Pie in the sky?

The term “pie in the sky” originally meant to be a promise of heaven while continuing to suffer through living in the material world. It was coined by Joe Hill in a song written by him in 1911. Joe was a Swedish-born itinerant laborer who migrated to the United States in 1902. The Web site The Phrase Finder described his songs as radical as he fought for labor organizations. “The phrase appeared first in Hill’s ‘The Preacher and the Slave’, which parodied the Salvation Army hymn ‘In the Sweet Bye and Bye’. The song, which criticized the Army’s theology and philosophy, specifically their concentration on the salvation of souls rather than the feeding of the hungry, was popular when first recorded and remained so for some years.”

You will eat, bye and bye,
In that glorious land above the sky;
Work and pray, live on hay,
You’ll get pie in the sky when you die.

Today, pie in the sky can allude to many things, such as asking for more than you end up with or expect, for that matter. You may ask for the sky and end up with pie, which is better than nothing. It reminds me of an experience I had while selling advertising for a newspaper many years ago. Ed Mack, now gone, was the editor. He was also a member of the Rotary, the Chamber of Commerce and very active in the Hunterdon County YMCA, volunteering many hours of his personal time.

Ed and I got along great. A wall about 7 feet high is all that separated the editorial department from advertising and my desk sat closest to the line of demarcation. The ceiling was high, so we could hear each other as one side got stories and the other sold ads.

One afternoon, Ed came over to my side with an idea. Bear in mind, in the world of newspapers, in particular, a common argument prevailed and it probably still does to this very day. The Advertising Department pays the salaries, we’d cry, while the Editorial Department would adamantly point out that its news that sells a newspaper and without news, there would be no newspaper. In the end, those key points were muted by the mere fact that, either way, we had jobs, and that’s what mattered most. Today, it’s not so easy.

Ed knew that I was a member of the now defunct Flemington Area Jaycees. On this particular afternoon, he wanted to know if I could get a band of fellow Jaycees together to man phones at the telephone company, which had already given its permission to do so. It was a simple request. The intent was to ask for donations from members of the Y and the general population in order to build the first installment of a large complex that was in the works, an Olympic-sized swimming pool to the tune of $150,000. He knew I was an officer of the club and, with mild coaxing, that I could easily table the idea at our next meeting. Sure thing, I said, and to fast forward, about 8 or 9 of us showed up to sit in open booths at the phone company the following month. Ed was the man in charge and he gave us stacks of 3” x 5” filing cards with the names, addresses and phone numbers of potential donors. My close friend, Frank Foran, was and still is a top-notch sales rep, and he was in fitting form for the occasion.

Of course, we all focused on the cards we had. Initially, I called people and introduced myself as a member of the Flemington Jaycees and that we were proudly supporting the YMCA in their effort to bring our area a large and highly professional educational and recreational sports facility. We all know the Y. All of Hunterdon County would shine because of it. Perhaps you saw it written up in the newspaper? Oh, yes, of course you did. Well, the first leg is the swimming pool and we need to raise $150,000. Could you please help out by donating $50 toward our goal? No? How about $25? No? Yes, I understand times are tough. [Gee, that was back in the late 70s.] OK, well, thank you, and if you can ever help, please call me at the newspaper and I will make sure you are contacted by the right people. That meant Ed, whose office was a mere stone’s throw away from my desk.

After about a half-dozen disappointing phone calls begging for money, I got zero results and I thought about it. I had to change my tune or I would end up a major flop to the man who was directly under the publisher, my employer. This wouldn’t sit well with Bengt Gaterud, the sales manager, either. I rewrote some of the lyrics. I had my eye in the sky for pie in the sky.

Hi, I said, as I gave the same opening spiel with the hundred-and-fifty grand price tag. There was no need to change that, but when they asked me how much I was expecting them to give, it wasn’t $25 or $50 I requested. Instead, I asked for $2,000. Yes, $2,000 would be great. Of course, they exploded with raw emotion.

“Two thousand dollars?!!! You gotta be nuts! I can’t afford anything like that!”

“OK, how about a thousand?”

“You gotta be kidding me?”

“No, I’m serious. How about fifty?

“Fifty, you got it.”

