State calls defense motions "in limine" lemons

“… most convictions result from the cumulation of bits of proof which, when taken singly, would not be enough in the mind of a fair minded person. All that is necessary, and all that is possible, is that each bit may have enough rational connection with the issue to be considered a factor contributing to an answer.”

- Judge Learned Hand in United States v. Pugliese, 153 F.2d 497, 500 (2d Cir. 1945)

The state of Florida just filed its  response to several motions in limine filed by Casey Anthony’s defense. Remember, in limine is just a fancy Latin way of saying “on the threshold.” They are motions filed asking the court to prohibit or limit certain testimony or evidence at trial. In this case, the prosecution struck back at seven of them, as if that’s a lucky number. I guess it depends on how Judge Perry interprets the law, which means that luck will have no bearing at all. They are:

1. Motion in Limine to Preclude Testimony or Alleged Statements of Witness Anthony Lazaro Connected to Inquiries, Conversations, or Interrogation by Corporal William Edwards Related to Sexual Relations with the Defendant
2. Motion in Limine to Preclude Testimony Connected to Questions and Responses of Witness Anthony Rosciano in the Interview by Corporal Yuri Melich and Sergeant John Allen Related to Sexual Relations with the Defendant
3. Motion in Limine Regarding any Testimony that the Defendant has a History of Lying and/or Stealing
4. Motion in Limine Regarding Testimony of Neighbor Brian Burner in Reference to the Shovel
5. Defense Motion to Exclude Irrelevant Evidence of Tattoo
6. Motion in Limine to Prohibit the Use, in any fashion of Internet MySpace References Attributable to the Defendant as “Diary of Days”
7. Motion in Limine to Prohibit the Use, in any fashion, of a Posting on the Internet MySpace References Attributable to Cindy Anthony, the Mother of the Defendant

Before I go any further, I must address a couple of things. I realize the prosecution and defense are not competing against each other in a spelling bee, but wouldn’t you think they would know how to spell Lazzaro and Rusciano by now? After all, both men will be crucial to the case, especially Lazzaro. Oh, and what’s with all those capital letters, if I may add my 2 cents worth? With all of the other letters capitalized, at least the $3.00 and $5.00 words, what happened to fashion, and since when was Myspace written with a capital S ? If you believe it’s MySpace or My Space, don’t think I didn’t do my homework. Am I nitpicking? Well, I guess it’s not all that important, except for the slight chance the defense will try to have the case thrown out on a technicality, which would be preposterous…

“Your Honor, my client dated Lazaro and Rosciano, not the other two guys.”

“Overruled.”

The defense was careful to point out the significance of following stringent due process standards established by the Supreme Court since this is a capital case and death is different. However, and in my opinion, each and every case argued in a court of law is important, regardless of its magnitude. I am certainly not alone in this view, and one thing any prosecution should never strive for is the conviction of an innocent person. This particular prosecution seems to be on the up and up and not overzealous. They are also much more organized than Casey’s defense, at least at this juncture, and they argue well. For example, the response was quick to point out that “in order for any evidence to be excluded, the evidence would have to have the effect of inflaming the jury, or improperly appealing to the juror’s emotions.” This is a recurring theme in the state’s rebuttals.

In some cases, it’s just plain common sense that should dictate the judge’s decision on the in limine motions filed by the defense. I understand fully the reasons why a good defense files a lot of motions, one of which I have explained before; that you throw everything at the wall and hope something sticks, and if all else fails, throw the kitchen sink and pray it pokes a giant hole in the wall the prosecution has built. “Relevant evidence is relevant evidence, hearsay is hearsay, and improper character evidence is improper character evidence despite the crime or the penalty.” Rules of evidence “should never be abrogated or applied any differently” because of the punishment the defendant is facing. In other words, it is what it is, or what you see is what you get. Florida Statute 90.401 states that relevant evidence is evidence tending to prove or disprove a material fact. The prosecution cited this statute and a quote from McCormick on Evidence §185 that says relevant evidence “has a tendency to establish a fact in controversy or to render a proposition in issue more or less probable. To be probable, evidence must be viewed in light of logic, experience and accepted assumptions concerning human behavior.” One way to look at this is simple. In and of itself, to borrow a neighbor’s shovel is meaningless, but coupled with other bits of circumstantial evidence, a clearer picture may arise about why the shovel was borrowed and for what purpose. As the state wrote, “Each item of evidence is a link in the chain of proof.” Also, as Judge Learned Hand wrote, “[I]ndividual pieces of evidence, insufficient in themselves to prove a point, may in culmination prove it,” because the “sum of an evidentiary presentation may well be greater than its constituent parts.”

The state’s response also looked into prejudicial v. probative analysis under F.S. 90.403, regarding exclusion on grounds of prejudice or confusion: “Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” What happens here is anyone’s guess, because the state acknowledges that the “trial court has broad discretion in determining the admissibility of evidence and in weighing its probative value against any prejudicial effect.” It is at this point the state argues its case against the motions in limine filed by the defense.

ARGUMENT REGARDING MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE TESTIMONY OR ALLEGED STATEMENTS OF WITNESS ANTHONY LAZARO [sic] CONNECTED TO INQUIRIES, CONVERSATIONS OR INTERROGATION BY CORPORAL WILLIAMS [sic] EDWARDS RELATED TO SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH THE DEFENDANT and MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE TESTIMONY CONNECTED TO QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES OF WITNESS ANTHONY ROSCIANO [sic] IN THE INTERVIEW BY CORPORAL YURI MELICH AND SERGEANT JOHN ALLEN RELATED TO SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH THE DEFENDANT

As I argued in an earlier post about the rather sticky subject of sex, the state was careful in wording its response. The relationship with Rusciano predated the disappearance of Caylee, so what transpired in the bedroom is of little to no value. Lazzaro’s, however, is a different story. Casey slept with him every night after Caylee was last seen. This continued until he left for New York, but of importance is what Casey was like. Common sense tells us that a mother, ANY MOTHER, would be so incredibly desperate to find her missing child, sexual intimacy would be totally out of the question.

The state adds that “the existence of an intimate relationship between the two during the time frame when Caylee Anthony was last seen and when she was reported missing by her grandmother is highly relevant.” I certainly agree. According to Lazzaro, Casey never mentioned her missing daughter to him other than to tell him she was with her grandmother, Cindy, or the nanny. This is extremely important in painting a picture of Casey’s demeanor on June 16, when the state says Caylee was last seen, through July 15, when the party door slammed shut. When Lazzaro learned of the “kidnapping”, one of his first text messages to Casey expressed incredulity that she never told him anything about it the whole time she was with him. How odd.

ARGUMENT REGARDING MOTION IN LIMINE REGARDING ANY TESTIMONY THAT THE DEFENDANT HAS A HISTORY OF LYING AND/OR STEALING

As Cindy once said, a liar does not a murderer make. That’s true, but when it’s part of the time frame between June 16 and July 15, should it matter? The state acknowledges the difficulty of bringing it up if Casey never takes the stand and cannot be cross examined. There is also the issue over how long Casey had been doing it. Most of her life? While Cindy pursued the truth about her granddaughter and Casey continued to lie, I don’t see any evidence that this was the first time Casey lied about anything. She was (and remains) a born liar. To be honest, I don’t know any murderer who desires to tell the truth about what they did, so this defense motion in limine, in my opinion, could go either way with the judge. The state says her lies are “relevant to the conciousness of guilt which may be inferred from such circumstances.” To me, inferred is too flimsy of a word.

ARGUMENT REGARDING MOTION IN LIMINE REGARDING TESTIMONY OF NEIGHBOR BRIAN BURNER IN REFERENCE TO THE SHOVEL

If you ask me, this one’s a no brainer and I shouldn’t have to cite anything from the state’s official response. Common sense dictates the answer. The child was missing long before anyone knew it, the car smelled like there was a dead body in it, a shovel was borrowed, but not used, and the body was eventually found tossed in the woods around the corner from the house. I say, if the judge decides the shovel is of no relevance because it “could” have been used to dig up some nonexistent bamboo roots, then the remains must be tossed, too, because there’s no solid proof Casey “could” have thrown them in the woods. Or did. Does that make sense? Good. By the way, I have bamboo in the front yard and I’ve never seen a root, let alone tripped over one. It grows in clusters and most of it was grown here for a reason. Usually, you find it facing north because if buffers the cold wind that comes down from the north. It was used to help protect citrus from freezing air.

As for the shovel, it will go hand in hand with what Brian Burner indicated he saw. On three separate days, the defendant backed a vehicle into the garage. That’s something he had never see her do before. We can draw our own conclusions, but the state left this question for the court: “Does the evidence of borrowing a shovel from the neighbor within two days of the child missing have a tendency to render a proposition in issue - that it was borrowed with the intent to conceal remains - - more or less probable?” You can decide for yourself.

ARGUMENT REGARDING DEFENSE MOTION TO EXCLUDE IRRELEVANT EVIDENCE OF TATTOO

Once again, this is an easy one to figure out, and the state said it best in its final sentence about this motion. “The tattoo is relevant to show the Defendant’s state of mind during this time period, and the inscription obtained can certainly be read either as an epitaph for her daughter, or signaling a new beginning for herself.” Does this seem like a person waging their own investigation into the disappearance of their child?

ARGUMENT REGARDING MOTION IN LIMINE TO PROHIBIT THE USE, IN ANY FASHION, OF INTERNET MYSPACE REFERENCES ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE DEFENDANT AS “DIARY OF DAYS”

and

ARGUMENT REGARDING MOTION IN LIMINE TO PROHIBIT THE USE, IN ANY FASHION, OF A POSTING ON THE INTERNET MYSPACE REFERENCES ATTRIBUTABLE TO CINDY ANTHONY, THE MOTHER OF THE DEFENDANT

I lumped these two motions together because they are similar, in my opinion. Casey wrote a passage in her Myspace page on July 7 that the defense attributes to a song written by Hayden Christianson. To be quite frank, I am of a completely different generation than Casey. As much disco/punk/goth/mosh/hip hop/etc., etc. styles that have passed by me through the years, and my own changes in music appreciation and lack thereof, I can’t make a call on it. Is it from a song? Is it from a poem? Did Casey make it up? Does it mean anything? I don’t know, and that’s where the wisdom of a judge takes control. Allow it and let the two sides battle it out if it’s all that important. The same thing is true with Cindy’s entry in her Myspace account. After not seeing her granddaughter for several weeks, she asked Lee to help her post an important message to Casey. As to the meaning of the posting, the state will not attempt to argue that Cindy knew her grandchild was dead. Cindy was desperately seeking Caylee and her daughter kept them apart. Casey ignored her mother’s pleas and this will show the relationship that existed between the two. There wasn’t much of one.

