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.

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.