Rope-A-Dope or Going for Broke?

The trial has been underway for more than a week now, and that’s long enough to get a good idea about where the state and defense are going. Where is this trial headed?

Please read what I think about it…

Click the image

Feel free to add your thoughts.

THANK YOU!

It's Not Just Nuts and Dolts

Who are all these people? And what do you think of the cast of characters rolling into the courtroom?

Your opinion needed at Orlando Magazine.

Click the image

Feel free to add your thoughts.

THANK YOU!

Smoke and Mirrors and Alligator Tears

Jose Baez promised to tell us why Casey Anthony kept quiet for 31 days. Do you believe what he said in the courtroom yesterday? Was it a smart move or an act of desperation?

Read what I think in Orlando Magazine.

Click the image

Feel free to add your thoughts.

THANK YOU!

Drowning in a Pool of Lies?

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

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

Click the image

Feel free to add your thoughts.

THANK YOU!

What's "the Matter"?

Today was a very strange day. It left us in a state of limbo.

Hurry on over to Orlando Magazine and read what Mark NeJame had to say…

Click the image

Feel free to add your thoughts.

THANK YOU!

The Long and Winded Road

Jury selection is moving right along… slowly, but surely. What do we make of it? When will the trial finally begin?

Hurry on over to Orlando Magazine and take a gander at what I think…

Click the image

Feel free to add your thoughts.

THANK YOU!

A Snail's Pace

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

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

Click the image

Feel free to add your thoughts.

THANK YOU!

A sneaking suspicion

Since I didn’t have the opportunity to attend last Friday’s hearing, I just want to touch base on a couple of things regarding that day.

I am glad Kathi Belich won. Freedom of the press in this country is protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. If Kathi or any other journalist investigates a story, only defamation and the infringement of copyright laws should be subject to restrictions.

When Jose Baez and Jeff Ashton shook hands and the contempt motion flew out the window, I’d bet my bottom dollar that Judge Perry had told both sides that if they didn’t come to an agreement on their own, neither side would like the way he would handle it. That’s enough motivation right there. Not only does a judge dislike dealing with motions of this nature, he’s not in the courtroom to babysit. Crack the whip, git ‘er done. He did.

§

On Monday, I attended a hearing designed to give the defense and prosecution one final shot at summarizing the two motions discussed last Wednesday and Thursday regarding statements Casey gave law enforcement back in mid-July of 2008, and the statements she gave her parents and brother while she was sitting in jail. Were they unwitting agents of the state? If the judge agrees with the defense, it will be a damaging, but far from fatal blow, to the State of Florida. If the judge sides with the State, it will be business as usual - on with the show!

One of the things we must keep in mind is that if evidence is tossed, there’s still plenty more the State will use against her. For instance, Casey’s car is not in her name. The owner gave permission to have it examined. That’s a nice chunk of evidence. Caylee’s remains changed the playing field, too. When she was charged with first-degree murder on 14 October 2008, there was no death penalty. That came the following April, and of utmost importance was that her little bones and what surrounded them gave plenty of credibility to the old saying, “she’s speaking from the grave.”

While sitting in the courtroom, I must say Cheney Mason impressed me. His voice was stronger than it usually is. During one of the detective’s testimony last week, he asked if he was familiar with the term unarrested. The detective responded positively. Yesterday, Mason exclaimed that there is no such thing as being unarrested. He went on to scrutinize the tactics of the deputies and detectives from the first hours they spent with Casey to the final moments they pressed the Anthony family into service to visit her in jail. Agents of the State? Please.

When Casey was driven to Universal, he asserted that the detectives were already aware that she wasn’t employed there. They had set the meeting up with the chief of security, where a small room was awaiting her forquestioning. The door was closed, he said, and the intimidating tactics began. Voices were raised. Was she free to go, he wondered. No, of course not. She was at their mercy. No car and no one telling her she had a right to leave. The only way it could have been a voluntary interrogation would have been if she drove herself to meet them there.

He said it would have been impossible for trained law enforcement personnel to not treat her as some sort of suspect once they took a whiff of her car that first night. Where the defense had been weak in citing case law, Mason let loose here with the case of Ross v. State of Florida and the Florida Supreme Court’s ruling upon appeal:

After carefully reviewing the issues raised on appeal, we reverse the convictions and sentences of death because of the police conduct in interrogating Ross on January 9, 2004. Specifically, the police, over a period of several hours of custodial interrogation, deliberately delayed administration of the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), obtained inculpatory admissions, and when the warnings were finally administered midstream, minimized and downplayed the significance of the warnings and continued the prior interrogation—all of which undermined the effectiveness of Miranda.

In Ross’s case, the court wrote that investigators mishandled his interrogation days after his parents were beaten to death with a baseball bat more than seven years ago. On 7 January 2004, Ross, then 21, called 911 to report that someone had murdered his parents. No weapon was ever found. The Supreme Court ruling described a pressure-packed investigation two days later in which a detective questioned Ross for hours without reading him his Miranda rights. The high court ruling states the detective deliberately delayed reading Ross his rights in an effort to obtain a confession, while assuring him that he was not under arrest, amounting to an involuntary confession. Specifically, law enforcement, over a period of several hours of custodial interrogation, deliberately delayed administration of the Miranda warning. According to the ruling, when Miranda warnings were administered “midstream,” detectives…

… minimized and downplayed the significance of the warnings and continued the prior interrogation — all of which undermined the effectiveness of Miranda.

There is another case in Florida that is a real puzzler. In Ramirez v. State, 1999 WL 506949, the Florida Supreme Court reviewed Nathan Ramirez’s conviction and death sentence for his role in the execution-style murder of Mildred Boroski, a 71-year-old widow. He and another man broke into her home, killed her dog, tied her to a bed and raped her. Then, they forced her into a car, dead dog and all, and drove her to a remote field where Ramirez shot her twice in the head.

Investigators with the police department discovered some of the woman’s possessions in Ramirez’s custody and asked him to go to the station for a taped interview. He agreed. The investigators began the interview without a Miranda warning because they thought he was only a witness rather than a murder suspect. Within a few minutes, he began to sing like a canary and one of the investigators stopped the interview to suggest he be Mirandized. The colleague immediately read Ramirez his rights which the (now) suspect acknowledged and waived. He proceeded to detail what transpired that day.

