years
• Amendment 27 - Limiting Changes to Congressional Pay

There's a brief summary of the amendments that could be associated with the motion, but I see none that usurp the First Amendment, which mandates that no law can abridge "the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Let's continue on Page 2

9. To allow the news media to continue to have what has turned out to be, in many instances, "first look" at evidence, publicize otherwise uninformed speculation and conclusions about the evidence, utilizing "talking head" lawyers who have neither the experience, knowledge, or predicates for their public comments, promises to continue to infuse this case with public bias, prejudice, misunderstanding, and error.

This one is bothersome. If I recall, OJ Simpson went on trial and we, the public, learned an awful lot from the media. The nation was still split over his guilt, and legal pundits didn't do much to change the outcome, did they? I'm sure, if you look at the "talking head" attorneys the motion notes, and let's just stick with the local ones, Richard Hornsby, Bill Sheaffer and John Jay would strongly disagree. They are experienced, knowledgeable, and qualified to make assertions in this case. As a matter of fact, if I were an attorney, I'd be downright offended. On the public front, people like to study and learn, George Orwell died long ago, 1984 came and went, and no one has the right to tell any of us what we can read, write, listen to, and see. And we are still free to make our own assumptions.

10. The news media is not going to be allowed to view or see any of the evidence to be inspected; they are not going to be allowed to observe the inspection; at best, they will be able to see the arrival and departure of counsel and witnesses, thus, any reporting about the process would be nothing but imaginative speculation, and purportedly could have no reasonable journalistic value.

This is an arguable point. We, most likely, have seen images and documents of the evidence. We just don't have a concise and itemized list yet of what the defense asked to see. Will we get to see the list? That's what this motion is about. Will the video of the inspection be revealed? That, too, is a matter for the court to decide. Media outlets say yes; the defense says no. We shall see. As for journalistic value, this entire case has been a study in it, and it will continue until the very end.

Page 3

11. Your undersigned submits that at some point a balancing of the First Amendment Rights to report must be had against the eminently more important rights of the defense to effective assistance of counsel, due process, and equal protection. The media will be able to observe all phases of the trial that are on the record and do their reporting from then.

WHEREFORE, the Defendant prays this Court consider the foregoing, exercise its inherent supervisory powers, and deny the release of the documents by which the defense and prosecution have agreed to be an evidence inspection.

I am of the opinion that this motion is J. Cheney Mason's all the way. What I read is precisely the way I hear him in the courtroom; the same mannerisms, the same innuendos, the same language. In fact, his signature on the motion sits atop Jose Baez's, which generally means it came out of his office. I understand the frustration of the defense. After all, every defense attorney must cope with the media, and in this case, publishing the list could tip the hat regarding strategy, but the most important part of keeping strategy under wraps is to deny the prosecution this information, not the media. With this knowledge, the media will inform the public more uniformly and with greater accuracy.

Let's backtrack to page 2

7. The news media have, generally, spent nearly the past two years reaping benefits of their own imagination and reporting of matters both accurate and grossly inaccurate. All of such actions have resulted in causing this case to have to bear the extraordinary expense of a change of venue and bringing jurors from an undisclosed location in this state to be sequestered throughout the trial proceedings.

The defense would be better served if media outlets continue to have access to public records regarding this and all cases. To challenge it means that we would be less accurate, as I said, and in all honesty and practicality, no one is going to stop writing about Casey Anthony until the end, whenever it may be. This is part of the American psyche and it will remain a part of history for centuries to come. In the meantime, nothing can take away our inherent thirst for knowledge.

This defense would also be better served if it stopped holding impromptu press conferences at the end of each hearing for one reason and one reason alone: How can it shut the press up while it continues to inform them? This is no ordinary juxtaposition, this is hypocrisy. The left hand is doing one thing while the right hand is doing the opposite. It's perplexing, to say the least.

There is nothing in this motion that cites case law. There are no valid arguments. This is a matter of state law, and the law is abundantly clear as written in the Florida Constitution. By filing this motion with the judge instead of through the Clerk of Courts office while the judge was on vacation, Cheney Mason knew exactly what he was doing. Anyone could have predicted it. In my opinion, it was nothing more than a stall tactic. Does the defense really expect to win this one? I don't think so, but it was a smart maneuver. What the motion gains is this: It gives the experts time to leave on jet planes before the media can come after them with precise questions. They'll be long gone before the receipts are released to the public. Gone, yes, but not forgotten. Speaking of which, how ironic is it that exactly two years from the date of those 911 calls, July 15, 2008, those same calls will be argued in court? As Judge Strickland wrote in his dismissal order, "Indeed. The irony is rich."