Well, there you have it. My thoughts on some of the motions that will determine the make-up of the impending trial. In order for the defense to mount a strong case, it will have to overcome the almost insurmountable evidence, albeit circumstantial, against their client. As of today, this is a case the state can readily win. Do I blame the defense for filing any of these motions? Of course not, but even if it wins 3 or 4 of them, it’s still quite an uphill battle. No matter what, how Casey acted during the month her daughter was missing will be her biggest hurdle to overcome.

One final thought regarding the $583 sanction against Jose Baez - I talked to an attorney about it and he said that it’s not necessarily a bad thing. I know Judge Perry refused to consider another look at it today, but sometimes a lawyer will find that the fine is worth it when it comes down to how much time the defense can buy to keep important information out of the state’s hands. Was this the case here? I can’t say, but in the long run, will it really hurt Baez? After the trial is over, life goes on and he continues to represent clients. Vita perseverat.

Big Day in O'do

The Trial of the Century?

January 2011 marks the official countdown to Casey’s May trial, which will absolutely be the trial of the year, if not the decade or century. Century, I guess, because it’s still very young, and unless another one comes along with all the trappings of OJ, it may retain that ignoble title.

It should prove to be a pretty heavy hearing in the courtroom today. The defense wants Judge Perry to hear 22 motions, but the judge has the final word. Will all 22 be heard? I seriously doubt it. In any event, I plan on attending. I will bring something to eat, just in case my sugar drops. I might try to sneak my spare laptop in. If I do, I will be able to comment on this post directly from the courtroom. Call it an interactive experiment.

By the way, O’do is a slang term for what city? Yup, you got it.

Feel free to comment here about what transpires. If I can answer questions online, I will do my best, but remember, I will be taking lots of notes, so don’t feel snubbed if I don’t get back to you right away. You should be somewhat used to that by now, what with all my family’s health issues and all.

Also, please visit Snoopy’s blog post about today…

Will it be a Catch 22?

'twill be a very good year

Monday Monday

The defense filed a NOTICE OF HEARING on Thursday of last year. The judge’s hearing (the man in charge) is set to begin on Monday at 1:30 PM and it is going to be a long one. Twenty-Two motions are on the wish list in Courtroom 23A. How many will actually be heard is anyone’s guess:

1. Motion to Restrict Telephoto Courtroom Photography and Audio Eavesdropping of Defense
2. Motion to Compel Judicial Administrative Commission to Pay for Transcripts of Oak Ridge National Laboratory Depositions
3. Request Court Determine Bad Prior Acts of Mr. Kronk based on Motion Papers filed
4. Motion in Limine - Sexual Interrogation of Lazzaro
5. Motion in Limine - Sexual Interrogation of Rusciano
6. Motion in Limine - Speculation of Defendant Knowledge by Texas EquuSearch
7. Motion in Limine - Neighbor and Shovel
8. Motion in Limine - Table Knife
9. Motion in Limine - Character of Stealing and Lying
10. Motion in Limine - Tattoo
11. Motion to Suppress - Jail Interview of Defendant by “Agents”
12. Motion in Limine - Jail Video of Announcement
13. Motion in Limine - Jib Jab Cartoon
14. Motion in Limine - Defendant Myspace “Diary of Days”
15. Motion in Limine - Cindy Anthony Myspace
16. Motion in Limine - Decomposition Chemical (Frye)
17. Motion in Limine - Chloroform (Frye)
18. Motion to Exclude - Root Growth (Frye)
19. Motion for Subpoena Duces Tecum RE: Joe Jordan
20. Motion to Exclude - Post Mortem Banding
21. Motion to Exclude - Stain in Trunk of Car
22. Motion in Limine to Exclude K-9 Alerts

In the MOTION FOR APPLICATION FOR SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM, the defense has targeted Joseph S. Jordan. A subpoena duces tecum is a court summons ordering a named party to appear before the court and produce documents or other tangible evidence for use at a hearing or a trial.¹ It is true, as the motion states, that “the defense is charged with the responsibility of investigating their case in an effort to search for the truth.” Snicker if you must, but in every trial, civil and criminal, both sides will insist they are telling the truth and, invariably, it is up to the court to decide.

Early last month, the defense deposed Joe. He testified that he was an active blogger on the Internet, and that he frequented the Websleuths and Scared Monkey forums that discuss various issues of the Casey/Caylee Anthony case The defense alleges that Jordan published photographs on both sites and on his now defunct personal Web site, josephsjordan.com. The motion further states that, “Some of the photographs illustrated areas searched that were near or on Suburban Drive.” The defense states that the “photographs are material to the preparation of the defense in this cause.”

Joe Jordan is listed as a Category A witness for the state. Both sides consider him to be crucial to the case. The problem the defense has at the moment is simple; Jordan published his images on Internet forums. The images have since been removed. Since they were made public by Jordan and not the state, they are not subject to discovery under Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 3.220 [See page 98/197]. The defense wants those pictures. Why? Do they show dry land?

Alleged photos by Joseph S. Jordan

CELL PHONE IN BAG?

HAPPY NEW YEAR, EVERYONE!

It should prove to be a great one.

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.

'Tis the Season to Give

… How about a Doc-Dump Tomorrow?

While the defense team handed the prosecution more than 300 pages of information, including the RESPONSE TO STATE’S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF EXPERT WITNESSES, news circulated today that the prosecution is planning on reciprocating. In the defense team’s response, they met Chief Judge Belvin Perry’s deadline to turn over the comprehensive list of their experts, which includes a lot more detail than the first list, whether they intend to testify at trial or not. That hinges on who the state intends to call.

In the spirit of the holiday season, you know, ‘tis the season and all, the prosecution is planning on releasing documents to the public tomorrow, including more jail letters and videotaped interviews with law enforcement personnel. I will do my best to keep you informed.

Here’s a timely quote from Martin Luther King, Jr., especially on some of the blogs and certainly as we enter the holiday season:

“Have we not come to such an impasse in the modern world that we must love our enemies - or else? The chain reaction of evil - hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars - must be broken, or else we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation.”

Friday Happy Hour with the Bar

“I, quite frankly, don’t know why we’re here.”

- Jose Baez

When Judge Perry asked Jeff Ashton to hear his motion, the prosecutor stood and thanked the judge for accommodating him at such a late hour. Yes, a 5:oo pm hearing on a Friday afternoon is an unusual time, but the judge has made it clear on numerous occasions that he would have no trouble taking the bull by the horns if the two sides were to fall into any sort of quagmire. They did, and yesterday, those horns were tamed a bit. It took less than 20 minutes to render a rather terse and quite succinct decision that was pointed at both sides.

I understand why the state filed the MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION/TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY. To read the back-and-forth between Ashton and Baez was, at times, comical, but upon further study, it became clear to me that the prosecutor was losing his temper. The defense, it seems, had offered a menu, but never served the meal.

There were two main points in the motion Ashton filed:

1. In its ruling, in response to the State’s Motion to Compel Additional Discovery, the court ordered the defendant to provide, as to its listed expert witnesses, “the subject matter of what they will be testifying to.”
2. In response to that order the State received an email at 10:47 this date [ Dec. 1] from defense counsel Jose Baez purporting to comply with the aforementioned order.

With the judge’s initial order, the state wanted more than what the defense offered up to that point. Ashton expected, at least, “a brief summary of what would have been contained in a report had one been prepared, not a recitation of facts easily gleaned from a quick Internet search.”

That’s true. Anyone could have searched the Internet. What the defense offered could easily be summed up by this simple and shallow sample:

Dr. Jane H. Bock (Botany: Reviewed Hall’s report and inspected the scene and will testify about BOTANY, PLEASE TELL ME YOU KNEW THIS) University of Colorado Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Dept. Boulder, Colorado 80309-0334

That’s not much of a report, but it is a brief summary if taken literally. Too brief, of course, so the judge dropped his hammer and ordered both sides to be more compliant.

“Since ya’ll can’t seem to agree and can’t seem to understand what I meant the last time. This is what I’m going to do… Where experts have not prepared reports of examinations or tests, both the state and the defense are required to provide the following:

the expert’s curriculum vitae, qualifications of experts,

the expert’s field of expertise or medical specialty,

a statement of the specific subjects upon which the expert will testify and offer opinions,

the substance of the facts to which the expert is expected to testify, and last but not least,

a summary of the expert’s opinion and grounds for each opinion …

All of this must be completed by 3:00 pm on December 23.”

Something tells me that the judge, out of the goodness of his heart, allowed both sides to vent. He could have issued an order from inside his chambers, but by calling a hearing on a Friday afternoon, as the courthouse prepared to shut down for the weekend, he fired a warning shot. There is no doubt in my mind that Ashton had every right to file the motion, but the timing of the hearing was a clear message that this judge won’t tolerate nitpicking from either side. If you feel the judge was pointing fingers at the defense in his ruling, you’d be wrong. Think about it. As with fighting children, a parent cannot single out one when they both are screaming at each other. In order to be fair, both children are warned because it takes two to fight. In his decision, the judge had to take into consideration the ramifications down the road. Would the defense team state prejudice as grounds for an appeal if Casey is ultimately convicted? The judge had to show balance. As poignant as he was, after the hearing was over, I asked Bill Sheaffer why the judge wasn’t more terse. Why didn’t he castigate the defense for not following through with his prior ruling? He responded by telling me that it’s not Judge Perry’s style. Yes, I had to agree, because even as succinct as the judge was, he offered wisdom over a lecture or a legal spanking. No doubt, he got his point across, loud and clear.