Sadly, the Florida Supreme Court reversed Ramirez’s conviction and sentence despite how careful and diligent the investigators were. Why? Four of the justices claimed that his Miranda warning was given in a manner that unconstitutionally minimized and downplayed the importance of his rights. They exploited his pre-Miranda admission about being in the house.

That’s bad enough, but back to the matter at hand. The most startling revelation made by Mason was his assertion that the first time Casey was Mirandized was not until 14 October 2008, when she was indicted on first-degree murder and other charges. I beg to differ with him. According to Casey’s ICJIS (fraud) Arrest Affidavit, she was read her Miranda warning by OCSO Detective Johan Anderson on 29 August 2008 at 2135 hours, or 9:35 pm:

I responded to 4937 Hopespring Drive and made contact with defendant Anthony. She was placed under arrest and transported to the Orange County Sheriff’s Office. I read defendant Anthony her Miranda Rights and she advised that she did not want to speak to me without her lawyer. I terminated my interview and she was transported to BRC without incident.

Whether she was read her rights prior to this date is not readily available, but the above log refers to the fraud charges only. In any event, technically, she was read her Miranda Rights prior to 14 October. Was she advised of her rights before this exchange occurred on 16 July 2008?¹

“What happened to Caylee,” an investigator asks on the tape.

“I don’t know,” Casey Anthony said.

“Sure you do,” and investigator said.

“I don’t know,” Anthony said.

“Listen, something happened to Caylee,” an investigator said. “We’re not going to discuss where the last time you saw her (was). I’m guessing something bad happened to her some time ago and you haven’t seen her, so that part is true — is you haven’t seen her because she’s somewhere else right now.”

“She’s with someone else right now,” Anthony said.

“She’s either in a Dumpster right now, she’s buried somewhere, she’s out there somewhere and her rotten body is starting to decompose because what you’re telling us…,” an investigator said. “Here’s the problem. The longer this goes, the worse it’s going to be for everyone. Right now, everything you’ve told us — we’ve locked you into a lie. Every single thing that you’ve told us has been a lie.”

If she wasn’t read her rights before being interrogated, this could be a real problem because, clearly, she was the only suspect that law enforcement had as evidenced by their line of questioning. They were already on to her tricks.

On the other hand…

When Linda Drane Burdick approached the podium, she calmly stated that at no time was Casey in custody - there was no custodial interrogation. When at Universal Studios, Cpl. Yuri Melich wrote in his arrest affidavit, interestingly dated July 15:

At this time, we found a small conference room in which to talk to the defendant. This conversation was also recorded. Prior to beginning this interview, we stressed that the door was unlocked and were in the room for privacy only. She understood and agreed to speak with us on tape.

At no point in the arrest affidavit was it written that Casey was read her Miranda Rights. If there was ever a time for a sinking feeling, it may have come in the courtroom on Monday if she was not read her rights. There’s something else. Cpl. Yuri Melich made this notation in his affidavit:

I first met with the defendant inside her residence and spoke with her alone and away from other family members. Before asking for a recorded statement, I reviewed her original four page written sworn statement and asked if this was her version of what happened. She said it was. I told her that the incident was very suspicious and her version suspect.

Later that day, several of Casey’s friends and boyfriends called OCSO to report what they knew. It was a shock to everyone that darling Caylee was missing. Melich continues:

Once at our central operations center, and after I started receiving the above phone calls reference the defendant and her child, the defendant was given one more opportunity to change her story. She did not. She was then placed under arrest for child neglect, and providing false information to us regarding this investigation.

The official charges were:

• Neglect of a child 827.03 (3)(C)
• False Official Statements 837.06
• Obstruct Criminal Investigation 837.055

However…

At no time did Casey express an interest in remaining silent. Initially, as Linda Drane Burdick was quick to assert, Casey was not a suspect in the disappearance of her child when she was briefly cuffed and held in the back seat “cage” of Dep. Acevedo’s patrol car. She was never suppressed inside her house, nor was she ever held without her permission. Of course, common sense tells you when an officer of the law carries on a conversation and/or asks you to do something, you’d better comply, so there are gray areas defense teams are trained to exploit. Rightfully, Burdick contended that law enforcement merely treated Casey as a possible witness to some sort of kidnapping and there was no reason to Mirandize her.

I think before we continue, it’s important to clarify the written statement made by Casey. It came before she was handcuffed and placed in the police car.

Here comes the judge…

While Mason was arguing his case, Judge Perry broke in and asked him if he was familiar with Parks v. State (1994). Mason said no, and the judge advised him to read it. Now, if you want my opinion, when a judge suggests something to read, you’re darned-tootin’ I’m going to read it! The mere fact that a judge mentions case law is ominously significant, so here is where I think the judge will go with his decision regarding Miranda…

In the case of Darryl Parks v. State, in the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District, the appellant appealed his convictions for first-degree murder and three counts of armed robbery. He asserted four issues on appeal:

1. whether appellant’s motion to suppress his confession should have been granted;
2. whether the trial court erroneously allowed an accomplice’s prior consistent statement into evidence;
3. whether the trial court erred in granting appellee’s peremptory challenge of a minority juror; and
4. whether prosecutorial statements in closing arguments amounted to a comment on appellant’s exercise of his right to remain silent.

The appeals court affirmed as to all issues. However, their affirmance of issues one and two did warrant discussion. The following is quoted directly from the ruling. I will highlight key points:

On January 16, 1991, an individual wearing a mask entered a business in Broward County, began waiving a gun, and demanded money. The gunman was joined shortly thereafter by a second individual. During the course of the robbery, the owner of the business was fatally shot.

Five days after the shooting, appellant was arrested on an unrelated robbery charge. He was brought to the Broward County Sheriff’s Department homicide office for questioning concerning the murder. He was handcuffed and shackled. However, doubts arose concerning whether there was sufficient probable cause for appellant’s arrest. It was decided that appellant would be released. Appellant was advised he was free to go, the handcuffs and shackles were removed, and he was offered a ride home. Thereafter, but prior to leaving, appellant was asked whether he would remain and talk about the shooting. Appellant said he would talk to the officers about it. After appellant was informed of his Miranda rights, he was questioned by detectives. During this questioning, appellant made incriminating statements concerning his involvement in the murder and robberies. Appellant said he was present and he only intended to rob the place. However, he admitted using a substandard quality gun and “it just went off.”