What dreams may come

Today is the day that Casey Anthony's Team of Dreamers rolls into town to inspect evidence the defense hand selected. Judge Belvin Perry had set a deadline date of last Thursday to give the prosecution and the Orange County Sheriff's Office their wish list of evidence it wants to see. Interestingly, B&M (Jose Baez and Cheney Mason) bypassed the Orange County Clerk of Courts and turned this list of receipts over to Judge Perry's office. The judge was on vacation last week and the defense must have been aware of that fact. What it expected to gain by the maneuver is somewhat of a mystery, but the odds on bet is on keeping the receipts away from public inspection. Both the prosecution and defense have until 4:00 PM today to file motions if they are opposed to the release. The chances the prosecution would file a motion like this are out of the park, and if the defense does, bet the farm league that this will be one more motion it loses. The list will become another part of the public record.

Let's take a look at the Team of Dreamers as they find their way to Orlando and the Orange County Sheriff's Office on west Colonial Drive. In honor of tonight's MLB All-Star Game, let's call them the Field of Dreamers who are coming to bat for Casey. Judge Perry will be the umpire.

Play Ball!

The SAOs have home field advantage. Part of the visiting team, the B&Ms, has arrived, and on first base, we have Dr. Henry Lee, the famed criminologist/pathologist who covered the bag during the OJ Simpson trial. According to his Web site profile, he is "Chief Emeritus of the Connecticut State Police, Founder and Professor of the Forensic Science Program at the University of New Haven, Editor of Seven Academic Journals, author/ co-author of 30 books and over 300 articles."

His biography states that, "Dr. Lee’s testimony figured prominently in the O. J. Simpson trial, and in convictions of the “Woodchipper” murderer as well as hundreds of other murder cases. Dr. Lee has assisted local and state police in their investigations of other famous crimes, such as the murder of Jon Benet Ramsey in Boulder, Colorado, the 1993 suicide of White House Counsel Vincent Foster, and the reinvestigation of the Kennedy assassination."¹

Playing second is Nicholas Petraco, an associate professor of chemistry and forensic science at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City. Coincidentally, that's the same school where Dr. Lee earned his Bachelor of Science degree in Forensic Science way back in 1972. According to a fellow John Jay professor, Thomas Kubic, a co-author with Petraco on crime scene investigation books, the forensic expert has spent a lot of time in the NYPD's crime lab peering through microscopes and spectrophotometers to find fibers and trace evidence the human eye cannot detect. The former police detective is now "teaching physical chemistry I (classical equilibrium thermodynamics), physical chemistry II (quantum mechanics and theoretical spectroscopy), computational quantum chemistry and general introductory chemistry. Conducting research into the application of statistical pattern recognition to physical evidence in forensic science. Also conducting research on the application of quantum chemistry to forensically important molecules."² In other words, this man is no second-string ballplayer.

At third, we have Dr. Tim Huntington, an assistant professor at Concordia University, Nebraska, and a board-certified entomologist. I guess you could say that he should be playing in the outfield since his expertise is in going after fly balls, but as a forensic expert in the world series of bugs, he studies insects and other arthropod biology as they apply in criminal matters. Usually associated with death investigations, he may be able to establish Caylee's time of death - from a defense standpoint - and whether any drugs or poisons were present. He may add evidence regarding whether any post-mortem movement occurred. This is very important.

According to his Concordia Bio, "Professor Huntington is one of 15 board certified forensic entomologists, and is a forensic entomology consultant for several law enforcement agencies. He has consulted on more than fifty death investigations spanning seven states and four countries, and is a member of the American Board of Forensic Entomology, American Academy of Forensic Sciences, Entomological Society of America, North American Forensic Entomology Association, and Nebraska Chapter of the International Association for Identification. In 2007 he was awarded the Young Alumnus of the Year Award by Concordia."³