And with that change in tactics - the rapid-fire subtle suggestions, I ended up making the second-most money of the night and it was a huge success. Of course, Frank made the most, and no one expected less from him. He’s that good.

The next morning, Ed and I purposely crossed paths. He thanked me and the fellow Jaycees. I asked him how well we did. He said it was huge, a lot more than he figured. He told me one other thing.

“I don’t know what you did, Dave, but I gave you a list of deadbeats. I didn’t expect you to make any money at all, but you came in second. I gave you that list because you are a salesperson for this newspaper. I wanted to see what you had in you. You really surprised me.”

OK, now you may think I’m strutting my stuff, but I’m not. As long as I’ve known Frank, he’s encouraged me to go into sales. When he’s 95-years-old and I’m 90, I can hear him in his decrepid, soft and gravelly voice, “Dave, you need to go into sales.”

I never will. I’ve found my niche; it’s writing, and there’s a point to my story - the case against Casey. I constantly hear from people who think she deserves the death penalty, but won’t get it. Some people think she should get life without parole so she can live out her days in prison, wallowing in the memories of her precious daughter and what she, herself, could have become in life. Some people don’t think she’s guilty of murder, but none of that is my point. To use the old cliché and cut to the chase, the state has requested the death penalty. Does the state seriously intend to execute her? You bet, or it wouldn’t have been placed on the table to begin with. This ain’t no dress rehearsal, as my old friend Tom Corkhill always said. This is the real deal, only there is a ‘what if’ formula here, just in case. Because of the death penalty, the jury must be made up of people willing to sentence a person to death. It doesn’t automatically mean they will, but means they might be more prone to finding her guilty. The odds increase exponentially with a death qualified jury and the state knows it. There’s the sky, but will the aim be too high?

In the end, the defense is going to put on a much better show than originally anticipated by us, the general public. Perhaps, in all their seasoned wisdom, the state knew that as time went on in the sweet by and by, things would get tougher. Today, with the recent addition of several more well-seasoned defense attorneys, please allow me one more cliché. I think that, from now on, this is not going to be a piece of cake for the state.

Baez team announces new attorneys

The Baez Law Firm announced last week that Dorothy Clay Sims, an attorney specializing in cross-examining medical expert witnesses, had joined Casey Anthony’s defense team pro bono.  She specializes in debunking junk science and cross-examining medical experts. She is a founding partner of the law firm Sims & Stakenborg in Ocala, Florida and was the first woman chair of the Worker’s Compensation Section of the Florida Bar. Orlando attorney William Jay, who represents Anthony Lazzaro, said that she has been known to anger forensic experts.

At a press conference this morning, Sims said she hasn’t owned a television in more than ten years and has kept herself up-to-date with the case through the Internet.

Also at this morning’s press conference, Jose Baez announced the addition of two new pro bono attorneys, one to handle her civil case, and the other to help challenge the state’s demand for the death penalty.

Civil attorney Charles M. Greene, of The Law Offices of Charles M. Greene, P.A. replaces Jonathan Kasen, who had been representing Casey in the civil lawsuit filed by Zenaida Gonzalez through attorney John Morgan, of Morgan & Morgan. Greene specializes in a variety of civil and criminal legal areas, including criminal defense, civil litigation, trial practice and product liability.

Ann E. Finnell graduated from Duke University and the University of Florida School of Law. According to her Web site, she “has handled homicide and death penalty cases since 1981.  She specializes in complex homicide litigation including death penalty mitigation.  In addition, she has tried serious felony cases including second degree murder and manslaughter cases, capital sexual battery, and other sexual battery cases, kidnapping, armed robbery, armed burglary and violent personal crimes.”

She was featured in a 2002 documentary that won an Oscar. The film, Murder on a Sunday Morning, chronicled the successful defense of young man falsely charged of murder. She is very experienced. Baez noted that she will serve as the defense team’s death penalty expert. “Her experience is second to none,” he noted this morning.

Casey Anthony’s defense is filling up with distinguished attorneys. No matter how dumb anyone thinks Jose Baez and Cheney Mason are, they know how to surround themselves with smart lawyers who specialize in areas where they need the most help. I wouldn’t call those stupid moves. Not in the least.