The evidence shows appellant freely and voluntarily gave his statement to police. Even if the police lacked probable cause for the arrest on the unrelated charge, the fact appellant was released from custody and voluntarily remained to answer questions breaks the causal link between the arrest and his making of the incriminating statements to police. Appellant’s agreement to discuss the crime when he was free to decline and go home was an act of free will sufficient to purge any possible taint from the arrest. We find the trial court properly denied the motion to suppress appellant’s incriminating statements.

Parks asserted that the trial court improperly allowed a prior statement by his accomplice into evidence to help build the case against him. The day after he was arrested for the murder, Terrance Batten was brought to the police station for questioning. After being informed of his Miranda Rights. He then gave a tape recorded statement to police which implicated himself and Parks in the murder. About 22 months later, Batten received a plea deal from the state.

At trial, Batten testified about the shooting and robberies. He said appellant shot the victim. On direct examination, Batten acknowledged he gave a statement to police shortly after the shooting. During cross-examination by defense counsel, Batten was extensively questioned about his plea deal with the state. The details of the deal were spelled out for the jury. Batten was also questioned about the circumstances surrounding his prior statement made to police. Batten acknowledged the detectives told him that they did not want him, but wanted appellant. Batten also acknowledged he was told if he did not cooperate, he would be charged with murder and sentenced to the electric chair. He admitted he was thinking if he gave a statement to the detectives he could go home, but if he did not give them a statement he was going to be held on the murder charge.

Defense counsel also questioned Batten about specific contents of his prior statement. Batten was asked about his comments concerning who he was with prior to the robbery. Defense counsel noted that Batten said in his statement to police he was cooperating because the victim was shot. Also, Batten acknowledged there is no mention of a mask in his prior statement.

During the testimony of one of the detectives who questioned Batten, the tape-recorded statement was admitted into evidence over defense objection. Defense counsel had argued the prior consistent statement itself was made after Batten had an improper motive. Therefore, it was inadmissible.

Here’s the clincher, though:

We agree with appellant that the prior consistent statement should not have been admitted into evidence. Generally, prior consistent statements are not admissible to corroborate a witness’ testimony. Jackson v. State, 498 So.2d 906 (Fla. 1986). An exception to the rule provides that such statements are admissible to rebut charges of improper influence, motive or recent fabrication against the witness. Id. at 910; see also § 90.801(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (1991). However, the prior consistent statement must be made “prior to the existence of a fact said to indicate bias, interest, corruption, or other motive to falsify.” Dawson v. State, 585 So.2d 443, 445 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).

We hold, however, that the erroneous admission of Batten’s tape recorded statement was harmless. The jury was aware of the existence of the prior statement. A reasonable jury could presume the prior statement was consistent with Batten’s in-court testimony. Further, defense counsel delved into some of the specifics of the statement, referring to actual comments made by Batten to police. Thus, portions of the statement were highlighted for the jury, by defense counsel, prior to the admission of the statement in its entirety.

These factors, in combination with appellant’s incriminating statements and testimony linking appellant to an item stolen in the robbery, convince us of the harmless nature of the trial court’s error. See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 1986). We therefore affirm appellant’s convictions on all counts.

AFFIRMED.

What does this tell me? Well, when Mason mentioned October 14 - and he did so twice - and the State did not counter, it sent a message. Two times and the prosecution came back with no response. I think the judge is going to allow Casey’s early statements to stand until a clearly defined moment surfaces that distinguishes her standing with the police. I believe that once Casey was asked to go to Universal with the detectives, or earlier, when Cpl. Melich told her of his suspicions, she should have been Mirandized. Therefore, from the wee hours of 16 July 2008 until she was finally read her rights, whatever she said could be tossed. What, you say? There’s no real need to worry. Consider this: After Casey lawyered up, what did she say? Nothing, really. Honestly, most of the really incriminating evidence came after Caylee was found in the woods, but other things like the “smells like a dead body in the damn car” evidence cannot be suppressed, nor can all of the statements made by her friends and lovers, especially Anthony Lazzaro. Linda Drane Burdick did a convincing job of keeping Casey a victim before the truth began to seep through her lies. At what point did the line cross from victim to suspect? That’s the key. Personally, I think custodial interrogation began when she told Orange County Sheriff’s Sgt. Reginald Hosey that her mother had blown the whole thing out of proportion. Huh? Your child is missing for a month and your mother is overreacting? On the stand last week, Hosey said the actions of his officers were guided by George and Cindy’s concerns over Casey’s very erratic behavior and the missing toddler. That would have done it for me. And that God-awful smell.

Either Way

While attending court on Wednesday, I noticed a big difference in how Casey’s defense presented itself as opposed to past hearings. It was a dramatic improvement. It was also the first time I saw Dorothy Clay Sims, the Ocala attorney who specializes in aggressive cross-examinations of medical experts. She joined Casey’s team in September of last year. We will be hearing much more from her as we approach the trial, I’m sure.

On Thursday, Judge Perry opened the hearing by admonishing the gallery. He reminded everyone he does not want to see any smirking or hear any snickering. This includes moans, sighs and any sort of reaction that deviates from quietly sitting still and behaving ourselves. One thing I admire about him is the manner in which he handles issues on the surface. He seems to be rather uncomfortable with singling any person or group out. I would imagine if and when it ever reaches that point, the person(s) on the receiving end won’t be happy.

Thus began the day filled with testimony from detectives, deputies, jailers and the two Anthony men. When I arrived on the 19th floor, I expected to see a good number of OCSO’s finest, and I did. The first one I noticed was Sgt. John Allen, the lead investigator of this case. We had warm greetings and a firm handshake as we crossed paths. If you recall, Sgt. Allen interviewed me in December 2009 and I’ve spoken with him several times by phone since then; the last call was made in November 2010 concerning an idiotic conspiracy being promulgated on another blog.