Playing shortstop is a tag team of Dutch forensic scientists,Richard and Selma Eikelenboom, who are well-known for pioneering the field of Touch DNA. Touch DNA was so named because it analyzes microscopic skin cells left when an assailant touches a victim, a weapon, or something else found at a crime scene. It's been around for about seven years and it was the technology that cleared JonBenet Ramsey's family of her murder. Boulder police had wrongly suspected her parents. The Eikelenbooms identified full DNA profiles from parts of her clothing where the perpetrator grabbed hold of her. In another crime, with Richard and Selma's help, Touch DNA was crucial in having the murder conviction of Tim Masters thrown out. Masters became the first convict in Colorado to be exonerated due to DNA evidence, but it was actually the absence of his DNA on the victim's body that cleared him. (See also:48 Hours: Drawn to Murder)

Well, there you have it. Here's part of the line-up for the thrilling game that will be underway next season. In the field of forensics, these four came with one intent - to strike the state out. On the mound is team captain, Jose Baez. Catching is the guy with bad knees, Mr. Cheney Mason, himself. The rest of the field will follow. Until then, is this really a Dream Team, or are they playing out in left field somewhere?

♦

In Memory Of New York Yankees Owner

George Steinbrenner

July 4, 1930 – July 13, 2010

GO YANKEES!

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.

You be the judge

A hearing is scheduled for June 1 to discuss the defense team’s request to keep Casey’s jail visits private instead of publishing them like everyone else sitting in a government sponsored cell. There is also the matter of earlier rulings made by Judge Stan Strickland before he recused himself over a month ago.

This post is meant to clear up some issues that sprang to life when the defense filed the motion¹ 3 days before the judge stepped down. It was bad enough that the dismissal request was filed at 4:48 PM on a Friday afternoon, 12 minutes before the Clerk of the Court closed for the weekend. That was plenty rude and tacky, but after the judge removed himself, the defense fired back with its OBJECTION TO COURT’S “ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY TRIAL JUDGE”.

I want to explore that and the subsequent DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN PRIOR RULINGS BY DISQUALIFIED JUDGE. Therein may lie one of the motives for seeking the judge’s dismissal.

In his ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY TRIAL JUDGE, Judge Strickland made it clear that his decision was not based on any prejudice or errors in judgement, real or perceived, by Casey Anthony’s defense. It was all about future rulings under his command.

“If past is prologue, some defense motions may be denied. Since the undersigned has now been accused of bias and wrongdoing, potentially each denial of a defense motion will generate renewed allegations of bias. The cumulative effect will be to elevate an otherwise meaningless situation into a genuine appellate issue.”

He further added that the crux of the defense motion centered around his comments to a local blogger/journalist many months earlier. He explained that his words to the blogger/journalist were delivered in open court, with open microphones, in front of rolling cameras and not in secret. They were, in fact, a compliment for being fair and civilized. These are the words of Judge Strickland, not me, and at the time, neither one of us knew where the cameras were focused, nor did we know whether microphones were on or off. Honestly, there was nothing to hide, despite the fact that a portion of the raw video was surreptitiously snipped out.

Judge Strickland went on to chastise the defense for accusing him of being a self-aggrandizing media hound. Well, if that’s not the pot calling the kettle black, I don’t know what is. Perhaps, this is exactly what Cheney Mason meant when he blurted out at a post-hearing press conference that “this case is going to be fun!”

The fun is over. Where Judge Strickland confessed to a general affability that, at times, seemed to belie the importance of the case, he was every bit a professional. So is Chief Judge Belvin Perry, Jr., who is not as affable.

Of course, leave it to Mason to insist on having the last word.

In his objection, Mason cited the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration 2,330(f), Riechmann v. State, 966 So.2d 298 (Fla. 2007) and Florida Rules of Judicial Administration 2.330(j). He continued his wrath by saying the court“may not argue or dispute facts yielding any response, other than ‘granting’, or ‘denying’, the motion. To do so, automatically laces the Court in an adversarial position, contrary to the defense, and, by that act alone, is required to be disqualified.”

Excuse me, but didn’t the judge dismiss himself in his order? He didn’t do it later. My friend, a former Florida judge, told me in no uncertain terms that since the judge ordered his own recusal, he was well within his right to voice an opinion.

Florida Rules of Judicial Administration 2,330(f) states that:

(f) The judge against whom an initial motion to disqualify under subdivision (d)(1) is directed shall determine only the legal sufficiency of the motion and shall not pass on the truth of the facts alleged. If the motion is legally sufficient, the judge shall immediately enter an order granting disqualification and proceed no further in the action. If any motion is legally insufficient, an order denying the motion shall immediately be entered. No other reason for denial shall be stated, and an order of denial shall not take issue with the motion.