On another note, someone mentioned that Cindy was not wearing her wedding band. True, I saw it myself, but I don’t know what that is about, if anything at all. When she entered the courtroom with her friend, I immediately asked her if she wanted us to move. I was sitting next to Jacqueline Fell from CFNews13. She said, no, she would just slide over to the seats to our right. Her friend thanked me for standing to let them pass by me, as any gentleman would do. After the hearing was over, Cindy and the defense team did not want to talk to the media. Jeff Ashton offered this message: “Have a great weekend, everyone!”

As quickly as it started, it was over. After all, even judges enjoy their weekends.

This won't be a Friday Happy Hour

I spoke to a rather powerful attorney earlier today. This person told me that when a judge schedules a hearing for 4:00, 4:30. 5:00 or 6:00 on a Friday afternoon, of all dates and times, it means the judge is not particularly happy with something that’s going on. It’s written in stone and you can bank on it. I asked if this meant Casey’s defense, and I was told, no, this goes for both sides. The two sides should have been able to work things out without getting the court involved. Since the court must intervene, I would expect to hear some sort of reprimanding that will include both sides of the aisle. 

Friday afternoon at 5:00 pm should be a hideous wake up call. The judge is losing his patience. He’s already told everyone that if he needs to step in, they won’t appreciate the hours he sets. I mean, who wants to be in court after hours on a Friday afternoon? Right… No one, including the judge.

I will write about the experience. It should be interesting.

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.

...To Judge Perry's Court We Go

Dance of the Sugar Plum Fairy by Aiobhan

In the United States, this past week was one of giving thanks to God, ourselves, others, and/or all of the above, for our many bountiful blessings - no matter how bleak the economy has been and might be in the future. As Thanksgiving fades and sugar plum fairies begin their month-long magical dance, the week ahead may very well be a time for the state and defense to give thanks for what they are about to receive in the courtroom. Or not.

Three motions were filed between November 18 and the end of this past week; one by the state and two by the defense. In the final motion, Casey’s attorneys have seemingly abandoned their two-step strategy that Texas EquuSearch volunteers Laura Buchanan and Joe Jordan searched the precise spot where Caylee’s remains were discovered. It seems they tiptoed to a different tune in the company of detectives and prosecutors bearing gifts recently, most likely time away from home, if you get my drift. After being deposed by the state, Buchanan’s attorney, Bernard Cassidy said, “I believe she signed an affidavit that she searched the area where the body was found. Somebody may have suggested where the body was found, but she has never been to that area to see precisely where the body was.” Cough, cough. Ahem.

Brandon Sparks seems to have changed his story, too, about Roy Kronk, his one time stepfather’s alleged “prior bad acts.” In lieu of any familiar faces to turn to for help, the defense is asking the court for state money to hire an expert who specializes in bones and fossilized remains. If something new could be determined by another reputable forensic anthropologist/osteologist, it might help debunk the state’s expert. Do I think it will do any good? I don’t know, but this defense needs all the help it can get. Will Judge Perry grant this motion? I don’t see why not, but he will, more than likely, wait until he hears what the JAC has to say about it.

§

The first motion filed on the 18th was from the state. Signed by Jeff Ashton, it’s a State Motion to Compel Evidence and it’s based on the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, 3.220 (d) and (f).

In a nutshell, the state wants to know where the taxpayers’ money went. It wants to review every contract and agreement the defense has made to date. This includes communications between the defense, its entire staff and all of its experts; any notes taken by or for the experts referencing their examination of evidence, and all photos and videos. The state is also asking for all records pertaining to meals, travel expenses, lodging and entertainment. It’s demanding a reckoning of every penny the defense has spent and, gasp, that’s a tough one.

As much as the state is asking, the motion made it clear that it doesn’t expect the judge to give away the farm. Privileged information is going to be involved, so it requests that the court examine many of the documents in camera - privately, in other words - with the defense, and to redact whatever it sees fit. Redaction means to go over everything with a fine-toothed comb in order to find things not suitable for the other side or the public. Of course, the state would love to know the defense’s strategy in order to launch a strong counterattack, but that’s not fair, nor is it proper, and both parties are aware of it. The state definitely has the upper hand on this one because it has flooded the defense with so much evidence, some important, some not, but because there’s so much of it, it’s overwhelming. Consequently, the defense has had to sort through a slew of documents in order to discern what the state will use at trial. This is a common strategy, and by filing this motion, the state has caught the defense relatively flat-footed. It will most likely have to fork over all sorts of information and that takes time and money away from defending a client. It’s a distraction, but a very legal ploy. WFTV reported that it had read 322 pages of financial documents on Thanksgiving day, so some of it is already public knowledge.

One of the key points of 3.220 (d) is that, “any tangible papers or objects that the defendant intends to use in the hearing or trial” needs to be turned over. What’s interesting is that the state does not have to turn over any internal notes; those made by investigators in the course of their work. I would assume the same would hold true for the defense, and any attorney worth their weight in salt would know how to distinguish between what is and what isn’t privileged, and would know how to hide documents accordingly. All legal; all fair.

From my discussions with judges throughout the years, not that I am in constant contact with any today, I have learned that they look at both sides fairly and without prejudice. However, being human, they can readily sense when someone is or is not capable of representing their respective clients. By this, I mean the defense as well as the state. I have yet to meet a judge who seldom complains about one side while picking apart the other. Everyone who faces a judge has his/her own personality, and being human and all, the judge will look at all motions and have personal thoughts on how they were filed and whether they make sense. What I am trying to say, in other words, is that no judge looks forward to a motion like this; not if the court has to sift through thousands of documents in order to discern what is to be passed over to the state and what is to be kept behind closed doors. Fortunately, circuit court judges generally have a battery of scholarly assistants at their disposal, but my guess is that it’s not something anyone looks forward to. Since Channel 9 had access to some of the documents, I would say the defense has turned over discovery prior to this motion. I think the most important part of the motion pertains to where the money is going, past and present; and the state of Florida has every right to know, down to the very last penny.

§

The defense filed a very interesting motion on Tuesday, November 23. The Defendant’s Motion to Seal Penalty Phase Discovery Response also cites F.R.C.P. 3.220, but in this case, it’s (l) (1) it’s referring to - Protective Orders:

Motion to Restrict Disclosure of Matters. On a showing of good cause, the court shall at any time order that specified disclosures be restricted, deferred, or exempted from discovery, that certain matters not be inquired into, that the scope of the deposition be limited to certain matters, that a deposition be sealed and after being sealed be opened only by order of the court, or make such other order as is appropriate to protect a witness from harassment, unnecessary inconvenience, or invasion of privacy, including prohibiting the taking of a deposition. All material and information to which a party is entitled, however, must be disclosed in time to permit the party to make beneficial use of it.

What this motion requests is for every bit of penalty phase information it finds from here on out be sealed or exempted from future discovery, pursuant to Florida’s Rules of Criminal Procedure. Furthermore, it states that this case “has received an extreme degree of media attention not just in Orlando, Florida, but nationally.” Everyone reading this article is well aware of that fact, and if ever there was a truth to what the defense has said, this is indisputable. The motion specifically cites Florida Statute 90.202 (l), which states: Facts that are not subject to dispute because they are generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the court.

The motion goes on to state that intense media scrutiny has resulted in the media and public conducting their own investigations aside from what law enforcement has done. I will be the first one to admit that this case has grown multiple arms, many that far outstretch the reach of sanity and truth. Specifically, Internet sites, including blogs and YouTube are fingered, but not one in particular. This is also the truth. Anyone who writes a blog has been guilty to some degree; some a lot more than others.

How many blogs have been guilty of mocking the people involved in this case? The defendant? The entire defense team? All of the defense witnesses? How many times have we read that anyone who works for the defense is a liar? The attorneys must be disbarred? There is a long list of public demands, most of which are quite illogical in the practical sense. Sure, I’m not one who should talk, but I’ve tried to be fair, and in this case, I can empathize with the defense.

“To date, witnesses in this case, especially defense witnesses, have already been subjected to intense media pressure and harassment by the media and the public at large. This has resulted in a chilling effect with some witnesses becoming reluctant to come forward with information for fear of harassment and stalking.”

Boy, oh boy, can I relate to that one. I’m not a witness for the defense, but I have been harassed and stalked since Judge Strickland stepped down. Relentlessly. And if the defense ever needed a witness who could testify to that fact, it would be me.

It’s interesting that the order requiring penalty phase witnesses to be listed is due on November 30, the day after the hearing, so this motion could be two-fold; the other being that the list is not forthcoming. After all, how much time has Ann Finnell, the author of the motion, had to gather up all penalty phase witnesses?

The motion asks that the disclosure of these witnesses from the media and the public be restricted until a penalty phase has been established. This, the defense argues, insures that Casey will receive a fair penalty phase if it becomes necessary. In any event, if the judge refuses to grant the defense’s request, the motion asks for an evidentiary hearing on the matter, and that’s one I doubt the judge will say no to.

Overall, it has been my observation that there are a bunch of weirdos out there in the public who have grown some of the most mutated arms I have ever witnessed in my entire life. One such arm that has absolutely no merit is the one boasted by several inane commenters at an otherwise respected site; the one that states “as fact” that Jose Baez, Cindy Anthony, Melissa Earnest and myself conspired to remove The Honorable Stan Strickland from the bench. That one is disgusting, it has absolutely no legs to stand on, and it’s based purely on hatred for me and the others named. Only the stupidest of idiots would believe such a thing. It’s precisely what the defense is talking about, and it’s why the motion stated that the “intense media scrutiny of this case has resulted in the media and the public conducting their own independent investigations in the facts of this case…” I can’t say it enough times. No, this has nothing to do with my fact seeking field trips to Walmart, a la James Thompson, or a video I shot of a person who has yet to be called by the state. In both respects, I was well within my rights and all I was seeking was the truth. If Casey cannot get a fair trial, it is because of trolls. We all know who they are and so does the defense. It’s the trolls who insist they are the only ones who know “the truth” and they say so at the expense of federal and state law enforcement officials, not to mention prosecutors, bunglers all, and certainly not professional enough to see the light.

God forbid that my name would ever be placed on the defense witness list, but believe me, I sure do relish the thought of being able to tell a judge the truth about all of the horrible lies pertaining to this case. If Casey’s defense team has ever filed a good motion, this one is it. Let’s see what the judge thinks.

