marinadedave - Front Page

Oak Ridge National Laboratory,

Roy Kronk,

State Attorney's Office,

marinadedave |

Wednesday

Mar092011

A sneaking suspicion

Wednesday, March 9, 2011 at 12:39AM

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:

whether appellant’s motion to suppress his confession should have been granted;
whether the trial court erroneously allowed an accomplice’s prior consistent statement into evidence;
whether the trial court erred in granting appellee’s peremptory challenge of a minority juror; and
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.

77 Comments

Dave Knechel | tagged

Ross v. State of Florida | in

marinadedave |

Wednesday

Mar022011

Arresting Development?

Wednesday, March 2, 2011 at 10:38PM

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.

72 Comments

Dave Knechel | tagged

Ryan Eberlin | in

Sgt. John Allen,

marinadedave |

Tuesday

Feb222011

The Strange Tale of the Missing Deadlines

Tuesday, February 22, 2011 at 3:11PM

…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?

Dave Knechel | in

Orange County Circuit Court,

State Attorney's Office,

marinadedave |

Sunday

Feb132011

The Teflon Judge

Sunday, February 13, 2011 at 5:10PM

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

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

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

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

I finished the article with:

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

In his ruling, the judge wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

119 Comments

Dave Knechel | tagged

Jimmy Carter,

Ronald Ragan,

Teflon President | in

FBI,

La Bella Vita,

Oak Ridge National Laboratory,

Ninth Circuit Court,

Ninth Judicial Circuit,

Orange County Circuit Court,

marinadedave | |

1 Reference

Thursday

Feb032011

The Tale of Laura and the Barbarian Princess

Thursday, February 3, 2011 at 2:56PM

If any of you are familiar with Florence Virginia King, you are aware that she is an American novelist, essayist and columnist from Mississippi. Born in 1936, alas, she put down her pen in 2002. Almost all of her works written under her real name have been non-fiction. You may recall 1975’s Southern Ladies and Gentlemen. You may also recognize her from the historical romance novel, Barbarian Princess, written under the pseudonym Laura Buchanan. Ironically, she’s not the only writer of fiction with that name. Another Laura Buchanan entered the fray more recently; one who seemingly attempted to parlay her name into the bright lights of stardom, tossing good judgment to the wind. She failed miserably and turned out to be the Clifford Irving of the Casey Anthony saga. Irving, in case you don’t know or remember, became famous - infamous is more like it - for using forged handwritten letters from reclusive billionaire Howard Hughes in order to convince his publisher into accepting a counterfeit “autobiography” in the early 1970s. Hughes came out of the woodwork to prove it was nothing more than an elaborate hoax. Irving spent several years in prison, but later managed to publish some best sellers, including two aptly titled books, Final Argument and Daddy’s Girl.

On October 24, 2009, Laura Buchanan declared, under penalty of perjury, that, “On September 3, 2008, I was a volunteer for Texas Equus Search.” On that fateful September day, she began her odyssey into the treacherous path of this unyielding monster that’s chewed up and swallowed its victims at will. As innocent as Casey’s first victim was, Buchanan’s not one of them, and whether her initial intent was righteous or not, her ship sunk. Today, she’s just another part of the ever-growing, Titanic-sized, Casey abyss.

“On September 3, 2008,” she continued, ”the team in which I was assigned went to Suburban Street in Orlando and searched the area near where the remains of Caylee Anthony were found… I personally searched near the privacy fence and worked my way towards and then beyond where the body was found… It is my opinion that the remains of Caylee Anthony were not there during the time of our search.”

How quickly memories change when facing someone as intimidating as an Assistant State Attorney; intimidating in the sense that they represent the will of the people, and no one is more fastidious than Linda Drane Burdick when it comes to truth and justice. From her first statement under oath to her last, Buchanan’s story wavered dramatically, especially under the skillful questioning of the seasoned prosecutor. Just how did this begin and where are we today?

First of all, by her own admission, she is a “virtual” emergency/law enforcement groupie. She gets high at the sight of flashing lights and blaring sirens. Riding around with the law had been a favorite pastime and after taking a class at the citizen police academy, getting involved became a hobby of sorts. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that, but at the same time, a lot hinges on where it takes you and how far you want to go. At the end of August, 2008, her husband was scheduled to come to Florida for job related training. She wanted to go far, so she tagged along. Of course, by that date, many people across the country and elsewhere were enamored by the “Tot Mom” story made famous by Nancy Grace and, mostly, by the shocking audacity and hollow gaze of this young and single mother in the news who would ever lose her child, let alone for a month. Caylee was special, too. No child could have looked more angelic. Her wide-eyed innocence and eager smile were plenty enough to melt the coldest heart. There is no doubt in my mind that Laura Buchanan, herself a young mother of three, was one of those who became overtly fascinated and now was her chance. In her mind, I’m sure she felt the same way as all the others, but something took over. Something or someone made her change.