Florida Rules of Judicial Administration 2,330(d)(1) addressed Casey’s fear that she would “not receive a fair trial or hearing because of specifically described prejudice or bias of the judge.” Once Casey affixed her signature to the document, the deal was done and Judge Strickland had no choice but to step down. At the same time, the rule (f) is clear and at no time in his order did he admit to any wrongdoing. He could have denied the motion, but his concern over a possible appeal down the road usurped his right to remain on this case.

Here’s the comical part, the one that makes the objection a laughing stock:

(j) Time for Determination. The judge shall rule on a motion to disqualify immediately, but no later than 30 days after the service of the motion as set forth in subdivision (c). If not ruled on within 30 days of service, the motion shall be deemed granted and the moving party may seek an order from the court directing the clerk to reassign the case.

Excuse me, but this is the same person who filed the dismissal motion 12 minutes before the Clerk of Court retired for the weekend. The judge, on the other hand, promptly responded the following Monday, and did so because, DUH, the office is CLOSED for the weekend. That’s like giving someone poor directions and scolding him when he’s late to arrive at the designated destination. This was nothing more than a self-aggrandizing act by an overly egotistical and pompous lawyer who had to get the last word in. He fully knew the judge would not respond.

Here’s an interesting document. Could it have prejudiced the judge?

Letter to Judge Strickland

This letter, addressed to the Honorable Judge Stan Strickland, voiced a very prejudicial opinion regarding Casey’s innocence, replete with scientific analogies and evidence showing that she could not have been the murderer. Where was the State at this time? Clearly, Linda Drane Burdick could have demanded the judge’s head for accepting the letter to begin with, whether he read it or not. Of course, since it was not damaging to the defense, Casey’s attorneys never gave it a passing thought.

This is where I lead into the possible motive behind that fateful dismissal motion. Sure, I’ve heard a lot of opinions from local attorneys. One said that, with an ego like Mason’s, he couldn’t stand losing his argument during the indigence hearing  regarding where Casey’s defense money came from. Here, he came out in all his glory, telling the world that he is a lawyer to be reckoned with; one with an impeccable record, and one who knows how to hoodwink the court. Only, it didn’t work and he blew his top, speaking of which, he just had to top Judge Strickland by filing the dismissal. That’s all well and fine, but I think the underlying factor is the motion later filed that set-up the one demanding the judge’s head on a platter - the one concerning earlier rulings. Four key elements were introduced:

(A) Defendant’s Motion to Compel Production of Tape Recorded Statement of Joe Jordan and the Court’s Order on same dated April 7, 2010

(B) Motion for Production of Grand Jury Testimony of George Anthony filed by the state of Florida on September 16, 2009 and joined in by the defense, and the Order of the Court dated October 6, 2009.

(C) Defendant’s Motion to Compel Tips Gathered by Law Enforcement, dated November 4, 2008.

(D) The Order on Defendant’s Motion to Modify the Court’s Order on Defendant’s Application for Subpoena Duces Tecum for Documents in the Possession of Texas Equusearch.

In (A), the court turned down the defense request for the taped interview. Instead, it was sealed. The rationale is plain and simple; it is against the law to secretly record anyone, which is exactly what Jordan did when defense investigator, Mort Smith, interviewed him. He said that when he searched the area where Caylee was found, the remains weren’t there and the ground was dry. Other volunteers said the area was too wet to search. Read the judge’s order HERE. Joe Jordan was interviewed by the defense on Oct. 27, 2009 and was later interviewed by law enforcement in the presence of a prosecutor on Nov. 5, 2009. The court recognized that the two separate interviews conflicted with each other and decided the sworn statement by Mort Smith regarding what Jordan said was sufficient and no further action was necessary. It cited Florida Statute 943.o6:

Whenever any wire or oral communication has been intercepted, no part of the contents of such communication and no evidence derived therefrom may be received in evidence in any trial, hearing or other proceedings in or before any Court, Grand Jury, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the State, or a political subdivision thereof, if the disclosure of that information would be a violation of this Chapter.

The statute is very clear, and either the defense didn’t understand the law or it’s maintaining a stance Jose Baez told Judge Perry at one of the recent hearings,“My grandmother told me you’ll never get something unless you ask.” In that vein, his dear grandmother may have been right, but the judge - any judge - must not change the law in a ruling. The judge also wrote that since Mort Smith gave a sworn statement attesting to what Jordan said, “direct testimony regarding what Mr. Jordan stated is still available via the testimony of Investigator Smith.” It’s all quite simple. In my opinion, this will be denied.