I have an awful lot of respect for Sgt. Allen for several reasons. He made me feel very comfortable during our initial meeting. He was professional and courteous. He knew how to ask the right questions and he allowed time to talk about other things of interest, some personal, but mostly about the case. For instance, when Casey was initially arrested and all leads pointed to finding a victim, he and over 100 law enforcement personnel continued to search around the country for a living Caylee. You could clearly sense his dedication, focus and concern. No one ever gave up hope until after her remains were found. What I walked away with that December day was a good understanding of the man and the challenges he faces every day. I recall how OCSO and other personnel were castigated by family members for not doing more to find Caylee, but I knew they were. All they wanted was the truth.

I also had an opportunity to speak briefly to Cmdr. Matt Irwin and Cpl. Yuri Melich. During a more lengthy break, I had a good conversation with another detective, Cpl. Eric Edwards. Great guys, all. Of course, nothing about the case was discussed. Actually, the police had to wait outside the courtroom for two days waiting to be called. It’s my understanding that during the entire time, they were in limbo. In other words, no working on any present investigations. Everything was on hold. It seems like so much wasted time, but such is the case when charges are filed and trials ensue. It comes with the territory.

Agents of the State?

Just like I wrote in my previous post, I do not intend to relate a play-by-play account of what transpired in the courtroom. I will proffer my thoughts on the overall scheme of events and what the defense was after. The day before, it was the Miranda warning. On Thursday, it was Agents of the State.

First off, I think the M.O. of a cop is pretty simple. Cops do what cops do. They investigate. They uphold the law. They do a lot more than that, but let’s just stick with investigating and upholding the law for now, especially when the defense questioned both job descriptions. I understand what Jose & Co. were engaging in and while Wednesday may offer them hope, I’m not all that sure about Thursday. Taking a look at one of the angles Jose pressed was how he took it personally when the detectives allegedly told George his daughter could have found a much better attorney. OK, fine. So what? As soon as Casey lawyered up, she wasn’t going to open up to authorities any longer. That’s a given. Who she hired meant nothing because any attorney worth his/her weight in salt would have severed direct communications with law enforcement personnel, so who it was and how good or bad the person was wouldn’t have mattered. Cops and criminal defense attorneys are like oil and vinegar. Anything the law wants to find out from that point on just ain’t gonna transpire.

Because police act the way they do, they usually try any trick in the book to find answers. That’s what private investigators do, too. Short of anything illegal, that’s the name of the game. If you ever watch COPS, you’ll know that any and all people involved in suspicious activity are questioned separately. More information is collected that way. In this case, detectives knew that George was once in law enforcement and, naturally, he would be a better fit when it came to collecting additional information. He understood the lingo. As for Lee… well, Lee is a different breed of animal, but I feel that law enforcement sensed his desire to pursue the field of investigative work. Whether he’s a cop wannabe or not, he created his own agenda. He sure played into their hands. Remember, Dominic Casey told him to work on becoming a PI. There were two willing family members with George and Lee. Where it gets tricky is when the OCSO detectives offered to pick up George and drive him to the county jail to see his daughter, knowing that Baez was out-of-town. That in itself is not a big deal, but it is sneaky. Still, it’s nothing illegal. Where it becomes an issue, in my opinion, is when the detectives told Jose under oath that driving George to the jail was not an official trip. It was only to help him find the truth.

Hold on for a second… Uh… Hmm. Not an official trip. It most certainly was an official trip for four reasons:

1. It was a county vehicle filled with gas paid for by the county.
2. It was tape recorded without George’s knowledge.
3. George was accompanied by two detectives and one FBI agent.
4. Everything law enforcement does related to an investigation is most certainly part of the investigation.

Astutely, Jose asked why they would tape record the trip if it was not part of an investigation. He asked if any of them had ever done the same thing for any other person. Was it done out of the goodness of their hearts? He also put one of his former attorneys on the stand. Gabriel Adam may have had a problem with attorney/client privilege, but he was quick to point out the strange goings-on at the jail that day. Why was he not allowed to see Casey until much later? Because the detectives were in the building, setting up an appointment with dear old dad.¹ In the end, she did not see her father that day, she listened to her attorney’s advice, but I still find something to be a little bit problematic. Why say it wasn’t part of any investigation when, in fact, it was? That’s what cops do, after all. Is it enough to win the motion for the defense? No, not in my opinion and I’ll tell you why. While little lies may come into play during the trial, at issue now is whether the Anthony family was surreptitiously swallowed up by law enforcement to, unwittingly, do dirty deeds at their behest. Did they become Agents of the State?

No.

As desperate as law enforcement was to find the answers, so were the Anthonys. On the stand, all members of the family said they would have done anything to bring Caylee home. This was long before she was found. As a matter of fact, here is a direct quote from George:

“I would have sold my soul to the devil to get my grandchild back.”

They were in complete agony, yes, but as far as I’m concerned, if the Anthonys were Agents of the State, those detectives were just as much Agents for the Anthonys. Yuri Melich and John Allen were the only security blankets the family had at the time, if not all of them, then certainly George. What those detectives did was what they do every day. Sgt. Allen summed it up nicely:

“We were doing this at their request but certainly anything that if we had got of evidentiary value we would have used it and turned it over to the prosecutors.”

Another potential issue is the letter Casey wrote to then Sheriff Kevin Beary. Did the detectives coerce George into convincing her to do it without Jose Baez’s knowledge? Even so, should it matter? No one twisted her arm, and the police had no direct contact. That’s why this “agent” thing is such a big deal to the defense. If they can link the police directly to Casey, it could, potentially, mess with attorney/client privilege. Sgt. Allen told Lee on numerous occasions that “she has an attorney, we can’t talk to her but you can.”

Will the defense win this one? I’m inclined to think not. Everything up to that point was done voluntarily, all players were adults, and they shared one common goal - to bring Caylee home. The Anthonys were willing to do whatever it took and, in the end, the bottom line is simple. The police work for us. Right?