Here’s some food for thought. It’s not the same as the Anthony case, but it illustrates how trials sometimes work. Originally, there was speculation that Miami attorney Roy Black would be joining the team. That turned out to be nothing more than a rumor, but in the criminal evidence workshop he runs at the University of Miami School of Law, he likes to cite a favorite example of a courtroom experience from some 50-plus years ago. An attorney was representing a murder suspect in a case where no body was found. He announced to the jury that the victim would be walking through the courtroom door at that very moment. When the jury turned to look, the attorney said that their turning proved reasonable doubt existed. Without missing a beat, the prosecutor stood up and replied that it was a cute trick, but while everyone turned to look, “I turned to look at the defendant, and he never turned around, because he knew she was dead.” [See Florida Superlawyers, Roy Black Bio]

Does that sound like banter that could come from a particular defense attorney and prosecutor in this case?

Slowly, the wiles of justice churn

PLEASE READ THIS POST FIRST

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

- Jim Larson in 1999

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

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

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

Here is the twisted journey of John Huggins.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

♦

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

♦

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

♦

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Huh?

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

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

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

♦

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

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

See also: Commission on Capital Cases

Trial By Ambush

PART I

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PART II

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Closer to the edge

"This gender bias has something to do with the decision to seek death in this case. I would only ask, your honor, that you think about this, and I know you will carefully.

“People don’t say, you know, ‘She’s a... it’s an impolite word... but, you know, she’s a whore, so she should die. Right? They don’t say that out loud. Oh well, they do in the blogs, your honor, but they don’t say that here in court ... but underneath, that is what’s going on.”

- defense attorney Andrea Lyon, in court today

"She doesn't like the fact that our law permits jurors to assess the character of individuals in deciding the death penalty. That's the way the law is whether it's a man or a woman."

- prosecutor Jeff Ashton, in response to Andrea Lyon today

[For the record, Judge Perry entered the courtroom at precisely 9:02 AM. Two minutes late. Cindy came in a little late, flanked by two family friends, but no George. Read into it what you will. Also absent was Brad Conway.]

Did Casey's defense team take a big risk when it demanded that Judge Stan Strickland step aside? Did it expect the top judge, Chief Judge Belvin Perry, Jr., to take hold of the reins, or was it expecting a judge more favorable to its cause, one less inclined to keep the death penalty on the table? For certain, it took that gamble and the outcome is real. The court wanted none of that. Today, the defense did its best to remove the onus of death that's been hanging over Casey like a heavy cloud waiting to pour down its reign of punishment with each stinging drop in motions lost. Today, Casey began visualizing the prospect of dying at the hands of the state as a harsh reality. There is no stopping it now. This is no game; no dress rehearsal. No one in their right mind would ever act or play games with life and death. This was all too real today. Whether her tears were or not is a matter open for discussion, but cry she did.

I must admit, I was almost certain why Cheney Mason asked the judge at the tail end of the hearing last Thursday if Casey had to attend all hearings. I am convinced it was to spare her from the torturous tirade that would ensue during the motions heard today regarding death as a possible punishment. I am certain the judge made sure she would hear every word of it. DEATH. DEATH. DEATH. That's why she must attend her hearings. She needs to face reality; something she's never had to do all her life. Welcome to the world, Casey. Welcome to Belvin Perry's court.

Today, the hearing dealt "strictly" with death penalty motions. It wasn't a complete bloodbath for the defense, but they do have a few wounds to lick. First of all, let me say that I had the opportunity to ask three separate attorneys about the motion filed to recuse Judge Strickland. All three remain puzzled, even after I mentioned the motion to reconsider earlier rulings by Strickland filed by the defense. Could that have been the motive behind asking for the recusal? To, perhaps, get some decisions overturned? All I can say is that they still couldn't understand the reason. It was a very stupid move by the defense. That brings my total to 15 attorneys I've asked, with every response the same. Also, I had a chance to talk to two of the deputies sitting in the back row of the gallery. They are the jailers who bring Casey to court and take her back to 33rd Street. They deal only with high-profile and/or dangerous inmates. Since they are there, why not watch the proceedings? By the way, they were quite nice; professional and approachable.