(B) is rather interesting. The state requested the transcript of George’s grand jury testimony. The judge granted it.

THIS CAUSE coming on to be heard upon the State’s Motion for Transcription of Grand Jury Testimony, and the Court having been duly advised in the premises, it is hereby,

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the State’s Motion for Transcription of Grand Jury of George Anthony taken/heard before the Grand Jury on October 14 2008 is hereby GRANTED, the original of said transcript shall be delivered to the State Attorney and all of the requirements of grand jury secrecy pursuant to Florida Statute 905.27 shall remain in effect pending the further order of this court.

Notice, I said the state asked for the transcript, and only the state, yet in this latest motion to be heard on June 1, the defense wrote, “and joined in by the defense…” Nowhere in his order did the judge include the defense and the reason why is that the state filed the motion all by its lonesome. I did not see Baez and Jeff Ashton dancing arm-in-arm to the Clerk of Court’s office to file together, but I’ll guarantee it was filed in a timely manner because it came from the state. What this tells me is that the judge ruled in chambers and the defense feels left out. Why? It wasn’t the judge’s job to hand the testimony over to the defense and if the defense wants it, it should have filed a motion requesting it. What, exactly, is there to reconsider in this new motion? It is, after all, a motion to reconsider earlier rulings. Therefore, this is an attempt to make Judge Strickland look bad. If the judge grants it, it will be because of case law. Other than that, it’s a used car salesman’s attempt to sell Judge Perry a lemon.

(C) is a motion filed by the defense over a year-and-a-half ago. In it, Baez acknowledges it submitted an Attorney’s Demand for Discovery on October 15, 2008. I think we are all aware of discovery in the state of Florida, but perhaps, the defense is not, at least, not as much as we would like to think. After the prosecutor receives the demand, he/she is obligated to respond. The defense now has over 11,000 pages of discovery documents in its hands. At the time the motion was filed, the defense wanted access to the nearly 5,000 tips that had come in. Today, the number is astronomical and it’s on full display in the periodic document dumps. Also, the motion cited a Motion for Favorable Evidence in Case Number 48-2008-CF-10925-O that was filed on October 3 and included,

a. “Any police investigation reports or any other similar documentation in possession by any law enforcement agency which involves the investigation of tips, leads, and follow-ups conducted by said agency or agencies, based on the sightings of Caylee Marie Anthony.”

The October 3 motion was granted by Judge Strickland on October 10, but on October 21, the state filed a nolle prosequi on the case making the judge’s ruling inconsequential. A nolle prosequi is an entry made on the record in which the prosecutor declares that he will proceed no further. The effect of a nolle prosequi does not act as an acquittal. It allows the prosecution to re-indict the defendant on the same charges and more, if necessary, at a later date. The defense also asked for sanctions for the delay in the state’s production of discovery and for the undue burden it has caused and the costs associated with the filing of the motion. Tsk, tsk. If you recall, the state filed first-degree murder charges against Casey on October 14.

In March of 2009, The defense took a bruising from Judge Strickland. Linda Kenney Baden wanted Strickland to order prosecutors to hand over the FBI’s bench notes from DNA testing on evidence. The judge wouldn’t do that because prosecutors didn’t have them and he had no jurisdiction over the FBI other than in the state of Florida. He informed the defense that if they wanted the notes, they would have to ask the FBI. As for the sanctions for allegedly keeping evidence from them, the judge said, “The motion for sanctions is denied.”

Finally, (D) is a rehash, deja vu, all over again moment, as if it will remain suspended in time until the defense gets to interview every single inhabitant of the ISS, just in case Caylee was whisked away on a shuttle flight. There are roughly 4,000 people who voluntarily searched for her all over Central Florida. Why do they need to see the records of every one of them?

In the original ruling from August 27 of last year, Judge Strickland wrote that the records of 32 Texas EquuSearch searchers mentioned at a hearing held on July 21 would be made available to both the state and the defense. They were recognized as being in the vicinity of Suburban Drive. The remaining paperwork filed by nearly 4,000 others could be reviewed in Mark NeJame’s office. Any searchers found to have been within 200 yards of the site where Caylee was found could be flagged for future consideration.