§

One of the nice things about being able to sit in the courtroom is that there is so much more to see than what’s viewed on television. The added depth and dimension are huge advantages. Jose posed a hypothetical question to George. He wanted to know, if he was subpoenaed to testify in court next week, knowing that if he chooses not to attend, it would save his daughter’s life, what would he do? Linda Drane Burdick vehemently objected. The judge overruled and wanted to know George’s answer. He told the prosecutor it could be discussed in a sidebar after he answered the question. Jose asked him again. George replied that he would stay away from court and risk it all, including any form of punishment, if it meant it would save Casey’s life. He broke down on the stand and cried all the way out the door after he was excused.

Ultimately, the judge overruled the prosecutor again after the sidebar, but what you couldn’t see or sense on TV was the emotional state of the gallery at that precise moment in time. The cameras couldn’t show you the welling tears of some of the spectators. It was then that we really felt the agony inside of that man. It was real. For whatever you think of him, this is something we can never deny.

If the defense succeeds in acquitting Casey, one thing is certain. It will never be the same. As cruel and distant as she has become toward her family, who she ignores, she will most assuredly never, ever go back to Hopespring Drive and what she left behind. No, George, she may win, but you will never be able to go back. Either way, for you, Cindy and Lee, it will be a lose/lose situation. Caylee already lost.

I want to say hello and thank you to my courtroom friends on Wednesday and Thursday. I had planned on attending Friday, too, but I had other obligations that almost slipped my mind. Hello to Diana in Asheville! I wish we would have had more time to talk. To Gloria and Jim, I enjoyed our “lunch” together and I look forward to hearing from you soon. And to Melinda and Pam, I really, really enjoyed your company.

¹When Gabriel Adam was through testifying, including the cross-examination, Judge Perry took the unprecedented step of continuing to probe him about his visit with his client. This may not bode well for the State. Something got his attention.

Arresting Development?

 

There are two basic Miranda warnings. One is quite minimal and the other is more verbose:

• You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense.

• You have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions. Do you understand? Anything you do say may be used against you in a court of law. Do you understand? You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future. Do you understand? If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish. Do you understand? If you decide to answer questions now without an attorney present you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney. Do you understand? Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present?

The general rule is that the first one is just an announcement of your rights, whether under arrest or not, and the second one is primarily to cover the bases a detainee might encounter while in police custody.

We have rights under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but do we know each one of them by heart? Way back in 1963, Ernesto Miranda was accused of kidnapping and raping an 18-year-old woman. When brought in for questioning, he confessed. He was never told that he had rights at all. He was never told he didn’t have to speak to the police or that he could have had an attorney present. At trial, his counsel attempted to get the confession thrown out, but the motion was denied. In 1966, the case went before the U.S. Supreme Court, which ultimately ruled that Miranda’s statements to law enforcement could not be used as evidence since he had not been advised of his rights.

Since then, before any pertinent questioning of a suspect is done, officers of the law have been required to recite the Miranda warning. The above statements have the same key elements: the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. When you have been read your rights, you have been Mirandized.

Of great importance is the difference between being arrested and being questioned. When law enforcement asks you anything - anything at all, you have the right to remain silent. Period. Of course, this doesn’t include answering basic questions such as your name, address and other relevant information regarding your identity. Also, bear in mind that if you are not a suspect, the police do not need to Mirandize you.

At issue with Casey, and of great importance to her defense, is the precise moment when she shifted from being a person of interest (which could mean just about anything) to becoming a full-blown suspect involved in a crime. To be certain, prior to her being questioned, she was already suspected of stealing. That quickly changed when law enforcement learned of Caylee’s disappearance and possible kidnapping. What is so relevant at this point is the time investigators turned around and looked at her as a suspect. There are no clear-cut definitions; it is a gray area, but no doubt, police are trained to be suspicious of their own mothers, so after Casey told her first lie, the gloves came off and she became a prime target of investigation. What her defense did today was to paint her as a sitting duck, and there may be some weight to it. Were Orange County’s finest required to read Casey her rights before firing away, if just as a precaution? That’s what we are about to find out.

When Deputy Ryan Eberlin told defense attorneys on the stand today that he initially handcuffed Casey on July 15, 2008 and put her in the back of a patrol car - the “cage”, should he have read her her rights, right then and there? Remember, that would not have signified that she was under arrest. At that moment, the crux of the investigation was over a missing toddler, right? Yes, but Cindy had just showed him receipts that virtually indicted Casey of fraudulent use of her credit cards. She said she wanted to press charges against her daughter. It was at this moment the cuffs went on. Time to be Mirandized. She was a suspect in a crime.

This could be big. I have tried to maintain a decent semblance of neutrality throughout this trying case, although I will admit I falter at times, but I have got to admit that this could be problematic for the State. To be blunt, Jose Baez and Cheney Mason were very good in the courtroom today and I have to call it like I saw it. Give them their day in the sun, but don’t get in an uproar over my revelation, not quite yet, anyway. We don’t know how the judge will rule. There’s still much more testimony to come, but if he rules in favor of the defense, it means initial questions will be tossed. However, keep one important factor in the back of your mind…

Ernesto Miranda. Oh yes, his conviction was thrown out, alright, but he didn’t walk away a free man. Law enforcement still had tons of other evidence that was completely independent of the confession. When he was tried the second time, he was convicted again, and after his release, he was killed in a barroom fight.

Just remember, the State of Florida is still sitting on lots of other evidence against Casey.

§

There is much more I could address, but it was a long day. One little morsel of interest, I’m sure… Diana Tennis is no longer representing Dominic Casey. He is out of the woods, so to speak, and Ms. Tennis is free to say and write whatever she wants about the case.

Also, the State submitted two photographs into evidence. The defense objected, but Judge Perry overruled. The first one shows a happy Casey taken at OCSO Operations Center. The second one is walking out into the lobby to exit the building. Could the first one infer that she’s a mother not too worried about her toddler?

 

I’m going to bed. It’s going to be a long day tomorrow, I’m sure.