THE MOTIONS

Gender Bias

Casey's defense team, "manned" by Andrea Lyon, argued that the death penalty is sexist. Ms. Lyon brought along an expert on gender and its relationship to capital punishment. Elizabeth Rapaport is a University of New Mexico law professor. Jeff Ashton objected to her presence by arguing that the defense witness was not listed and the prosecution had no time to prepare. Judge Perry overruled and allowed her testimony. She said she has found that white middle-class mothers accused of filicide get a lot more media coverage than other cases. She asserted that issues such as whether the defendant has a tattoo, how she dresses or if she goes to see male strippers have nothing to do with a criminal case. They are irrelevant. A woman can still be a good mother. She said that mothers who are considered deviant are harder to defend. When Andrea Lyon began talking about Caylee being healthy and happy, Casey began to cry.

Initially, Judge Perry offered the prosecution the chance to reserve the right to cross-examine within 30 days if they needed time to prepare to question Rapaport. Jeff Ashton decided not to opt on that, but he stressed that she had no background in psychology. Ultimately, the judge ruled against the defense.

Automatic appeal of death sentence

All defendants who are sentenced to death get an automatic appeal to the Florida Supreme Court. Lyon argued that the state's supreme court can't legitimately review the case without a report written by a capital jury, which isn't a requirement in the state. Lyon tried to stress that the appellate review is inadequate because the jury doesn't have to explain what aggravators it had found beyond a reasonable doubt that triggered the death penalty. Judge Perry denied the motion.

Why the state is seeking death

The defense requested statutory aggravators - legal reasons - that clearly define why the State is seeking the death penalty. Florida law requires a jury to weigh aggravators, such as whether the murder was premeditated and if the victim was 12-years-old or under. In order for the defense to prepare its side, they need to know what aggravating circumstances the State will try to prove if the case reaches the penalty phase.

"We should be told what changed and what we are facing and what exactly the aggravating factors are and how they will prove it," Lyon told the judge. "The indictment itself… doesn't even tell us their theory or evidence on how this homicide happened."

She said there are 14,000 pages of investigative documents to sort through. "We don't know what the theory of the case is from the prosecution's point of view."

Ashton said the State is not obligated to provide legal theories on this case. Of the fifteen aggravators, only six apply. He said the fact that the defense can't figure out what is what and which ones apply is absurd and incredible.

Lyon struck back by saying the burden of proof is on the State. Ultimately, Judge Perry agreed with her. He told the State it has 10 days to provide the aggravating factors to the defense. At the same time, he said, "the Court at this time will deny the request at this time of the State of Florida a list without prejudice... Whether we like it or not, death is different, therefore, the motion will be granted."

Here is a direction I feel the defense could have taken today. At least, it was worth a look, in my opinion. Sprinkled throughout the motions was a reference to Ring v. Arizona. Ring v. Arizona is, according to Wikipedia, a case in which the United States Supreme Court applied the rule of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), to capital sentencing schemes, holding that the Sixth Amendment requires a jury to find the aggravating factors necessary for imposing the death penalty.

Former Florida Supreme Court Justice Leander J. Shaw, Jr. wrote an opinionthat, in certain circumstances, would vote to grant a capital habeas petitioner relief on the basis of Ring v. Arizona. A writ of habeas corpus directs a person, usually a prison warden, to produce the prisoner and justify the prisoner's detention. If the prisoner argues successfully that the incarceration is in violation of a constitutional right, the court may order the prisoner's release.

Justice Shaw expressed his view that the Florida death penalty statute violated the principle enunciated in Ring v. Arizona:

Nowhere in Florida law is there a requirement that the finding of an aggravating circumstance must be unanimous. Ring, however, by treating a “deathqualifying” aggravation as an element of the offense,imposes upon the aggravation the rigors of proof as other elements, including Florida’s requirement of a unanimous jury finding. Ring, therefore, has a direct impact onFlorida’s capital sentencing statute.

At another point in his opinion, Justice Shaw concluded that Florida’s statute was flawed:

I read Ring v. Arizona, 122 S.C. 2428 (2002), as holding that “an aggravating circumstance necessary for imposition of a death sentence” operates as “the functional equivalent of an element of a greater offense than the one covered by the jury’s verdict” and must be subjected to the same rigors of proof as every other element of the offense. Because Florida’s capital sentencing statute requires a finding of at least one aggravating circumstance as a predicate to a recommendation of death, that “death qualifying” aggravator operates as the functional equivalent of an element of the offense and is subject to the same rigors of proof as the other elements. When the dictates of Ring are applied to Florida’s capital sentencing statute, I believe our statute is rendered flawed because it lacks a unanimity requirement for the “death qualifying” aggravator.