Judge nods in approval

A teleconference hearing was held today in Judge Perry’s chambers over a motion the defense filed to conduct DNA tests on two items,  a pair of Caylee Anthony’s shorts and a bag. Both items were found at the scene where Roy Kronk discovered her remains in December of 2008.

The judge granted the defense team’s monetary request for $2,084 over objections from the Judicial Administration Commission. The JAC argued that an in-state laboratory could check DNA on the items in question, while the defense wanted an out-of-state lab. 

During a recent hearing I attended, the judge made it clear the lab needed to be certified by the American Society of Crime Lab Directors (ASCLAD). The defense originally wanted the evidence sent to a lab in Holland, but Judge Perry, in all his wisdom, made it quite clear that nothing would leave the country, where the court has no jurisdiction. Brad Bischoff, the JAC attorney, could not confirm that any of the labs listed as vendors in Florida were confirmed by ASCLAD. Jose Baez, on the other hand, argued that none of the state labs were certified. He cited a lab in Pennsylvania and the judge agreed that’s where the items will go.

It is a small battle won for Jose Baez & Co., but I would surmise that ultimately, it’s only a win if the lab finds something that will incriminate someone else, or it could somehow benefit Casey if nothing is found that points directly to her. Otherwise, I don’t see it helping her one bit, and in the overall scheme of things, if it does, it’s just one tiny piece from the vast army of incriminating evidence the state has accumulated to wage this war against her. In the end, the good guys will win. Choose sides wisely.

In another matter, Bob Kealing’s report on dead bugs must have the defense worming around right now. Watch his exclusive video HERE. He deserves an award for this one.

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.

A lot of lawyering, a lot of frustration

I arrived at the courthouse about a half hour early, early enough to breeze through security and go up to the 23rd floor. That afforded me ample time to have a good conversation with one of the senior reporters covering this story before others arrived. We talked about several issues related to the case, and one of the topics dealt with journalists and bloggers. There are a lot of crazy nuts out there, this person said, and because of where he and other media people work, be it a newspaper, network or local TV, cable or radio, there is a shield that protects them from harassment and stalking. Not so with bloggers. Bloggers are out in the open and ripe for attack, especially if they identify themselves like I have. In this, there’s no envy; instead, it’s more like a bit of empathy and compassion. Earlier this week, a letter was received by the court via U.S. Mail that attacked this blogger and the media folks were aware of it; some, but not all. It’s safe to say it went absolutely nowhere except the file that holds all correspondence related to this case, such as the letter from Joy Wray sent to Judge Stan Strickland before the nut jobs came out en masse. Fortunately, media people recognize when something is newsworthy, when it’s junk, and when to never give psychos their day in the sun. That letter came straight from a psycho; too cowardly to sign a name, let alone a real one, as if it would have mattered in the least. This is the type of correspondence that never makes its way to a judge. Instead, it collects dust in perpetuity.

Red Huber walked in and sat down in a chair. There are sofas and chairs outside the courtroom, more so on the 23rd floor, for people to relax before or after court proceedings. Sometimes, attorneys are interviewed there. I asked Red about cameras in the courtroom. He said he was the official photographer in the media pool, meaning that he is the only person who has a hand-held still camera. It’s quite a fancy one, I might add, but he is an incredible professional. I asked him about cell phones. He told me he caught an unnamed TV journalist holding up an iPhone (or something similar) while a hearing was in progress. He called on a deputy and the deputy warned the person that if something like that ever happened again, they would be barred from the courthouse. Red Huber is very proud of his work, and rightfully so. Imagine a low-res cell phone image plastered on a station’s Web site. That would have gotten the network affiliate in a bit of hot water because it’s not something Red would ever take credit for.

The media folks were called to file into the courtroom and as we did, the reporter said blogs are becoming more interesting and pertinent, and he makes it a point to read them, including mine. It’s part of the job now. That was encouraging.

We entered the courtroom before any of the attorneys, so when they meandered in, all at once, we said our hellos to both the prosecution and defense. I had a good feeling that Ann Finnell would make her debut and she did. I think it’s important to remember that the opposing sides seem to only be that way in the courtroom, not that they do an awful lot of socializing together outside, but I sensed a more relaxed attitude and an almost warmth that dissolved once the sides took to their stations and donned their battle gear, which was nothing more than notebooks and pens. Oh yes, this is the 21st century and I know Jose has an iPad. One of the first things I noticed was that video monitors all around the courtroom were turned on for a change. That was great because it afforded us a good view of the proceedings. In some of the video footage you got to view, you probably saw some of us looking up. That’s why. They were hung above us. We could actually see the faces for a change.

When Casey walked in, flanked by officers of the court, she was noticeably thinner. Her hair was pulled back tightly in a bun and she seemed to have a sad, blank stare, from what I could see before she sat down and faced forward. Within a minute, George and Cindy shuffled in and took their seats in the second row. Their attorney, Mark Lippman, sat directly in front of me. Cindy wore a burgundy colored blouse that complemented George’s lavender colored shirt.

Chief Judge Belvin Perry, Jr. arrived on schedule, although I was a bit disappointed he was 4 minutes early. Oh well, my late Grandfather Landis was always punctual, and like him, sometimes early. God knows, I’d rather be early than late.

The judge wasted no time getting the hearing under way. The first order of business was the MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. Jose stood and walked to the podium. This is a motion Casey’s defense has fought for more than once, and it’s been shot down each time. Today was no exception, but I sensed a little more desperation in Jose’s voice. It was either that or a combination of frustration and exasperation. Personally, I don’t care what Casey eats from the commissary. I don’t fret over her personal mail and phone records, but inquisitive minds want to know, and because it’s the law, there’s no bending it - or in this case, Bent, as in Bent v. Sun Sentinel. Jail records are under the control of the legislative branch, not judicial. This time, Jose spent the brunt of his argument on mail from family, friends and strangers. He cited the case of the city of Clearwater (City of Clearwater, 863 So. 2d at 154) where it was deemed that private e-mails stored on a government computer are not automatically public record. In other words, private documents are not necessarily public record by virtue of their placement on an agency-owned computer.

OK, fine, but there’s more to it. When the attorney for Orange County Corrections got up to speak, she stated that she was merely there looking for clarification; that the county had no real dog in the fight, but she saw a problem. Here is where I have seen the defense go in the past, and it’s one of the reasons why some of the motions are lost, in my opinion. The county objected to the mail issue because the motion didn’t request it.

The Orlando Sentinel attorney then took center stage. One of the questions I posed to Red Huber before the hearing began was about this motion. I asked him if this was pooled, too, so all media outlets would share in the costs of any and all proceedings. He said, no, this is solely the Sentinel’s job. The attorney reminded the Honorable Judge of his ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL JAIL VISITATION LOG RECORDS, back on June 7. There, the judge wrote:

The Court agrees with the County that a criminal defendant’s desire to “maintain the confidentiality of visitors” in a high profile case does not qualify as a lawful exemption. As mentioned supra, the Defendant’s Motion does not provide any statutory exemption or legal authority for the Court to “seal” documents that constitute public records.

Instead, the counsel for the defense entreats the Court to judicially create an exemption in this case. The Court is unable to acquiesce. Any exemption from the Florida Public Records Act must originate in the legislature and not by judicial decision.

Friday, Judge Perry took the Bent decision into consideration, but he only denied the Motion for Reconsideration at this time, and those were his precise words, which leads me to think the door is not completely closed. There is no doubt the Bent issue will be argued for years to come, but he did settle the matter of audio recordings. He said he will treat Bent as if it is final. In other words, audio recordings will remain under wraps. All other jail correspondence will be accessible to the public. So it shall be written, so it shall be done.

§

The judge brought up the JAC motion and Ann Finnell stood up and walked over to the podium. She is a rather stately woman, but not statuesque by any means. In my opinion, she appeared to be a quintessential professional, and she was. She had a certain elegance and a homey warmth about her, if that makes any sense. She looked like she would be a wonderful mother, aunt and grandmother, although I know nothing about her personal life. Well, hardly anything.

It was during this back and forth the judge became most animated, although he didn’t direct it at Finnell, in particular. It was the entire defense, but that’s because the course of the conversation really opened up into other areas, such as TES, which had nothing to do with her. Jose and Cheney piped in and it seemed to frustrate her a little. She made it clear she was not involved at all in TES documents at one point, but prior to the confusion, Judge Perry asked her about the 384 hours the court approved for Jeanene Barrett. She said that at least a half to a third of those hours had been exhausted. She said she needed at least another 100 hours. The judge said he wants to first see how the hours had been utilized before giving her more.

He asked her about the 300 hours given for private investigators. This is when Jose responded. He said he needed an additional 300 hours. The judge said he realized some of those hours will remain under seal, but where did they go? Jose said that many TES searchers didn’t want to get involved. The judge was pretty clear about all those searchers. The defense is not to go on some sort of fishing expedition. “You’re not to go drilling for oil when there’s no sign of oil anywhere.”

The majority of searchers were nowhere near the remains. He said he had provided them a special master. They were given the right to read the records and take notes. Jose said the defense had made over 1,000 phone calls and talked to 150 who were in the area. The “area” was confusing because there was no clear definition of what constituted the Suburban Drive vicinity. Cheney Mason said a lot of searchers looked on their own; that they had uncovered people from leads and some people who did not report everything to TES. Even so, some TES records were not clear. He questioned whether Texas EquuSearch kept bad records or whether they hid info on purpose? Here is where the judge made his succinct statement du jour:

“I am not going to write an open check. I am just not.”

Ann may have been rightly frustrated because it was at this point she said her motion was not about TES. It was about mitigation, such as medical history and school records. The judge interjected. “Miss Finnell, I’ve done a few capital cases.”

He turned to Cheney and asked him if he was planning on sticking around for the penalty phase, if Casey’s convicted. Cheney nodded and said yes.

Throughout this exchange, I looked up at the monitor to see the looks on the attorneys faces and that of Casey. Quite clearly, she was shaken. This was, shall I say, a bit more vibrant and enlightening and here she was in the thick of it. Sticking around for the penalty phase. Oh my. She seemed distressed to a certain degree. We’re coming to the end of the year and May is on its way. Time is running out.