On April 5, Casey was back in court. So was Mark NeJame. Fireworks went off in the form of angry arguments and explosive accusations. What the defense expected was to be able to go through all of the TES documents in search of someone who may have gone into those woods before Caylee was discovered. The volunteers who did search there have maintained that the ground was flooded and impossible to walk through. Tim Miller told the volunteers to stay out of areas covered with too much water for fear it may damage evidence, so with standing water, there came a standing order to stand down.

The defense was given ample opportunity to go to Mark NeJame’s office to look through all of the TES records. The main problem with a court order is it opens up all of the personal information to the public. In the end, Judge Strickland agreed with NeJame. Later that day, he denied the defense request, but reiterated that they could still go and look through the documents and if they end up finding something, it could be flagged, just like he said before. Then, they could go back to the judge and try to get that released. There was not going to be a blanket release of all the documents. In my opinion, there is no reason why Judge Perry should alter that ruling, so overall, I’m afraid this motion to be heard on June 1 is not going to be thrilling for the defense team. Oh well, there’s still the issue of keeping public records about Casey’s visitors at the jail private, but Judge Strickland already said it’s all about jail rules, not the court’s.

In one last tip of my hat to Judge Strickland, I must say he did justice in this case all along, and in the end, he continues. Cheney Mason made this a problem case when he asked the esteemed judge to step down. He should have known that Belvin Perry always takes over problem cases. Ultimately, I just don’t see a chief judge overruling one of his own judges, especially one who has an incredible penchant for the law; someone with a sterling record of fairness. But just as Jose said, it doesn’t hurt to ask. Well, not always. Be careful what you ask for.

Posted on May 23, 2010 by Dave Knechel| 216 Comments(D) The Order on Defendant’s Motion to Modify the Court’s Order on Defendant’s Application for Subpoena Duces Tecum for Documents in the Possession of Texas Equusearch.

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?

Baez doesn’t know JAC

“Dr. Henry Lee once told me at a national association conference that he’s been known to work for a crate of oranges.”

- J. Cheney Mason at Casey’s indigence hearing

Dear Mr. Mason, as a Florida native, you are keenly aware that this state is loaded with oranges; some of the best tasting ones in the world, I might add.

Request to seal all documents from the Justice Administrative Commission

Today, I chose to watch the hearing on TRU TV and the Internet instead of making the tedious trek down to the courthouse. I’m glad I did. Money handling is not one of my stronger points. Being on time is, and so is it with one particular judge; 9:00 AM sharp!

The first thing Chief Judge Belvin Perry, Jr. wanted to discuss was Casey’s request to seal all records related to the public funding of her defense. Jose Baez opened by saying that he wasn’t asking the court to reinvent the wheel, something Judge Stan Strickland referenced at a previous hearing. Baez mentioned that limited circumstances do exist to lock up public records and it’s addressed  in the policies and procedures manual. He cited 3.216(a) as his guide. Immediately, I went to my Florida Rules of Court (State) manual and looked up 3.216(a).

In the section on pretrial motions and defenses, Rule 3.216 is about insanity at the time of the offense. Oops, wrong book, although some may beg to differ with that. Regardless, Baez argued that not granting the motion would bring a clear and present danger to Miss Anthony’s right to a fair trial and closure is essential to ensure that. He brought to light the Orlando Sentinel publishing her purchases of spicy nachos from jail and other items. He also mentioned pseudo-news media, which probably refers to bloggers and forums. I would strongly question how snack items would prejudice a jury, though.

Chapter 119 of Florida Statutes covers the area of public records. The law is quite vast and specific in granting us the right to know what’s going on, particularly when it comes to paying taxpayers’ money. An attorney for theOrlando Sentinel, Rachel Fugate, stepped up to the podium after filing a motion to intervene. She argued that the defense’s exemption motion was too broad. Agreeing, the judge decided the defense had not met its burden because the motion to seal was too vague. It would have covered a multitude of legal issues at one time. Individually, he said, the defense could readdress some of the elements. The defense can request to seal specific records on an expert-by-expert basis. He understood that some are ones the defense doesn’t want to reveal.

One of the reasons, in my opinion and that of others, including attorneys, why Cheney Mason filed the motion to dismiss Judge Strickland was due to his response to Mason’s request at the indigence hearing. He had just stepped up to the plate and expected to hit a home run out of the ball park. How, you may ask? By having the judge grant his request to keep money spent on Casey’s defense behind closed doors. Judge Strickland denied that request and made him look bad. Unfortunately for him, his temper tantrum garnered a tougher, more strict judge, one that’s not going to let one penny of the State’s money go unguarded without knowing where it’s going. Perry’s still not satisfied with where all of the ABC money, and then some, went. This is no different from how Judge Strickland would have ruled. Mason’s net gain? Zero.