I am a bit surprised the defense didn't capitalize on Justice Shaw's statement regarding this lack of unanimity for the death qualifying aggravator. Later, perhaps.

Information related to the potential penalty phase

During the penalty phase of a trial, the defense tells the jury why its client does not deserve a particular sentence. In this case, it may come down to life or death if Casey is found guilty. Her attorneys want the judge to issue an order protecting her from having to "reveal any information relating to any potential penalty phase proceeding to the State prior to the time she is actually convicted of first-degree murder."

Andrea Lyon feels there are witnesses who may be afraid that media will focus on them. So far, every witness has faced scrutiny by the press, she said. Jeff Ashton argued that since the defense agreed to take part in the discovery process, everything of that nature - witnesses, documents and other material - becomes a matter of public record.

Judge Perry denied the defense motion, but did tell the attorneys that if a witness faces any harassment, the court can withhold some personal information from the public record, such as a person's address.

State's motive in seeking death

Initially, the State announced it wasn't going to seek the death penalty. Four months after Caylee's remains were found, prosecutors changed their minds. Casey's defense wanted to know why. It accused the State of wanting to financially break the defense. Lyon said that the timing was suspicious. She questioned the State's motives.

Ashton argued that for the defense to suggest their interest in seeking the death penalty was borne of a plan to bankrupt the defense is untrue. "There's nothing in this record that would tend to suggest that the State sought the death penalty for any improper motive. It's the third one we've had alleged. The record does not support and the court should deny the motion."

Lyon requested a sidebar with the judge to discuss whether she can keep some of the arguments under seal. They returned and nothing was offered.

"Defense failed to meet their burden of proof," Judge Perry stated in his final ruling of the day.

With all of the motions heard, the judge wanted to take a look ahead at some of the other pending death penalty motions. "Now, there are eight to twelve death penalty motions left. I will give the defense five days to list, to be sure which ones have not been ruled on, and then I'll give the State ten days."

When the defense balked at five days and asked for seven, the judge relented."OK, seven days to respond."

End of hearing!

We took a ten minute break earlier. At some point during the hearing, Jeff Ashton said he had been prosecuting for 30 years. I ran into him in the hall and said something about those years. "You must have started quite young."

"Yes, when I was 23."

"So, you're 53..."

"No, not yet. Not until October."

Something tells me we'll all be around come October. Who wants to be in charge of sending him a card?

Casey trial will stay in Orange

“The jury will be sequestered. They will be brought back to Orange County. They will be kept at an undisclosed location. I will be entering a gag order [for the attorneys]. I will be doing that at a sufficient time.”

- Chief Judge Belvin Perry, Jr.

I’ll tell you, the courthouse was tough to get into this morning. I gave myself plenty of time, but people were almost backed out the door to get through security. After waiting for what seemed like a half hour, I finally got up to the courtroom. I hate being late for anything, and I missed the first 10 minutes. How do I know I missed 10 minutes? Because Chief Judge Belvin Perry is never late, either, and when he sets a starting time of 9:00 AM, that’s the moment he walks in and sits down at the bench. Fortunately, I was able to open the door quietly so no one heard me walk in.

Change of Venue

The judge had decided this was the day he would hear motions that had been lingering for months, starting with the Change of Venue. Casey’s defense team has argued that their client cannot get a fair trial in Central Florida. In September of last year, Baez wrote in a motion that, “The Orlando community’s involvement in this case and its hostility towards Miss Anthony create an environment in which it would be difficult for a juror to render a verdict based solely on the evidence presented at trial.”

Soon after I walked in and Baez was stating his position, Judge Perry told him to get to the point, at which time he presented a short video of mostly protesters outside of the Anthony home, which were shot nearly two years ago now, as Assistant State Attorney Linda Drane Burdick was quick to point out in her rebuttal. She also asserted that jurors should come from any county that has similar demographics as Orange County.