The Strange Tale of the Missing Deadlines

…OR, WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS A FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE

Last month, Jose Baez was sanctioned and fined $583.73 for not complying with a court order. The Court had granted the State’s request for additional defense discovery on December 3, 2010 nunc pro tunc (retroactive to) November 29, 2010. The order specified what information the defense was to provide regarding expert witnesses they planned to have testify during the trial. What the defense gave the State fell far short of the order and the prosecution filed the motion for sanctions. Ultimately, Judge Perry wrote, “The Court finds that defense counsel Jose Baez has committed a willful violation of the Order to provide additional discovery…¹”

COMES NOW, a new motion was filed by the State requesting the judge to hold Jose in contempt of court for missing yet another deadline. Titled the MOTION FOR RULE TO SHOW CAUSE, it accuses him of failing to comply with paragraph five of the Court’s February 7 order:

Frye Hearings: The motions addressing Frye issues pertaining to scientific evidence shall be held on March 23, 24, and 25, 2011. The court will provide a schedule to counsel as to the order in which each motion will be heard. By February 17, 2011 at 4:00 p.m., defense counsel shall submit to the Court and State in writing, the specific issues that will be objected to in accordance with Frye, including, but not limited to, those objections previously addressed in the motions.

What happened? While there’s no doubt in my mind the defense has been rather flippant about orders and deadlines, why would Jose & Co. ignore this one and plead bewilderment as he did in his e-mail to the judge’s judicial assistant? After all, the order is very clear, isn’t it?

As I mentioned in my last article pertaining to Frye and chloroform evidence, I wrote that I would discuss the scientific and legal aspects of the motion the defense filed and a subsequent rebuttal motion filed by the prosecution, the MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE UNRELIABLE EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO FYRE [sic] (CHLOROFORM). This new motion filed by the State takes precedent at the moment, but in essence, there were two separate Frye motions filed by defense. The second one pertains to plant and root growth evidence, and that includes another rebuttal by the State, the MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE UNRELIABLE EVIDENCE (PLANT OR ROOT GROWTH). To keep confusion to a minimum, this post will strictly address the contempt motion and the what, the whys and the hows. How and why did the defense let another deadline slip by? My God, what were they thinking?

A LITTLE BACKGROUND

To say that Assistant State Attorney Jeff Ashton is hot-headed and impatient is sometimes an understatement. He’s also a stickler for detail. Trust me, I’ve had plenty of opportunities to observe him in the courtroom. However, my intent is not to denigrate him in the least, because, at the same time, it’s his convictions and close attention to detail that make him so good at what he does; and every defense attorney who’s ever crossed his path should be well aware of the fact, especially the likes of Cheney Mason, with many years of criminal defense experience under his belt. Ashton is just not going to let things slip by. He’s sharper than a knife. Besides, it’s the job of the prosecution to slam dunk any defense whenever it can in order to achieve justice for the people; especially in this case because of the here and now, the age and innocence of the victim, and the nature of the crime. They don’t charge people unless they think there’s enough evidence to convict. Of course, all crimes are worth fighting and this one is no different, but a prosecutor’s objective is quite clear; JUSTICE, JUSTICE, JUSTICE. A courtroom is a battleground, and it’s up to both sides to keep the opposition on its toes. So far, the State has done an excellent job. The Defense? Well, that’s another story.

By now, most of us would acknowledge that Jose Baez came to this case quite green and wet behind the ears. Cheney Mason, on the other hand, had been around. His Website states that he began his private practice in 1971 after admission to the Florida Bar. That’s 40 years ago. He’s been in Orlando all this time, so he should recognize most of the quirks and traits of district court judges and assistant state prosecutors. He’s no novice in the courtroom, in other words, but from what I have seen and heard thus far from several powerful attorneys and my own careful observations, he is more of a legend in his own mind than he is for real. That’s not to say he hasn’t had his moments, but as much of a leader as he is supposed to be, I haven’t seen it factor in quite yet. To make clear his role in this case, and Jose should understand this because of his naval background, Mason is the seasoned admiral and Baez is at the helm. Just because an admiral boards a ship doesn’t mean he takes control of the vessel, in this case the SS Casey. Baez is the commander until he’s relieved of duty, and that’s not going to happen.

I think it’s safe to say that, from the onset, the defense has had a rough go of things and it goes way deeper than many of the superfluous motions that have been filed and other errors in judgment. Let’s face it, whoever took the mantle was going to be the target of attacks from a hungry public hell-bent on justice. It’s the nature of the beast, and we all know the natives were restless from day 1 and still are. There will be no let-up until Casey is convicted. That’s a given, so no matter what the defense team does, they’re forever wrong. Since Jose is always the fall guy, I’m going to look into the contempt motion through as neutral a stance as I possibly can and let you decide.

CONTEMPT! CONTEMPT! CONTEMPT!

Both of the defense motions requesting Frye hearings were filed on December 30, 2010 - seven weeks before the contempt motion. To be succinct, they have been firmly in the hands of the Ninth Circuit Court since that date. Now, if I filed motions, I reckon it should be a safe bet that unless I make changes, those motions might stand. Stet is the Latin word for it. If I am given an opportunity to make changes and I don’t, why would I ever have to refile the same, meaning identical, motions? In his query to the court after the deadline passed and Ashton called him on the carpet, Baez wrote:

Jill:

Can you please ask the Judge the following:

We are a bit confused.  Mr. Ashton just asked me about my objections to Frye. When I read the order from the status hearing. I understood it to mean that if we were objecting to anything not in our motion that it should be in writing, that was also my understanding as to what was discussed at the status hearing.  I have also discussed the matter with Mr. Mason and he is just as confused if not more.  Our objections are clearly laid out in our motions.  If I had any other objections I would raise them after reading the State’s response but they have not filed one yet.  If the Court is requesting that we do something additional we would like to be heard in chambers to clear up the matter.  Otherwise I think the logical choice would be to wait until the State files their response, so that we can be even more specific as to the issues to be heard.

Sincerely,

Jose Baez

For sure, this is a major failure to communicate, but if we extrapolate, meaning to infer from what we know to be true, there’s an obvious snafu - we are left with a badly confused, ridiculously muddled, situation. BOINK!

Once again, the defense should realize by now that the prosecution is going to jump at the chance of a legal mistake. We have seen it time and time again, and in his contempt motion, Ashton strongly reiterated what the judge said in his order; “… including, but not limited to, those objections previously addressed in the motions.” That’s as clear as day.