Show us the money!

That led directly to the matter at hand – why the hearing was called in the first place. Just who and what does the defense want the state to pay money to? Judge Perry opened by announcing that the State doesn’t pay “full monte” for travel expenses. The JAC objected to out-of-state providers if common experts exist in the state of Florida. That sounds reasonable and with that, the door was opened for the defense to begin providing a litany of experts they expected the state to pay. A lot of the judge’s decisions were conducive to how much work out-of-state experts had spent on their studies up to this point. In other words, would it be cheaper to let someone like Dr. Henry Lee finish his work to date and continue or cheaper to hire someone in-state who would have to start from scratch? In the end, Dr. Lee will stay. He is well-known for his work in forensic science. GRANTED.

Jeanene Barrett is the Mitigation Specialist for the Center for Justice in Capital Cases. Baez said that she has spent 384 hours working on the case. That includes many hours investigating Casey’s family and old friends in Ohio, Florida and elsewhere. He stressed that Barrett has a close and personal relationship with Casey and it’s crucial to the case that this bond is kept. The judge agreed it would be less expensive and unfair to hire someone new, but the JAC attorney was quick to point out that the rate for investigators and specialists will drop from $50 to $40 per hour on July 1 of this year. GRANTED.

At that point, the wisdom of good Judge Perry shone through. He quoted formerChief Judge Susan Shaeffer of the Sixth Judicial Circuit:

“Death is different.”

Baez emphasized that the defense team will “certainly make sure we are as frugal as can be, especially with investigators.”

Moving right along, as is the case in Judge Stricter’s court, the topic turned to depositions. The judge set the cap for out-of-state depositions at 100 hours. Baez stated that he expected to do at least 400 hours in-state. No you won’t, Judge “Stricter” said, and promptly set the amount at 300 hours.

At this time, 10:30, the good judge decided to take a 15 minute recess. It resumed at 10:45 sharp.

Next up on Jose Baez’s wish list was forensic entomologist, Dr. Timothy Huntington, from Nebraska. Dr. Huntington is the Assistant Professor of Biology at Concordia University in Nebraska, where he teaches Principles of Biology, Elements of Anatomy and Physiology, Entomology, Gross Anatomy I & II, Zoology, and Community Ecology. Because he is deeply involved in his work on the case, permission GRANTED.

A request for a forensic anthropologist was GRANTED.

The defense asked to keep their forensic botanist from Colorado. GRANTED.

Baez wanted two forensic pathologists. Judge Perry granted one, and reiterated that any and all specialists will work under strict JAC guidelines. GRANTED.

Can we keep Dr. Werner Spitz? Please, please, oh pretty please??? He performed the defense autopsy on Caylee back on December 24, 2008, so most of his work is through. GRANTED.

How about a digital forensic expert from North Carolina while we’re at it? As long as over 50% of the work has already been performed and there’s a saving, sure, the judge responded. GRANTED.

At this point, Judge Perry reminded the defense that Skype can always be used to save money in lieu of travel costs. He also said that video conferencing is available through the courthouse as an electronic alternative.

What about noted DNA expert, Dr. Lawrence Kobilinsky? He is well-known as a blood, mitochondrial and nuclear DNA specialist. JAC pointed out that there are several doctors who do the same work in the state of Florida. Because his work is over 60% done, retaining him was GRANTED.

Baez then moved into lesser known avenues of specialists and experts. He requested a trace evidence expert, one who explores such things as hair and textile fibers. Judge Perry asked why Dr. Henry Lee can’t do that work.DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Just so you know, “without prejudice in a judgment of dismissal ordinarily indicates the absence of a decision on the merits and leaves the parties free to litigate the matter in a subsequent action, as though the dismissed action had not been started. Therefore, a dismissal without prejudice makes it unnecessary for the court in which the subsequent action is brought to determine whether that action is based on the same cause as the original action, or whether the identical parties are involved in the two actions.”¹

Next up, Baez talked about hiring a forensic chemist. This is almost an exclusive club with Dr. Arpad Vass manning the helm at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. He is well versed in chemistry, physics and anthropology. Baez mentioned a doctor in Belgium, but he did say he would consult with Vass for other alternatives.