“The defendant’s motion for change of venue will be granted at the appropriate time. I will enter an order prior to us proceeding to somewhere in the state of Florida to select a jury. I will review and take into consideration the comments by the defense and the state in selecting a site,” Judge Perry said. The future jury will be sequestered. He and all of the attorneys will travel to another Florida county to pick 12 jurors plus 6 alternates. He warned the media that he knows all 20 court administrators in other districts and they will be instructed not to discuss his inquiries with reporters.

Jail Visitation Logs

Visitation logs are a matter of public record, yet the defense wants the judge to keep the list of names private. Only the judge can seal them. The main defense claim is that the media is constantly aware of any visits she has, and the identities of some experts will produce unfounded speculation. According to him, it will hamper the defense’s preparation for trial. Cheney Mason asked the judge if it could be argued at a later date because he didn’t rule one way or the other.

Wild Party Pics

The defense recently filed a motion to exclude irrelevant evidence of party pictures. Today, it argued that the photos do absolutely nothing to prove whether Casey was a good mother or not. “To assume that a person is a bad person because they go to a nightclub, or they drink a beer,” Baez argued, “is completely unconscionable.”

The defense fears that if the images are shown to a jury it would only inflame them against their client. Burdick claimed that the only photos it wants to use are ones taken after June 15 that address where and how Casey was looking for her child. If Casey went to bars looking for Caylee, then wild photos of Casey participating in a hot body contest four days after her disappearance should be relevant evidence. If the defense is going to argue what a wonderful mother she was, the State should be able to use photographs to dispute that issue. She also said that the State has constructed a very careful timeline.

Judge Perry said that if the defense shows evidence of what a good mother she was, then the photos should not be about what she was wearing at the time, it should be more about what she was doing in them. In other words – in my words – women wear bikinis on the beach. Wearing a bikini in that setting proves nothing about who and what that women is doing or thinking. He acknowledged that most of the photos were taken prior to Caylee’s disappearance and only the ones taken from June 16 on should matter. Meanwhile, he deferred ruling on it until the end of next March. That gives both sides plenty of time to work out what photos will be used.

Hearsay

As part of the case, investigators have questioned dozens of people who knew Casey Anthony. They offered their opinions of her character, motives and undisclosed intentions and honesty. Casey wants to keep those statements about her made by family and friends out of the courtroom. Her defense contends they’re all hearsay; gossip and innuendo. They don’t want prosecutors to be able question any of her friends on the stand about whether she was an honest person and what compelled her. What were her motives? He also brought up the 911 calls made by Cindy. Judge Perry said he would not rule on such a vast subject. Narrow it down by citing individual instances where they could be argued as hearsay. He did say he will reserve a ruling on those 911 calls.

Motion to Dismiss Indictment

Denied. ‘Nuff said.

Motion to Compel Bench Notes

Judge Perry brought up this motion to compel filed by the defense. It seeks to obtain documents they feel haven’t been turned over to them. Once again, the judge asked Baez to be more specific. “This has been an ongoing issue,” Baez said after prosecutor Jeff Ashton told the court it was giving them everything it should.

Judge Perry asked for names. Baez gave him five. Both sides went back and forth. “We will table this one here and, uh, if there’s an expert witness for bench notes, list that expert saying you haven’t gotten it and I’ll have the state file a written response,” he said.

In the end, the defense will get 10 days to submit a list and the State will get 10 days after that to respond. He then asked both sides if there were any other discovery issues that need to be worked on down the road. No one had anything to say and with that, the hearing was over. It lasted an hour-and-a-half. “OK, we’ll be in recess on this matter until 9 o’clock tomorrow morning.”

Big Story of the Day!

As deputies walked Casey out of the courtroom, she turned to her mother, smiled, and whispered “Happy Mother’s Day. I love you.”

That is the first time I saw her show any affection for either of her parents, but especially, her mother.