When the dust settled, the new attorney continued. She made more requests, and in the end, Judge Perry approved some things and denied others. Her travel expenses from Jacksonville will not be covered. If she wants to send an investigator to Ohio, try phone calls first. There are investigators in that state that will work at JAC rates and not have to fly from Orlando or anywhere else. For each request, he wants to know the reason why he needs to spend taxpayers’ money. He said he’d be happy to take ex parte material into consideration and under seal. (Ex parte is generally a judge meeting with one party and not the adversary.)

The JAC attorney got up and rebutted. He said that the penalty phase funds may be premature at this time, but the judge disagreed. In the matter of capital cases, the cart comes before the horse, he said. With regard to psychiatric evaluation, he awarded $2,500 at this time. He said the standard exam may not be enough at the JAC rate. He approved $500 for copies and an additional 60 hours, or$2,400, for a private investigator. Most of all, he said he remains open for more expenditures, but he needs to know where all the money is going now and where it’s been going.

In several instances, I noticed that the defense does not come prepared. The judge asked how much money was spent on public records, for instance, and Jose didn’t know. At some point, he said something that caused a stir in the gallery. Sitting on the other side, someone roared in laughter. Jose turned to look, but the person was quickly silent and lost in the crowd. In my opinion, this was very rude. This is a murder case and not a joke, no matter what that narcissistic person thought of him. No one should ever laugh in a courtroom unless the judge prompts it. The murder of a child is a very serious matter. To be honest, I felt a little for Baez. The day wasn’t going his way and he told the court of the endless, almost thankless, hours the entire defense has been working. It was their life, and he was emotional about it. It did lighten up, though, however brief.

Judge Perry granted Linda Kenney Baden’s request to withdraw from the case, but not before he asked if there were any objections.

“I liked working with her,” Jeff Ashton exclaimed.

“Pardon?” Judge Perry asked.

“I liked working with her,” Ashton repeated. That brought out a few light chuckles, but here it was a lighthearted statement and the laughter was not made out of ridicule.

“Mr. Baez, it sounds like Mr. Ashton has objected,” the judge retorted.

“Yes, it does,” Baez joked.

§

Linda Drane Burdick asked for and received a 30-day extension on depositions. Some of the witnesses are difficult to track down. The defense is having the same problem. One of the things I’ve noticed about Judge Perry is his flexibility. As stern as he is, he’s very giving and in some cases, willing to bend.

The judge then reminded Ann Finnell that the deadline for listing all penalty phase witnesses is November 30, a mere month away. All of the state’s experts have not been deposed yet and that deadline is November 19. A Frye hearing was brought up. Jeff Ashton said he wants to sit down with the defense and go over what is new and what is old science. A Frye hearing is used to determine if novel scientific evidence is reliable enough to be permitted in court. It can also apply to testimony from psychologists and psychiatrists, not just forensic experts.

There was a brief exchange between Cheney Mason and Linda Drane Burdick that became somewhat heated. It was over some of the TES records still being held by law enforcement. Burdick explained that the defense had ample opportunity to look it over when their experts were in town back in July. Of course, the defense said they had never received property forms or receipts and Burdick begged to differ. Oh, the frustration of it all! The judge gave the defense two weeks to settle the matter. He then asked the state if all evidence had been disclosed. If not, everything must be disclosed by January. This means that there will be no surprises weeks before the trial is underway. The defense should have everything in its hands by the first month of 2011.

Before the judge gave the attorneys a rather stark speech, I must say that this was the first hearing I’ve attended where Linda Drane Burdick came across loud and clear. It was my observation that she seemed more agitated and direct, and certainly, more animated than I had ever seen her before. With that, the judge stated that if the depositions are not done on time, the court will set dates and he will make sure they are not convenient for either side. He said he will start running the case at his pace, so everything had better be ready come January.

“All the posturing has been nice, but come January, it will be according to my schedule.” And that means the schedule could be at midnight. If there are people unwilling to be deposed, by golly, the court will make them comply. Judge Perry means business.

§

A somewhat odd thing occurred near the end. The gentleman next to me started to breathe deeply. When I glanced his way, he was sound asleep. To me, this had been an exciting day, one filled with many highs and lows. Just like in church, the judge gave a great sermon, but I guess there’s always a chance that someone will be napping in the crowd. The hearing lasted two hours, as I expected, but I’m used to them by now. He wasn’t, obviously.

As we got up to leave, an attorney was loudly castigating one of Orlando’s best known journalists about dumb questions. It wasn’t pretty. I gravitated toward Ann Finnell. I had a message for her from her niece or cousin, but darn if I didn’t write it down. Instead, I had a senior moment and I asked her if she would be attending the next hearing. She said she would, and I said I would remember next time. She asked me how I knew it was really a relative and I said because I know her real name and she told me you would recognize it. She was more than friendly and open. She’s every bit a class act and you could tell that she’s a very caring person. Who better to handle a penalty phase? If Casey is found guilty, she’s in good hands. Anyway, it’s her cousin, and I’m sorry. I’ll make sure I get it right next time, and that will be on November 29, at 1:30 PM. I’ll be there. I need to set the record straight.

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.

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.

Barking up the wrong plea?

“I found my daughter’s car today, and it smells like there’s been a dead body in the damn car.”

- Cindy Anthony

You know, I really wanted to title this post, Cryogenic oven-trapping gas chromatography for analysis of volatile organic compounds in body fluids, but it was already taken. Darn those three, K. Watanabe-Suzuki, A. Ishii and O. Suzuki. They left nothing for another man’s creative imagination.

On July 24, 2008, Investigator Mike Vincent of the Orange County Sheriff’s Office sent Oak Ridge National Laboratory a carpet sample from the trunk of Casey’s Pontiac, the one that contained the damn dead pizza with squirrel topping smell. All kidding aside, what tests were performed on the air quality in that trunk was a very serious matter. Whether or not the judge allows the forensic report to be admitted as evidence in the case against Casey is of tantamount importance to both the state and defense, where the life or death of the accused may be in the balance. The judge will have to weigh heavily the type of science it is - something never used in a court of law. Is it truly a valid science or is it junk, as Casey’s defense has implied? To grasp the basic concept of what it is, we must understand it first.

To begin with, there’s nothing quite like real, live witnesses; the ones who will testify in court that the car smelled like death and decomposition. There’s no escaping it. Cindy smelled it, George smelled it, Lee smelled it, and certainly, lots of law enforcement officials running around the Anthony home on July 15, 2008, smelled it, and many of those officials were duly trained in detecting decomposition of the human body. Just like the pungent smell of marijuana, there’s no escaping its uniqueness. Once you smell death, you never forget it. I believe it is in our primordial genes. The very first time it impacts you, you know what it is. No need for an education. No learning curve. No one need tell you what it is. Coupled with the scientific results, it could smell, er, spell doom for Ms. Casey. Even without it, the odor is what it is: decomp. No squirrels or other organic matter was found, lest a few crumbs of dried up pepperoni, if that.

The carpet sample sent in July was not the only thing parceled out. On September 3, Dr. Neal Haskell included air samples from the trunk, paper towels, and a white trash bag, both containing fly pupae. Dr. Haskell is a forensic entomology expert - forensic refers to investigation into the cause of death and entomology refers to insects. He is part of the faculty (Biology Department) at St. Joseph’s College in Rensselaer, Indiana.

According to Oak Ridge, compounds in all the samples were identified by mass spectral library match, which means they were compared against known samples that exist in a library. Without getting too complex, verifications were determined from standards purchased from the Sigma-Aldrich Chemical Company. It’s like comparing samples of anything against a known bank of information pertaining to that subject matter.

The first carpet sample was placed in a sealed metal can. A preliminary analysis was performed by extracting a small amount of air from the can. It was injected into a Hewlett-Packard Gas Chromotagraph/Mass Spectrometer (GC/MS) equipped with a Hewlett-Packard Mass Selective Detector. If this sounds anything like the Turbo Encabulator, it’s not even remotely close. Hewlett-Packard never made one. Alas, only a few compounds were observed in the sample, primarily chloroform, and it became apparent the sample wasn’t strong enough, so it was deemed necessary to increase the sensitivity in order to find a lower abundance of compounds - if they were present at all. According to the report, the technique selected for concentrating the sample was cryogenic trapping, which can improve detection of organic compounds ten-fold. Cryo-trapping is widely used for the analysis of fragrances and odors.

For these analyses, cryo-trapping was performed by injecting air into a short loop of inert stainless-steel tubing connected between the injector of the gas chromatograph and the head of the GC column. The stainless-steel loop was cooled with liquid nitrogen which condensed the organic compounds present in the air sample, while allowing the nitrogen and oxygen to be vented away from the GC/MS. Normal heating of the GC oven during analysis cycle vaporized the condensed organic compounds in the stainless-steel loop and allowed them to traverse through the GC column into the mass spectrometer.¹

If you are not familiar with cryogenics, think of cryonics, which is the “science of using ultra-cold temperature to preserve human life with the intent of restoring good health when technology becomes available to do so,” according to the Alcor Website. Rumor has it that Walt Disney’s head is frozen and kept under the Cinderella Castle at Disney World, here in Orlando, but that’s not true. His whole body is on ice in a hidden chamber beneath Pirates of The Caribbean at Disneyland. Actually, none of that is true. Dearly departed Disney was cremated, head and all, and his ashes rest in Forest Lawn Memorial Park in Glendale, California. Cryo no more.

Back to the matter at hand…

The carpet sample was removed from the metal can and placed in a Tedlar bag for 2 days at 35 degrees Celsius (C) and allowed to off-gas into the bag. Kind of like a silent, but deadly, if you get my drift. Tedlar bags have many uses in many industries, including air sampling, hazardous waste, and other gas sampling needs.

The report admitted that gasoline was found in the trunk and it was likely a source of significant hydrocarbon interference that caused an overlap with about 41% of the chemicals typically observed in decompositional events. This may wreak havoc on the state’s claims. The defense will jump on this like flies on… flypaper. Of the 51 chemicals identified on the carpet sample from Casey’s vehicle, 80% were consistent with decompositional events. A mere 17 of the 51 overlapped with known or possible gasoline constituents, leaving 24 compounds - 59% - associated with decomposing human remains potentially unaccounted for. In other words, there was no other way to explain their existence, such as pepperoni. There are lots more examples in the report, but to go into every aspect would be boring and quite tormenting. Suffice it to say that in its conclusion, the report summed up things nicely.