This delved deeply into the area of human decomposition. Was this the body farm, Judge Perry queried? Baez said this covered human and canine odor observations. Judge Perry said that much of the evidence was circumstantial and another expert was necessary. GRANTED.

The conversation then, naturally, turned to the issue of forensic evidence and the study of human decomposition. What about the timing and placement of the body? Here is where Barrister Jose Baez uttered the biggest $10 word of his illustrious career: taphonomy. There. He said it. Taphonomy is the study of decaying organisms over time and how they become fossilized, if they do. Paleontologists work in this field. Paleontologists study dinosaurs, which Assistant State Attorney Jeff Ashton was quick to point out they do not. The State does not recognize it, either, and a 2-prong curriculum vitae may be necessary, the judge said. In other words, he wants to see some resumés from both sides.

Baez asked for a cell phone expert. This perplexed the judge. He said the State could tell when Casey was sleeping and awake by her cell phone pings and there would be no way to determine the time of death or place by those pings. Judge Perry didn’t buy into that one and the motion was DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Jose Baez came ready. Talk about 2-prongs, there’s the old adage about asking for everything and settling for less, but more. There’s also the one about being careful what you ask for. He expected the state to buy two Pontiac Sunbirds to determine if the same results could be achieved. No, the judge said, DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

He asked for jury consultants. Jury consultants? Linda Drane Burdick pointed out that Jeff Ashton and Frank George are jury consultants. Judge Perry said so is Cheney Mason. DENIED WITH PREJUDICE. In other words, don’t bring it up again, silly.

The defense requested a K-9 expert. This is where some barking took place. How reliable are dogs? All dogs are handled differently. What about dog logs and methods of training? How do those procedures vary from one trainer to the next? There’s already substantive conclusionary evidence. The work has been done. This is a contentious issue! Look, said Mr. JAC Attorney, since the bulk of the work has been done, put a limit on the time. OK, 20 hours max. GRANTED.

Baez spoke of the amount of money spent on public records requests from various government agencies. While the JAC wasn’t aware of any specific requests, it still decided to waive all fees. Baez said the defense had spent thousands of dollars on records. In the end, the judge set a limit at $3,500.

Some motions and requests for funds and specialists will be held in camera in the future. Perry warned the defense that he would go over the specialist’s expenses with “a fine-tooth comb.”

Cheney Mason speaks!

Some issues could be resolved without hearings, he said. Burdick responded that when the State has responded, it was an ad nauseum giant waste of time. Judge Perry said it was like blowing “smoke over the papers.” Ashton said Lyon has declined those procedures without a hearing, so it all comes back to square one. As much as the new judge is there to rule, plenty of squabbles still exist and nothing will take all of them away. These are two sides that are so far apart from each other, there’s no way everything will be settled until the jury says so.

The issue of schedules came up again. The prosecution and defense must provide deposition schedules by May 17. At the end of today’s hearing, there were a few odds and ends to be cleared up. The judge reiterated that he is bound by the rules of the JAC. Because Mason is a jury expert, as witnessed by his cases argued in front of him, and since he is working pro bono, there will be no money for travel expenses. Mason whined that his Serrano case took three weeks to find a jury. Judge Perry said we will have time to work on that. There will be 12 jurors and 6 alternates. This judge is not a fan of jury questionnaires, either.

Mason made one bold request. Actually, it wasn’t a request, it was more like a mild demand. Miss Anthony does not wish to attend the hearings any longer. She’s had enough and they are irritating her. The media hordes are making a mockery of everything she does, everything she wears. Assistant State Attorney Frank Gorge spoke up. No way, Jose, although it was Cheney. In the end, Chief Judge Belvin Perry had one more thing to say. An amended trial order will be sent out and she will not have to attend status hearings, but for all future motion hearings, the defendant needs to be present, particularly because this is a death penalty case. DENIED!

In some key areas, the defense made some headway. But would it have been different under the other judge? I would venture a strong guess the answer is no. Both are recognized for being fair. One is more formal than the other. One is more by the book. Will Casey receive a fairer trial because of it? I seriously doubt it. One thing is certain, the hearings are about to get really hot and heavy. After Monday, Tuesday and a smattering of motions, including ones that the defense is arguing over how Judge Strickland ruled, expect to see some motions to suppress evidence. They haven’t even scraped the surface yet.

One last thought on today’s hearing, and as the title suggests, Jose Baez didn’t know JAC today, but the judge most certainly did.