My Observations

One thing is certain. This judge is instructing the State and defense to take the bull by the horn and settle as many matters as possible outside of court. Take control and move on it. What I am seeing is the defense’s failure to be specific about anything. Baez uses broad generalizations in his arguments and Judge Perry is persnickety and detail oriented. I noted his obvious disdain for whiners. In order to get your point across, be clear and precise, focused and reserved, and very knowledgeable of the law. That’s not to say Judge Strickland was not a thorough jurist. On the contrary, but there is a different demeanor in this court than in his, but I can’t quite put my finger on it. You wouldn’t think that personality traits could make all that much of a difference when applying law, but it does. Judge Strickland has the patience of Job. Judge Perry wants to git ‘er done.

I rode down the elevator with the prosecutors. Linda Drain Burdick was discussing an online legal publication. As we exited the elevator, I asked her what it was and if I could also receive it. She gave me the details. As we walked to the exit doors, I asked her about her last name. I notice the judge calls her Miss Drane. Do you prefer Drane or Burdick? Either one, she said. It’s not hyphenated and it was added after she got married. Either name will do and she has no preference.

As she walked away, the defense team approached the awaiting cameras and reporters. I stood near Cheney Mason. Because we were close, I decided to discuss something. “Skin cancer?”

Yes, he responded. I knew that’s what it was. I have too many friends here in Florida. “You’ve got to remember that I grew up when there was no SPF, and I’m 66-years-old.”

That’s many years in the Florida sun. He said that anyone living here and spending time outside will get it. It’s only a matter of time. I told him about my friends and what they go through. He also said he had a 14 hour operation several years ago on the other eye. Obviously, his surgeon did a great job because I didn’t notice a thing.

I think it was quite apparent that Cheney Mason had no problem talking to me, and vice versa. What he did with Judge Strickland was a professional decision and he took advantage of an opening. In the real world, that’s what happens. In the online world, people make up their own laws and hold silly grudges. I’m bald and he’s got skin cancer. Big deal. What’s it got to do with Casey?

What’s my point, you may ask? Remember that when you come to Florida. Wear sunscreen. And a hat. Oh, and I will talk to whoever I damn well please.

Baez doesn’t know JAC

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

- J. Cheney Mason at Casey’s indigence hearing

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

Request to seal all documents from the Justice Administrative Commission

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

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

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

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

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

Show us the money!

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

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

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

“Death is different.”

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

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

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

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

A request for a forensic anthropologist was GRANTED.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheney Mason speaks!

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

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

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

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

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

Judge Perry’s lightning speed steals Mason’s thunder

“Be patient and you will finally win, for a soft tongue can break hard bones.”

- Proverbs 28:13

The last time I was inside the courtroom on the 23rd floor, Casey Anthony pleaded guilty to all fraud charges. That was four months ago on January 25. In June of 2009, I wrote a post titled, Guilty as CHARGED? that clearly spelled out why I thought she had no solid defense against those charges. The word CHARGED was my way of saying she charged her purchases on a checkbook she stole from her friend, Amy Huizenga. Why this defense chose to take it completely out of context in its motion to dismiss Judge Strickland is far beyond me, but so it was written, so it was done. God save the judge.

This time, on Friday, the courtroom took on a completely different atmosphere, as a new judge sat on the bench. Known as a no-nonsense jurist, Chief Judge Belvin Perry, Jr. lived up to his reputation. The mood was clearly stoic and reserved. As much as Judge Strickland deserved the same dignity and respect that Cheney Mason did not afford him, quite clearly, this time he sat quietly in the courtroom like a timid church mouse. Was he expecting this sort of outcome after Judge Strickland dismissed himself? Only time will tell, but if there is true justice in the world, Cheney Mason will not stand between it and the mockery he made of the court by filing the motion to dismiss and the later objection he filed in response to the court’s order.

When I got to the courtroom, it was a matter of minutes before Judge Perry entered. I noticed that Casey was wearing a light pink shirt and her hair was tied snugly back in a ponytail. She seemed to be in good spirits until Judge Perry entered the room. From that point on, gone were the smiles and hand-rubbing. As serious as the judge was, so was she. The more relaxed attitude of Judge Strickland’s court was washed completely away. This was business as usual, but a tougher version of it mixed in with a heavy dose of reality. Judge Perry had no qualms about discussing the dreaded death penalty.

He first addressed the monumental list of State witnesses, over 250, and the small number, 36, that had already been deposed. This is something he wants done. Let’s get a crack on it. MOVE, MOVE, MOVE!  He told the defense to file a proposed deposition schedule. He will not allow for any excuses. In light of this, he gave prosecutors and the defense strict orders to get their evidence and witnesses in order. Prosecutors said that some out-of-state witnesses were reluctant.