It took around 13-hours to drive from Kentucky to Portofina Bay, the resort inside Universal Studios just south of Orlando. Texas EquuSearch was in high gear and thousands of volunteers had already joined in the search for little Caylee, but they still needed more help. She went to the TES command post the following morning. After her search, she and her husband went to Disney. While waiting for the monorail, she spotted a toddler who she thought was Caylee and reported it to Kid Finders (or OCSO) the following day. That led to her initial contact with Cindy when she called Laura about the sighting. Laura was quick to tell her she and several other searchers had a lot of compassion for the Anthony family. This is where the ball started rolling. It began the back and forth e-mails and phone calls between her, Cindy, George and Mark NeJame, who represented the Anthonys at the time. In one of her initial e-mails to NeJame, she wrote, “I’ve heard so many disturbing things, like George was molesting Casey when she was younger and started to molest Caylee..? That Caylee Could possibly belong to George and or brother Lee???” She also hoped that NeJame had given Cindy and George her e-mails. This message was sent on September 15. In my opinion, it, quite possibly, could have been where Casey got the rather bizarre notion to accuse her father of molesting her, or at least, to plant the seed. I would surely guess the Anthonys discussed the allegations making the rounds while she was home on bond that final month.

Correspondence went back and forth between Buchanan and NeJame beyond the point when the attorney and the Anthonys parted ways near the end of 2008. Meanwhile, she had begun communicating with Jose Baez soon after her supposed sighting. On October 9, Laura sent an e-mail to Jose at the Baez Law Firm. She mentioned being in Florida a month or so earlier and of spotting a girl who looked remarkably like Caylee while waiting to enter either the Magic Kingdom or EPCOT. She lamented that deputies never followed up on her tip because they were no longer looking for Caylee. [This is not factual. While being interviewed by Sgt. John Allen in December, 2009, the lead investigator told me point blank that over 100 law enforcement personnel continued to search for Caylee all over the country up to the date her remains were found.] On Monday, January 12, 2009, she sent Jose this e-mail:

“I spoke with a person that I hadn’t spoke with in a while and she has told me some very strange information and I think we need to talk again ASAP… Oh my god this is horrible… [REDACTED]

By now, she was thoroughly ensconced in the mechanisms of Casey’s defense. So much so, that she sent him pictures of herself and one with her 5-year-old daughter. Life was good and she was getting more cozy with each passing day.

I can’t say for sure who started fishing first, but by all signs, it seemed that they both swallowed each other hook, line, and sinker. She had something for him and he coaxed her for more. She had become an integral part of Casey’s defense, only she had no idea about the massive freight train that was going to hit her; the Burdick Express. Maybe, just maybe, GULP, she didn’t look exactly where Caylee was discovered. No, not precisely.

There were several passages in Buchanan’s August 2010 interview with the prosecutor that immediately sent red flags up as far as I’m concerned, and it showed Burdick’s adeptness and professional flair. The first one dealt with Buchanan’s statement that she searched behind the Anthony home. That’s impossible because the Anthonys have a privacy fence that keeps their backyard, well, private. Totally so. There’s no gate that opens up to the beyond. The beyond, by the way, is nothing more than a private backyard in the adjacent development, also filled with homes.

The second one was a real laugher. She told the Assistant State Attorney that, while she was following the end of the privacy fence on Suburban Drive, she stepped on an alligator. Obviously, this woman has a wild imagination, wilder than any of the inhabitants of the Suburban Drive woods. I addressed the issue of gators early on, soon after I began writing about the case. Alligators generally live in or very close to bodies of water. By that, I mean lakes, ponds, rivers and swamps. Although the end of the woods where Caylee was found had been under water at the time of the searches, it is not in that state all year round, and that’s not very inviting to a gator. They like to remain dead still for hours with just the slightest movement of their eyes so their target isn’t aware they’re even there. Then they pounce. What Buchanan described was that the reptile was resting in the brush. That’s just not true. They want to see what’s going on all around them, so they lurk in the open or with just their eyes above water level. They take their quarry to the bottom of the water to rot before eating. Generally, anyway. I’ve been in the Orlando area for almost 30 years, and let me tell you, I have never stepped on one. Not only that, I WOULD NOT stand there waiting for the creature to run away like she said it did. I’d be gone in a flash - as far away as I could get. Also, there’s a school nearby. Snakes are hard to control, but gators? No way, not as much as they love to sun themselves in the open.