What the lab determined was that odor from early decomposition was present, including “an unusually large concentration of chloroform - far greater than what is typically seen in human decomposition.” There was also an increased level of sulfur containing compounds found, which are “particularly characteristic of decompositional events.” Certainly, of particular interest to the defense is the report’s conclusion that the possibility exists there could be a variety of products that could have contributed to the overall chemical signature.

How much credence should we, as untrained laymen, put into the Oak Ridge report? Laywomen, too. No discrimination intended or implied. Our opinions won’t count in court, but it makes for great discussion. What we may lose sight of are the lab tests conducted for OCSO because we keep wishing upon a star that Casey will be found guilty, so we sometimes skew the results. To be frank, we’re not even into what the defense experts will bring into battle, but we do have another report at our fingertips; the findings of Michael E. Sigman, Ph.D., Assistant Director for Physical Evidence at the National Center for Forensic Science on the campus of the University of Central Florida, right in Casey’s backyard.

Here is a list of what was analyzed and reported in Air Analysis Results: Caylee Anthony Missing Child Investigation²:

Some samples were not tested at NCFS, but an interpretation of the findings stated that“… dimethyl disulfide, tetrachloroethene  and Chloroform are known to be liberated from decomposition of human remains. These three compounds were not found in a representative gasoline sample in the NCFS database. Dimethyl disulfide occurs naturally in cabbage and onion.” Was that pizza ordered with onions and pepperoni? “Tetrachloroethene is used in dry cleaning and may be used in spot removers. Chloroform may be used as a degreaser and may be formed through the reaction of chlorine bleach with some organic chemicals.”

What Dr. Sigman concluded was that the presense of dimethyl disulfide, tetrachloroethene and chloroform did not conclusively demonstrate that human decomp was present in the trunk. There were too many other possible sources. 

These were the findings of Oak Ridge and NCFS, and not my opinion. In other words, I have no dog in this fight other than a cause similar to everyone else that’s compassionate about this case and looking for complete and final justice for Caylee. Speaking of dogs, though, the defense is going to look into all of this in a lot more depth and try to convince the jury a machine could never replace a canine nose. Therefore, it’s inconclusive. On the other hand, didn’t a dog also hit on human decompostion in that trunk? How is defense attorney Dorothy Clay Sims, a specialist in medical-expert witness cross-examinations, going to bark back at a dog?

I recommend reading Air science could be used for first time ever in Anthony case by Anthony Colarossi, Orlando Sentinel, October 8, 2010.

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.

Tell the Lord Bugsy says hi

Every year at the Hardcore Car & Truck Club show held in Orlando, the crew puts on a memorial honoring one of their most dedicated members, Larry Neal Oliver. On November 24, 1995, the then 22-year-old was killed by thieves who stole his prized possession - his truck.  The annual event reminds everyone that, although he is now gone, he is certainly not forgotten. He lives on in the hearts and minds of his friends and family.

In February of 1998, Jermaine “Bugsy” Lebron was convicted of armed robbery and the first-degree murder of Oliver. I remember this crime distinctly.

Oliver was lured to a house in Osceola County, where Lebron and several others lived. Lebron offered to sell him some “spinners” for his truck. Spinners are hubcaps that spin independently inside of a wheel when the vehicle is in motion and they continue to spin once the vehicle stops. Shortly after Oliver arrived at the house, Lebron called him back to the bedroom area. As he entered the hallway leading to the rooms, Lebron forced him to lie face-down on the floor and then shot him at close range in the back of his head with a sawed-off shotgun, which he called “Betsy.” Although no one actually watched LeBron fire his weapon, they heard it. After Oliver was shot, he was all smiles and laughter, shouting, “I did it, I did it!”

He also described how it felt to kill the victim and what the victim looked like afterward. Oliver’s cash, checks and a credit card were taken from him, and the stereo was stripped from his truck. Lebron then told his roommates to burn Oliver’s ID papers, dispose of his body, and clean the area where he had been murdered. An attempt was also made to burn the truck.

Larry Neal Oliver’s body was later found in a rural area not far from Walt Disney World property, covered with a blanket and some shrubs, but it was still visible from the road.

During the time of the murder, Lebron admitted to his former girlfriend, Danita Sullivan, that he had killed a man. He later told his (then) current girlfriend, Christina Charbonier, the same thing - that he had shot a man for his truck.

Shortly after the murder, Jermaine Lebron high-tailed it to New York City, where his mother owned strip clubs, one a juice bar named Legz Diamond. He was eventually picked up by NYPD, but just prior to leaving the Kissimmee area, he, along with two other people, robbed a limousine driver. They zapped him with a stun gun, took him out to an orange grove and tried to kill him. As Lebron held “Betsy” to the man’s head, he said, “Tell the Lord Bugsy says hi.”

The gun misfired, affording the victim the opportunity to dart into the orange grove and to safety. He was so frightened by the experience, he fled the country and refused to show up for the trial.

Without going into more detail, there is no doubt Jermaine Lebron is one super bad dude. For the murder of Larry Neal Oliver, he was given the death penalty and after several appeals, the sentence still stands. What you may find most compelling about this case is that the Assistant State Attorney was none other than Jeff Ashton. The judge who sentenced him to death? Well, it was none other than Belvin Perry, Jr., who declared LeBron unfit to live. “Jermaine LeBron,” Perry said, “you have not only forfeited your right to dwell among us as a free man, but under the laws of the state of Florida, you have forfeited your right to live at all.”

Hey Bugsy! Tell the Lord I said hello!

See: Florida Capital Cases DC#472846

Slowly, the wiles of justice churn

PLEASE READ THIS POST FIRST

“Carla was my very best friend. We talked about everything and anything together. It didn’t matter where we lived. If Carla was there, it was home to me. Now I feel very alone.”

- Jim Larson in 1999

When John Huggins was arrested for the murder of Carla Larson in 1997, several ministers who knew him said no way. He was not capable of doing such a horrible act. After all, they proclaimed, this was a gentle giant, anointed by God to do great work. He had become a born-again Christian. He volunteered to go on many missionary trips to Haiti to help build schools, churches, and to run clinics. No, the preachers collectively agreed, John was a good man. For the sake of Carla and all her loved ones, law enforcement thought otherwise.

On her final day, Carla drove to a Publix supermarket a mere five minutes away from where she worked. Located at the intersection of International Drive and Osceola Parkway, she spent $8.63 for pita bread, pretzels, grapes and cherries. She never had a chance to eat any of her purchase.

While Carla’s life came to an abrupt end in 1997, John Huggins is still alive and kicking, and it’s taken some strange twists and turns along the way. This is what happens on death row, and this is why a life sentence without the possibility of parole may be a better punishment than the torture victims’ families must endure for many, many years to come. In some cases, it’s worth the wait. In others, it’s not. I guess it depends on who justice truly belongs to. It is not us, it is the likes of Jim Larson and all who suffer to this day. It is for Carla’s soul which still cries out. It is for John Huggins to own up, something he has never done, and to accept the punishment the state of Florida doled out to him. Like most murderers, he never will.

Here is the twisted journey of John Huggins.

Toward the end of January 1999, Huggins went on trial for the brutal murder of Carla Larson. A career criminal, he had already been convicted and sentenced to life in prison for robbing a bank just three months before he committed murder. This is a man who duped ministers of God, but he would never be able to fool the Almighty. Ultimately, he couldn’t fool a jury, either, and on February 4, less than a month later, he was pronounced guilty as charged; convicted of first-degree murder, kidnapping, carjacking and robbery.

In the fleeting moments after he heard the verdict, he looked at Jim Larson. Larson met his gaze and thought, bye, bye. It was his way of saying go to hell. If anyone had a right to ask for death, it was him, and death he wanted. One week later, a nine woman, three man jury concurred by an 8-4 vote, after deliberating a mere two hours.

The prosecutor had asked the jury to imagine Carla Larson’s last moments. She must have realized she was going to die. “When those hands went around her throat, she was fully and completely aware the last face she would ever see was that one. As she slowly lapsed into unconsciousness and died, that was her final memory.” [To anyone following the Anthony case, does that sound vaguely familiar?]

Incidentally, the jurors were never told about Jim Larson’s sister, murdered seven-and-a-half years earlier in Gainesville, by Danny Rolling.

On February 26, Carla may have thought justice was served had she been around, because the judge agreed with the jury. Her father, Mert Thomas, said,“That’s the way it should be. It still doesn’t bring her back.”

What the judge had to say was very damning to John Huggins. In his 14-page sentencing order, he read, “One can only imagine the alarm, the anxiety, the apprehension, the fright and the terror that she felt as she was forced to ride to her demise.

“What fear and horror she must have felt when she was forced to walk from her vehicle into the wooded area - Carla Larson’s own death march to Bataan. No one can truly know the emotional strain and physical pain she had to endure as she struggled to breathe as the defendant strangled her to death.”

The judge spoke a total of 30 minutes. “John Steven Huggins, you have not only forfeited your right to live among us as a free man, but under the laws of the state of Florida, you have forfeited your right to live at all… You shall be put to death in the electric chair by having electrical current passed through your body in such amount and frequency until you are rendered dead… John Steven Huggins, may almighty God have mercy on your soul.”

This did not bring the Larson and Thomas families any happiness, but they were willing to move on. Sadly, if you think this is where it ended and the world went merrily on its way, guess again. This was only the start of things to come.

♦

Within weeks of the conclusion of the trial, Preston Ausley, an engineer working for the Orange County Courthouse, contacted Huggins’ defense attorneys and told them about information the state knew but never disclosed. On March 25, 1999, his defense filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in court, alleging that the state withheld evidence that would have been favorable in direct violation of Brady, which consists of exculpatory (or impeaching) information that is material to the guilt or innocence of a defendant. It’s based on the U.S. Supreme Court case, Brady v. Maryland, where the court ruled that suppression of evidence by the prosecution to the defendant who has requested it violates due process.

