The Teflon Judge

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

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

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

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

I finished the article with:

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

In his ruling, the judge wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

...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.