Here is where the defense failed to grasp the wording and follow the judge’s edict. Do I understand what went wrong? Of course I do. The bottom line was that the defense interpreted paragraph five as meaning, if there are no changes in the first motions we filed, why file them again? Why not wait until the State files its rebuttal motions and then refile them? Clearly, the defense noted its intent in the original motions, including ISSUES UNDER FRYE and LEGAL ARGUMENTS. To send the same thing over again would be redundant. I concur. However, and that’s a big however, that doesn’t mean the defense is blameless and should be let off the hook. At the same time, should the judge hold the defense in contempt of court? There are a lot of things involved here. The prosecutor is quick on the draw. The defense must know this. The judge is getting sick of the mistakes, too.

Judge Perry made it quite clear in his order, but I believe it could have been written more concisely, given the propensity of this defense to become addled and not follow directions to the letter of the law. When I read and reread the paragraph time and time again, I could see where the defense misinterpreted it, but the following are my words:

If we are going to make any changes to the original motions, then we must rewrite the entire motions and not just attach addenda to the first ones as separate documents. We should wait until the State files its rebuttals, too, then rewrite the entire thing.

Unfortunately, that’s not at all what the judge asked for, and what it tells me, once again, is that the defense is not following up; it’s not paying attention to detail and here’s why - Had I not completely understood what the judge wrote, and I can see where it could be a problem, I would contact his assistant right away for clarification. That’s the first and right thing to do. Hey, Judge, do you mean to file them again even if we have no changes? I mean, after all, we aren’t going to make any changes until we hear from the State.

The only thing is, the State DID file rebuttal motions on February 15 and I said so in my very own paragraph number five. They are the MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE UNRELIABLE EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO FYRE (CHLOROFORM) and the MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE UNRELIABLE EVIDENCE (PLANT OR ROOT GROWTH). That gave the defense two days to reply or to call the SAO or the judicial assistant for direction. Was that enough time? The judge will decide, and he will have to weigh this new MOTION FOR RULE TO SHOW CAUSE because, in my opinion, it could go either way. Judge Perry must be getting tired of the Mickey Mouse antics of the defense, but he also knows the team is up to its ears in complications, and when the more experienced attorney is more confused than the lesser, well, what more needs to be said?

From the FRYE pan into the FYRE? Part I

Next month, two motions filed by the defense will be heard by Judge Perry. Because they are very important Frye issues, and of extreme importance to the defense, this post will focus on the motion about chloroform evidence. It will be in two parts.

PART I - The Frye Pan

Casey’s defense recently filed two Frye motions. The date reflects when they were filed with the Clerk of Courts. Both are stamped 12/30/2010.

MOTION TO EXCLUDE UNRELIABLE EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO FRYE, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE (CHLOROFORM)

and

MOTION TO EXCLUDE UNRELIABLE EVIDENCE (Plant or root growth evidence)

The state filed motions to strike, but today, I will just focus on the issue over chloroform. The other motions (defense and state) will come later, because in this particular one, there is much to discern, including a few errors. I will get to them, but first of all, what, exactly, is a Frye motion/hearing? Frye motions are generally held in limine, which means they are made before a trial starts. The judge then decides whether certain evidence may or may not be introduced to the jury. The Frye standard is a test to determine the admissibility of scientific evidence in legal proceedings. This standard comes from the case Frye v. United States (293 F. 1013 (DC Cir 1923) District of Columbia Circuit Court in 1923. Frye v. U.S. was a groundbreaking case that argued the admissibility of polygraph tests as evidence in a trial. Today, it’s designed to prevent both sides from unfairly exploiting expert testimony. Its intent is to assure that expert evidence is reliable.

In its motion, the defense cites Florida Statutes 90.401, 90.402 and 90.403, Amendments 5 and 14 of the U.S. Constitution, and Article 1, Section 9 of the Florida Constitution. Let’s take a look:

• 90.401 Definition of relevant evidence. — Relevant evidence is evidence tending to prove or disprove a material fact.
• 90.402  Admissibility of relevant evidence. — All relevant evidence is admissible, except as provided by law.
• 90.403  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. This section shall not be construed to mean that evidence of the existence of available third-party benefits is inadmissible.
• Amendment V — No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
• Amendment XIV — All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
• Article 1, Section 9 — Due process.—No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, or be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense, or be compelled in any criminal matter to be a witness against oneself.

The first two Florida Statutes, I would imagine, were cited by the defense for the purpose of propping up the third, which questions the admissibility of evidence that may prejudice or confuse the jury. In the case of this motion, it’s chloroform evidence found in the trunk of Casey’s car the defense is questioning, specifically carpet and air samples.

After the preliminary introduction of the motion, the defense moved on to FACTS about the case:

FACTS

1. Miss Anthony is charged with First Degree Murder. The State of Florida has announced it’s [sic] intent to seek the ultimate penalty of death.
2. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory conducted tests on carpet samples and air samples taken from a vehicle (Pontiac Sunfire) driven by Miss Anthony at or near the time of the disappearance of her daughter Caylee Anthony.
3. Dr. Arvad Vass reported in his preliminary and final reports that there were unusually high levels of chloroform found on the carpet samples taken from the Pontiac Sunfire.
4. Dr. Vass additionally states that the levels of chloroform are much higher than normally found in decompositional events.
5. This information prompted investigators to search the Anthony family computer for searches of chloroform, which yielded positive results for “chloroform” and “how to make chloroform.” The hysteria begins.

Before I delve too deeply into the motion, remember the defense cited the above as FACTS, not assumptions or speculations made by Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Where it completely strayed from the truth is the final statement of fact, “The hysteria begins.” From there, it turned into a giant smoke screen. The defense went into, well, a defense mode, which is what is expected.

FACTS PART II: UNCOVERING THE FRAUD

In FACTS PART II: UNCOVERING THE FRAUD, law enforcement was accused of intentionally leaking information to the local and national media prior to “any official reports through the natural course of discovery.” I will acknowledge learning of the death smell from the news sometime in August of 2008, so there may be some merit to this particular aspect of the complaint. However, this information would have been released anyway, so it was not, by any means, an attempt to “either satisfy their own vanity or poison any potential jury pool” as the defense stated. Today, it’s two-and-a-half years later, and a fair jury will be seated in May come hell or high water.