In a detailed written order, the same trial court and judge found that the state violated the dictates of Brady and granted Huggins a new trial. Of course, the state appealed the ruling and lost. Here’s what the trial court ordered:

On June 16, 1997, an individual named Preston Ausley spoke with Detective Daniel Nazarchuk of the Orange County Sheriff’s Office. Mr. Ausley had contacted the Sheriff’s office with information regarding the Carla Larson case. Mr. Ausley told Detective Nazarchuk that a white Explorer cut him off in traffic [in Orlando] and that he had written down the tag number. Mr. Ausley told Detective Nazarchuk that he had verified within one digit that the license plate number he had recorded was the same as that of Carla Larson’s Explorer. As a result of this conversation, lead sheet 302 was created from Detective Nazarchuk’s notes. The lead sheet wasprovided to the defense during discovery.

At the evidentiary hearing, Mr. Ausley claimed that he told Detective Nazarchuk that the individual he saw driving the vehicle was a white female in her late twenties to early thirties with blonde hair justbelow the shoulder. However, Detective Nazarchuk’s notes indicate that Mr. Ausley said he saw a white male of the same description driving the vehicle. Detective Nazarchuk recorded the date of thesighting as June 12, 1997. However, Mr. Ausley believes it was June 11, 1997. At the hearing, Mr. Ausley explained that he is very bad with dates and came to the conclusion that he encountered Ms.Larson’s truck on June 11, 1997, by verifying the date through other sources.

 Thereafter, on February 1, 1999, the day after seeing Angel Huggins on television during coverage of Defendant’s trial, Preston Ausley went to the Office of the State Attorney to speak with the State Attorney for the Ninth Judicial Circuit, Lawson Lamar. Mr. Lamar was unavailable. Mr. Ausley was directed to Assistant State Attorney Dorothy Sedgwick who spoke with him briefly. Ms. Sedgwick asked Pat Guice, an Investigator with the State Attorney’soffice, to speak with Mr. Ausley and take a tape recorded statement.

In the recorded statement provided to Mr. Guice, Mr. Ausley stated that when he saw Angel Huggins on television it struck him that she resembled the white female with blonde hair he had seen driving the white truck with a license plate that matched Carla Larson’s within one digit on the morning of June 11, 1997, on International Drive.

After he had given his statement, Mr. Guice requested that Mr. Ausley return the next day so that the attorneys, who were at that very time prosecuting Defendant’s case in Jacksonville, could speak with him.

The next morning, the Assistant State Attorney who was prosecuting the case in Jacksonville spoke to Ausley by phone. After this conversation, the prosecutor determined that Ausley’s name had been given to the defendant in lead sheet 302, and that his statement did not support what he ”believed the defense’s theory of the case would be, and Mr. Ausley’s statement was of little value.”

Therefore, the state decided not to disclose the tape recorded statement or the information about what Ausley said he saw. As a matter of fact, this particular prosecutor was in court that same day and never disclosed it. The trial concluded later that week.

In overturning the verdict, the trial court judge analyzed every bit of evidence presented at trial and determined that prejudice ensued as “the suppression of Mr. Ausley’s statement resulted in a verdict that is not worthy of confidence.”

With that, John Huggins was granted his new trial. All charges against him were vacated and upheld by the Florida Supreme Court on appeal. Of course, he was still in prison for the bank robbery, if that had any redeeming value.

♦

To Jim Larson and all of Carla’s family and friends, it was like living through another devastating nightmare, but justice came once again. This time, the trial took place inside an Osceola County courtroom, but it didn’t serve Huggins any better. Hours after firing his lawyer, which seems to be consistent with the strange minds of convicted derelicts, he was convicted again on July 25, 2002. Jurors deliberated for five hours instead of two before deciding he was guilty of first-degree murder, carjacking, kidnapping and petty theft. What brought one charge down from robbery beats me. A pear-shaped diamond engagement ring and other jewelry isn’t petty, in my opinion.

His defense attorney this time was Orange-Osceola Public Defender Bob Wesley, if you remember him from Casey’s indigence hearing. He failed to sway jurors that it could have been his friend Kevin Smith, the man who let Huggins keep the SUV at his house until he torched it. The Assistant State Attorneys showed proof that Huggins had been staying at the Days Inn directly across the street from the Publix where Carla was abducted.

Like the Casey Anthony case, the evidence was primarily circumstantial. Witnesses testified they saw a man driving a white Ford Explorer that looked like hers. The man behind the wheel looked like Huggins, too, and her jewelry was found hidden in his mother-in-law’s back yard shed. Very incriminating, indeed, but still circumstantial.

As soon as Huggins fired his Public Defender, he told the judge, “We’ve come to an impasse on strategy for the penalty phase.”

The judge cautioned him, but agreed. He then ordered Wesley to remain on stand-by. “I think nothing is more personal than a decision to live or die,” Wesley said of Huggins’ decision.

Foolishly, he did represent himself during the penalty phase, one which showed him to be unemotional. It lasted all of one hour. In his argument against death, he said that he had a difficult childhood. He spoke of the wonderful work he did serving the sick and poor people in Haiti, tending to the afflicted no one else wanted to help. Imagine how much good he could “contribute to the prison community if given a sentence of life without parole.”

With no reservation, the judge told him, “You have not only forfeited your right to live among us as a free man, but under the laws of the state of Florida, you have forfeited your right to live at all.” Shades of deja vu.

Clearly, the judge had considered those mitigators, but in the end, he said they were far outweighed by five aggravating factors, including his prior felony record and the fact that Larson was kidnapped before she was killed. He also noted that jurors, who recommended the death penalty, unanimously found Larson’s murder to be “especially heinous, atrocious or cruel.”

“The horror, the agony, the emotional strain and fear she must have felt knowing of her impending death is beyond comprehension,” the judge exclaimed.

♦

Four years later, in November of 2006, John Huggins had a new attorney willing to take up his cause. While we may question why, this is the way the justice system works, and this is why I will never deny Casey Anthony a proper defense, no matter what. If scum like Huggins deserve it, so does she.

This time, it was a matter of his competence., and it was the first time it had come up in his case, according to his Tampa-based attorney, Eric Pinkard, who said he became concerned when he had trouble communicating with his client, according to a report in the Orlando Sentinel. [I do find it interesting that death row inmates tend to lean toward incompetence when all else fails, but that’s just my own personal observation and opinion, and one that Casey may pursue many years down the road if she is convicted and sentenced to die.]

The following day, the judge decided he was incompetent after three doctors agreed that Huggins couldn’t help his defense prepare his appeal case, and that he needed psychological treatment, including anti-psychotic prescriptions. In the state of Florida, an inmate on death row cannot be executed while receiving treatment. Slowly, the wheels of justice turn.

The judge ordered him to remain in the custody of the Department of Corrections and to be treated by doctors from the Department of Children & Families. “I’m OK with this,” said Jim Larson. “This is how the system works.”

The judge also ordered DCF officials to submit a report in 90 days.

John Huggins knows how to manipulate the system. After so many back and forth arguments over his competency - yes he is, no he’s not - the trial judge decided on October 20, 2009 that he was, in fact, competent. This came after he heard testimony from a psychologist who found him to be a liar who also exaggerated the truth. For three years, he was in a legal state of sanity limbo; in and out of a world of competency. Finally, he was deemed sane enough to proceed with his legal appeal! Or so we thought.

In November, only a month later, his attorney had another evaluation done by Tampa-based psychologist Richard Carpenter. At a July [2010] hearing, Carpenter testified that Huggins demonstrated signs of mental illness. “He expressed these delusions about the Feds, the Dixieland Mafia and that he was being framed,” and here we go, all over again, twelve years after the murder of Carla Larson.

In that July hearing, prosecutors noted that the issue of Huggins’ competence has lingered for years and suggested that his repeated evaluations could have taught him how to trick those tests. The judge expressed frustration over the time it took from tests done in November and when the motion was filed, more than six months later, and to complicate matters even more, Huggins filed his own documents requesting that his legal team be removed. He refused to meet with his attorneys and Carpenter. Quite clearly, this has been one mess after another, and it clogs up the system. Had John Huggins only put his talents to good use.

Meanwhile, his attorney argued that an upcoming hearing on post-conviction appellate claims should be delayed until the question of his competency is settled.

The judge insisted that the hearing would take place next month while that is being decided. Also, there are remaining issues over claims involving ineffective counsel and prosecutorial misconduct. “This case is mired in quicksand,” he said, and he’s not convinced whether Huggins is delusional or trying to delay the process.

Now, we come to August, and how far have we advanced? Once again, the judge asked court-appointed experts to try to come up with an opinion regarding Huggins’ competency by reviewing doctor’s notes. “I am competent,” he told the court. “My mental condition is sound and always has been sound.”

Huh?

During the hearing held in the final week of the month, guards had to forcibly remove Huggins from his cell at Florida State Prison in Starke so he could attend. An electronic stun belt was attached to his body that would shock him if he acted out. A deputy stood by ready to zap him with 50,000 volts. Needless to say, it wasn’t necessary, although he was anything but cooperative, and he has shown a history of animosity toward this particular judge.

As the latest hearing wrapped up, Jim Larson said he was planning on taking a trip up to Gainesville to attend the 20th anniversary remembrance of his younger sister, Sonja, murdered and mutilated by serial killer Danny Rolling, now executed, as John Steven Huggins continues to legally mutilate the justice system.

Larson said he was confident this is the countdown to Huggins’ execution. “I was there for the last one [at Rolling’s execution] and I’ll be there for this one, front row. Maybe he’ll send for me.”

♦

Oh yes, there’s just one more thing of special importance. After attending Casey’s last status hearing, I spoke to Jeff Ashton about John Huggins on the way out of the courtroom. You see, he was the prosecuting attorney when it all began. He was the one throughout all these years of trials and motions. It was Jeff Ashton who represented the state time and time again. I asked him what he thought. How would this latest hearing turn out? “I don’t know. I really don’t know. It’s in the judge’s hands.”

The judge? Oh, yes, that would be Chief Judge Belvin Perry, Jr., the same one who found Huggins to be incompetent, but the same judge who sentenced him to death. Twice.