“I’m quite sure that Sheriff Jerry Demings will aid us in going to make those witnesses available for deposition,” Judge Perry said. In other words, depose them or the court will. There will be room for one courtesy call ONLY.

On record, Jose Baez listed himself as lead counsel for the day. Will that change by the time the trial gets underway? That’s anyone’s guess, but I did notice he addressed the judge as “Judge” on several occasions, instead of “Your Honor.” Some habits die hard.

Moving on, His Honor was irked that the defense still hadn’t talked to the JAC (Justice Administration Commission) about how much money the case will cost Florida taxpayers.

“I got time next week and the following week. That needs to be done like yesterday,” Judge Perry said. A hearing on the matter has been scheduled for this Thursday. He ordered attorneys to block out several days the following week (next week) to argue over unresolved motions, including all non-death penalty motions, whether the state’s death penalty is unconstitutional, whether jurors will be allowed to view pictures of Casey partying, and allegations of Roy Kronk’s domestic violence. This will most likely be held on the 10th or 11th.

Judge Perry really got down to the nitty gritty of changing the venue. Stating that it would be too cost prohibitive to move the entire trial to another county, he proposed moving a jury here if one could not be seated within the confines of Orange County. He said, “I have done a number of change of venue cases. Once I grant it, the location will not be disclosed. It will be disclosed at the last possible moment.”

He does not want the media to know until the last minute. That way, all publicity surrounding the location and jury selection will be kept under wraps. It seems apparent this judge wants the trial to take place right here in Orange County due to the massive costs of uprooting everyone, including over 250 witnesses, mostly from the Orlando area. He has no problem moving a jury here instead, if necessary. Most assuredly, this is something I was positive Judge Strickland would have decided. Many of us felt the same way, so it’s nothing new, but what may be is sequestering. If the judge decides to sequester jurors, which cuts them off from all outside influences, it could make jury service much more tiresome.

When asked, Jose Baez said, “This is really not just about the publicity. This community is intimately involved in this case by way of searches, by way of protesters.” He noted that the types of people the defense would want to hear the case may not be able to handle the stress of two months away from home and family.

“It is no secret that this case has received widespread publicity,” Perry said. He went on to say that the only way to make sure they are not infected or polluted during this proceeding is to sequester them.

Judge Perry asked the prosecution how long it expected to take to argue their case. Linda Drane Burdick responded that it would take about 3-4 weeks. The judge asked the defense the same question. Baez answered, about 3 weeks. The judge then set a working schedule of five-and-a-half days per week, meaning a half-day on Saturdays. He said that he would submit a list of movies for the jury to watch and each side could strike any from that list, no questions asked. Remember, there will be no TV for a sequestered jury.

Finally, he brought up the DEATH PENALTY phase. This was something Casey could not order her attorneys to “make him stop.” I almost swear I saw the hairs stand up on the back of her neck. Her parents were in front of me and I watched Cindy cringe.

How long will it take the state to argue? Jeff Ashton stood and said it would be done in a day. Baez then stood and said it would take the defense anywhere from 3-5 days.

Judge Perry reminded the court that we live in an adversarial system of justice, which is “the two-sided structure under which criminal trial courts operate that pits the prosecution against the defense. Justice is done when the most effective adversary is able to convince the judge or jury that his or her perspective on the case is the correct one.”¹

He wanted to move the trial date up a week, to May 2, but Andrea Lyon reminded the court over a speaker phone (in absentia) her daughter graduates college that week. The judge accommodated her and allowed the date Judge Strickland set to stand at May 9, 2011. Meanwhile, he expects to hold status hearings every 45 day. With that, the hearing came to an abrupt – no, not yet… Baez corrected the judge, who called Andrea Lyon “Miss Lyons.”

“There’s no ‘s’ at the end of her name, Judge, and it’s Professor Lyon.”

The Honorable Judge Belvin Perry, Jr. stood corrected and walked away from the bench. So it was written, so it was done.

Order Regarding Deposition Schedule

Order Setting Motion Hearings 5-03-2010