What puzzles me at this point of the motion is how the defense contradicts itself. In FACTS PART II, they wrote that they traveled to Tennessee and took depositions from Dr. Arpad Vass and Dr. Marcus Wise. Both testified that the tests on the carpet sample were “qualitative” and not “quantitative.” One way to simplify this is to say it’s the motion in the ocean, not the size of the ship; but at the same time, no one is going to sail around the world in a canoe. That’s not to say flat out that the SS Casey is sinking, but it’s definitely listing. The smokesreen in this example comes from the statements that, “It should be noted that the Oak Ridge National Laboratory also took carpet samples from two Pontiac Sunfires… [and] one of the sample cars they tested ALSO had chloroform in the sample,” and “Dr. Vass, who is the author of the ORNL report is NOT a forensic chemist.” In my opinion, one not need be a forensic chemist to analyze chemical breakdowns. Dr. Vass could readily make analytical conclusions from tests of all kinds, and my guess would be that plenty of them have nothing to do with crime. Industrial spies, for example, have been tackling the secret recipe of KFC chicken and McDonald’s Special Sauce for years and years. That’s not forensics, but it takes real life chemists to break into the “Da Vinci Codes” of restaurant chain trade secrets. Who knows, maybe Dr. Vass could find out what’s really in Taco Bell’s beef. Now, that’s something that matters. Of course, it’s a civil matter, not criminal.

In the motion, the defense noted that the FBI Chemistry Unit in Quantico, Virginia, had tested four samples of the carpet and two of the four were “consistent with chloroform.” Dr. Michael Richenbach, Ph.D, told the defense during his deposition that “consistent with” means that the presumptive test results were positive, but the conclusive tests were not. Aside from all of the scientific mumbo jumbo, of which I will spare you the boredom, the point being made by the defense is, in a nutshell, that the results from ORNL and the FBI were different. Therefore, the results should be tossed out. In my opinion, the most consistent point to be made about this case to date has been the consistency of the two presiding judges, and ultimately, Judge Perry will leave it up to both sides to argue and let the jury take it from there. Laws around the country not only protect cross examinations, they encourage them, and this case is no different. The defense will have ample opportunity to shred the state’s evidence to pieces.

Here’s another interesting smokescreen, but I do not think the State, nor the judge, will fall for it. The motion makes it clear that “the other items tested by the FBI for chloroform (baby doll, steering wheel cover, and child car seat) all yielded negative results.” True, but the cab of Casey’s vehicle was separated from the trunk by a back seat. How much seepage should there have been? Police officers have been trained for years to detect the odor of marijuana in a car, and I’m talking about fresh, not smoked. It does have a pungent odor unlike anything else. While standing by the driver’s door, window down, would the officer smell it if it was tucked away in the trunk? No, probably not, but the nervousness of the occupants would be a sure sign that something’s not right. How much chloroform would it take to be overwhelming? I mean, it’s not even close to the smell of decomposition. Talk about pungent odors.

COMPUTER SEARCHES

Law enforcement ascertained that someone inside of the Anthony home searched for chloroform and chloroform recipes three months prior to Caylee’s disappearance. This is why it’s so important for the defense to crush this evidence, along with the air and carpet samples. This is highly incriminating. The defense wrote:

• Any forensic computer examiner including the ones in this case (Sandra Cawn and Kevin Stenger) will testify that you can never determine who ran what searches on a computer, especially when the computer is NOT password protected.

Okay, in and of itself, that may be true, but more about that in a couple of seconds. Incidentally, Cawn and Stenger work for OCSO and I think they know a thing or two about  computer forensics.

• The computer in question was in a “guest bedroom” and all family members not only had access to the computer, but also testified that they used the computer as well as guests who visited their home.
• Law enforcement cannot ascertain whether Miss Anthony was even home at the time the searches [were] run much less on the computer.

Now, had Judge Perry been born in the 19th century, the defense might be able to pull the wool over his eyes, but he wasn’t; nor was he born yesterday. Yes, of course the computer could have been accessed by anyone, but it is inside the Anthony home, and it’s a desktop, not a portable laptop, which could be moved around the house. By utilizing something simple, like a process of elimination, investigators can sift through a myriad of things, including time sheets. March 21, 2008, was a Friday - a work day. What time of day did the searches occur? I’ll bet you OCSO knows. If Cindy, George and Lee were not inside the house, it incriminates Casey, and with no other source, like a friend who has yet to come forward, her ship is really listing.

Here’s something the defense wrote that struck me as peculiar:

• The Oak Ridge National Laboratories (Some reports erroneously called them “body farm” perhaps for more shock appeal) reported unusually high amounts of chloroform in the trunk of Casey Anthony’s car.

What I would like to do is take to task the remark about erroneously calling ORNL a Body Farm for more shock appeal. In my opinion, the defense is trying to directly infer that the term Body Farm was something new and never used before. I assure you, that is not the truth. I can tell you I heard about the Body Farm long before I heard about the Anthony case and, as a matter of fact, thanks to my Gainesville friend, nika1, I am in the possession of a book titled, BEYOND THE BODY FARM, written by Dr. Bill Bass and Jon Jefferson. So what, you say? Yes, so what. The book was published in 2007, a year before Casey’s defense knew who she was. Jefferson & Bass (as Jefferson Bass) have written four novels about the Body Farm. The first one, Carved in Bone, was released in January 2006. In 2003, Bass & Jefferson released their first scientific book about it, Death’s Acre. To go further back in time, crime writer Patricia Cornwell published The Body Farm in 1994. She drew her inspiration from Dr. Bass and his work. As a matter of fact, he is recognized as the father of the Body Farm, long before Jose Baez was practicing law.

Why did I title this post From the Frye pan into the Fyre, you ask? Even the prosecution misspells…

MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE UNRELIABLE EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO FYRE (CHLOROFORM)

In the second part of this article about chloroform evidence admission, I will delve into the scientific and legal aspects:

PART II - The FYRE

This information prompted investigators to search the Anthony family computer [duh?] for searches of chloroform, which yielded positive results for “chloroform” and “how to make chloroform.” The hysteria begins.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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