See also: Commission on Capital Cases

Trial By Ambush

PART I

I hate being late to anything, but on Monday, so many people were present at the courthouse waiting to go through security, it was a full 9 minutes before I entered courtroom 19D, meaning that I was 9 minutes late since Chief Judge Belvin Perry, Jr. is a stickler for being prompt. When a hearing is set to start at 1:30, it starts at precisely that time. Courtroom 19D holds some bittersweet memories for me, too. It's Judge Strickland's courtroom, and the one where I was called up to meet him on that fateful October day last year. Alas, life goes on, but it's a date I will never forget.

What ensued on Monday was a heavy dose of the reality of Judge Perry's courtroom and a taste of things to come. One of the strongest statements he made and one that's clearly set in stone is that he will not budge when it comes to the timeline. On May 9, 2011, jury selection will start and exactly one week later, on the 16th, the trial will begin.

The reason for these status hearings is to keep both sides on schedule and to ensure that they share information with each other and get everything synchronized or suffer the consequences. “I would not want me setting your depositions,” he said. “I’ve been known to do some weird things like working on Saturday.”

One of the issues Jose Baez addressed was the timing of the state's release of discovery. He cited one example. Erica Gonzalez worked as a shot girl at Fusian Ultralounge. She told OCSO Cpl. Yuri Melich that she spoke to Casey on the phone on July 15, 2008, and heard her talking to Caylee.

Jose said he didn't receive this information until July 22 of this year, over two years later. Linda Drane Burdick responded that there are plenty of times witnesses take too long to respond. For example, PI Dominic Casey took forever to turn in documents and it took a week to scan all of the papers for release.

The defense turned over an amended witness list containing 63 Category A witnesses. The judge reminded both sides of their deadlines. Linda Drane Burdick mentioned that 300-500 more pages of discovery are coming, but they would be mostly bank records of no significance to the defense. She still needs to copy Yuri Melich's hard drive, she added.

The prosecution wondered how 35 people could possibly be deposed in one day, as stated by the defense. Cheney Mason piped in that he would get it done on September 15 as scheduled. Some might be a mere 5 minutes long. What I noticed during this exchange was a friendly banter between Mason and the judge. Quite clearly, the two men had experience with each other and were, no doubt, comfortable and aware of each other's unique personalities, strengths and weaknesses. I will elaborate on this at a later date.

When the defense filed its NOTICE OF STANDING OBJECTION OF ABUSE OF FLORIDA STATUTE 119.01, the judge interpreted it as meaning it was not requesting a hearing, but instead, stating on record that it objected to the media and public's right to know. Jose Baez concurred. The Orlando Sentinel filed a MOTION TO INTERVENE FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF OPPOSING DEFENDANT'S STANDING OBJECTIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES CHAPTER 119.01. If this sounds complicated, it's not really. It's more of a formality on the defense's part and opens the door for a gag order later on, which Judge Perry will, most likely, write as the trial nears. This will be in order to keep potential jurors from reading about the case so close to jury selection. Mason brought up Murph the Surf, which addressed media coverage. Jack Roland Murphy was a famous surfing champion, musician, author and artist before his convictions; one being his involvement in the biggest jewel heist in American history at the American Museum of Natural History, and the other being the first-degree murder of Terry Rae Frank, 24, a California secretary. From lectlaw.com, Heidi Howard:

The Court examined the totality of the circumstances, and found that if the jurors were actually, provably prejudiced by pretrial publicity, or if the "general atmosphere in the community or courtroom is sufficiently inflammatory," the community sentiment can be so poisoned against the defendant "as to impeach the indifference of jurors who displayed no animus of their own."¹

In other words, the media may be restrained from reporting, at least prior to the impaneling of a jury in a criminal trial, when pretrial publicity is so pervasive that it, more than likely, would have an effect on jurors.

A final edict made by Judge Perry was that all future motions will be heard within 15 days of filing. This is the nature of this judge. Move, move, move! I wouldn't be a bit surprised if he keeps a fully charged cattle prod at his side behind the bench, waiting to use it.

PART II

One of the most compelling statements made by the judge was that the state of Florida has discovery rules that include trial by ambush. Trial by ambush? What's this all about?

In Florida, the standard  trial order entered by most judges  is that 45 days prior to the trial getting underway, both sides must submit to opposing counsel a written list of the names and addresses of all witnesses, impeachment, rebuttal or otherwise intended to be called at trial. It means this is the complete list of people who will be permitted to testify. It's intended to keep either side from suddenly finding a witness and surprising the other side. In this case, an act of this nature amounts to trial by ambush. Most judges will not allow it. Any witness not previously disclosed won't get near the courtroom unless certain circumstances warrant it. An example would be if the party diligently tried to find a witness and failed due to not being available until trial.

Another aspect of trial by ambush includes other discovery, as well. Discovery enables both parties to know before the trial begins what evidence may be presented. This way, one side doesn't learn of the other side's evidence when there's no time to obtain anything to respond.

In 1981, the Florida Supreme Court set the standard for the requirements of pretrial disclosure (See: Binger v. King Pest Control, 401 So. 2d 1310 (Fla. 1981). It gave trial courts ammunition to deal with faulty pretrial disclosure. In Marine Enterprises v. Bailey, 632 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), the Fourth District Court approved the trial court's striking four witnesses for violations of the pretrial order.

“In exercising its discretion to strike witnesses not properly disclosed upon pretrial order, the trial court may consider such factors as: whether use of the undisclosed witness will prejudice the objecting party; the objecting party’s ability to cure the prejudice or its independent knowledge of the witnesses’ existence; the calling party’s possible intentional noncompliance with the pretrial order; and the possible disruption of the orderly and efficient trial of the case.

Compliance with pretrial orders directing proper disclosure of witnesses eliminates surprise and prevents trial by ‘ambush.’ Binger, 401 So. 2d at 1314. Counsel who disobey a trial court order entered months earlier should not be rewarded for their conduct. Pipkin v. Hamer, 501 So. 2d 1365, 1370 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987).”

As a matter of fact, trial by ambush has been discouraged since the state of Florida adopted its rules of procedure in 1954. Judge Perry is well-versed in procedural law, and the fact that he brought it up at Monday's hearing means he plans on abiding by the rules. Remember: 45 days.

On a final note, one thing I understood from attending the hearing was the judge's determination to impress his rules on both sides of the aisle, not just the defense, as many people believe. I saw no discrimination or favoritism. He treated the two sides equally and he had words to say to everyone involved. He doesn't want to hear petty arguing or sniping, either. Such is the manner of any good judge. In this case, there's no doubt in my mind that what we have here is a great judge who will play Solomon if and when it's necessary. Of course, I never expected any less from Judge Strickland, so in that regard, nothing has changed. As the hearing progressed, I got a sense that the light at the end of the tunnel is coming into view. It's no-nonsense from here on out. When Linda Drane Burdick asked the court if closing arguments could be split between all of the attorneys, state and defense, that little tunnel lit up, and I liked what I saw. Justice was shining at that other end.

More from "My bus runneth over"

ENTERING THROUGH THE BACK DOOR

Casey's tragic bus took another wrong turn when it recently handed her former and final boyfriend, Anthony Lazzaro, a copy of a subpoena duces tecum without deposition for phone records from January 2009 to present.

What's this all about? Casey has been locked up for how long? What would her legal team want to do with poor Tony's cell phone records for the past year-and-a-half plus? William Jay, his attorney, thinks that whatever it is, it's no good. He countered by filing a MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM. Should Baez & Mason be surprised?

What exactly is a subpoena duces tecum without deposition?  A subpoena duces tecum is a summons ordering a party to appear before the court and produce documents, in this case, cell phone records, that could be used at a hearing or at Casey's trial. The literal translation from Latin is to "bring with you under penalty of punishment." The without deposition part means that Lazzaro would not be compelled to appear in person to offer those documents. Whew, what a lucky break.

Here's the problem that the defense doesn't get. After a hearing last August, Judge Stan Strickland - yes, the fine, upstanding and highly revered judge the defense had removed from the case this past April - ordered that, "the time frame allowed to be subject to a subpoena duces tecum was from June 1, 2008 to December 18, 2008."

If you recall, the defense wanted Roy Kronk's cell phone records, too, for a similar period of time. They were denied that request. Poor Roy Kronk was one of the first ones the defense pointed incriminating fingers at while tossing him under a few speeding Van Hool tires.

What would Casey's attorneys do with Anthony Lazzaro's cell phone records from the past twenty months or so? Imagine looking into each and every person he ever made and received calls to and from. Why, if only half of them could be investigated for the next three years, give or take, two things may happen. One, the trial would surely be postponed, and two, there may be a Zenaida or two in that there briar patch. That's a thought, but Baez can't afford another three years pro bono and Mason will be retired by then. No, it's not that. What actually strikes me as funny is that this team recklessly pursues everyone law enforcement has cleared. This includes the Grunds, her former friends, Kronk, of course, and a number of others.

Do I think the defense is trying to pin the crime on Lazzaro? No, I do not. Once again, this is a feeble attempt to discredit the state's prime witnesses, and if he ever made a prank call to Pizza Hut and it's in those records, all of his credibility will fly out the window. "Your honor, this proves the state's witness is unreliable."

I expect this sort of treatment. It is the defense's job to tarnish everyone the state plans to call up to the stand, excluding experts who will go head-to-head with their own slate, but in this particular case, as in many others; just what does the defense really need 26+ months of phone records for? As soon as Lazzaro realized who and what he was possibly dating, he high-tailed it. Casey bit the dust and is, most likely, nothing more than a morbid thought in his mind today. Meanwhile, all this team seems to be going after is the stand-up crowd, with no Zenaida in the patch. Anthony Lazzaro's phone records aren't worth a rabbit's foot. He moved on with his life. Should his girlfriend of today be slapped around, too?

In his wisdom, Judge Strickland made the right and proper call. With Judge Belvin Perry now at the helm, did the defense realize it would lose another Motion for Reconsideration of Prior Rulings if it chose to go that route instead, so, let's choose another path? Enter through the back door. Hand little guy Tony an official order and hope he doesn't take it to his lawyer. Well, he did, and William Jay knew exactly what to do with it. So will Judge Perry.