So, two of her stories have been debunked, and now, we come to the matter at hand. That would be the twisted TES report that somehow became a lie. Who instigated it, Baez or Buchanan? That’s the subject of another post, but a search volunteer by the name of Lori Fusco told investigators that she asked Buchanan if she was working for Baez. “She wouldn’t give me a straight answer. She wanted to know everything that I knew, which I didn’t know much. She kept asking me if I was in that area and if I was on a team with her which she should have known.”

How true, and in a recorded phone call with searcher and friend Ann Pham, Buchanan was questioned about her inconsistencies.

Ann Pham: The first one they showed me is legitimate. Right?

Laura Buchanan: Both of them are legit. Somebody else had that form before I had it because they (expletive) spelled my name wrong.

Ann Pham: Your name is signed at the top, Laura. That’s what I don’t understand. It’s got your actual signature and it matches the signature from the first form.

Laura Buchanan: I don’t know that I can’t explain.

Shades of forgery! Ultimately, several of her friends were convinced she wanted to be in the media spotlight, and at Caylee’s memorial service, she seemed more concerned about being on TV than she did about Caylee. Jose Baez was just hit with a new ethics complaint, according to the Florida Bar; quite possibly stemming from the comedy of errors regarding former Anthony attorney Brad Conway and those persnickety TES search documents. What a mess. Did Casey’s lead attorney allegedly misrepresent facts to the court? Time will tell, but it’s common knowledge that he has skated very close to the edge on several occasions, and so far, he’s managed to keep clear of falling through the ice. What about this time? It’s been harshest of winters, but Punxsutawney Phil did not see his shadow yesterday. An omen? No, and no karma moment, either, but will the ingratiating Laura Buchanan come to his rescue as spring rolls in? Not a chance. Today, she, too, could be facing charges, and she tells her friends she wishes she never got herself involved in this mess.

Good old Florence King. She said it best. “People are so busy dreaming the American Dream, fantasizing about what they could be or have a right to be, that they’re all asleep at the switch. Consequently, we are living in the Age of Human Error.” It sounds just like Casey’s defense. Back to square one. Where, oh where, will it turn?

75 Comments

Dave Knechel | tagged

Nancy Grace | in

Hidden Oaks Elementary School,

State Attorney's Office,

Suburban Drive,

TES,

TexasEquuSearch |

Thursday

Jan202011

State calls defense motions "in limine" lemons

Thursday, January 20, 2011 at 7:37PM

“… 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:

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
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
Motion in Limine Regarding any Testimony that the Defendant has a History of Lying and/or Stealing
Motion in Limine Regarding Testimony of Neighbor Brian Burner in Reference to the Shovel
Defense Motion to Exclude Irrelevant Evidence of Tattoo
Motion in Limine to Prohibit the Use, in any fashion of Internet MySpace References Attributable to the Defendant as “Diary of Days”
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.

78 Comments

Dave Knechel | tagged

Judge Learned Hand | in

marinadedave |

Saturday

Jan012011

'twill be a very good year

Saturday, January 1, 2011 at 11:21AM

Monday Monday

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

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

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

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

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

Alleged photos by Joseph S. Jordan

CELL PHONE IN BAG?

HAPPY NEW YEAR, EVERYONE!

It should prove to be a great one.

50 Comments

Dave Knechel | tagged

Websleuths | in

Florida Rules of Criminal Behavior,

In Limine,

JAC,

Joe Jordan,

Jose Baez,

Linda Drane Burdick audio interview with Joe Jordan

Motion in Limine,

Roy Kronk,

Subpoena Duces Tecum,

Suburban Drive,

marinadedave |

Friday

Dec172010

Fly Robyn Fly, Lie Casey Lie

Friday, December 17, 2010 at 10:11AM

No Pie in the Sky

“One of the biggest things that truly cuts me when I hear them talk about me as a mother – I was a great mom! And I love my daughter with everything that I have. I would give my life to have her back even for five minutes.”

- Casey Anthony, in a letter to Robyn Adams

Today’s discovery release includes letters Casey wrote to fellow inmate Robyn Adams, who was later transferred to a federal penitentiary. She was convicted of selling drugs. In one of the letters, Casey told Robyn about paternity tests that were taken to determine who Caylee’s father was. Jesse Grund took a test and he was ruled out. She never reveals who she thinks fathered her child. She also said she miscarried in 2007 and told her brother, Lee, about it. He told Cindy about the miscarriage on Casey’s 21st birthday.

Jail Letters

Transcripts and LE documents

Casey repeats over her version of what happened to her daughter - that she left Caylee with a nanny named Zenaida Fernandez-Gonzalez and - POOF! - she and Zanny were gone, never to be seen again. Of course, law enforcement debunked that story.

She also wrote about having periodic seizures while in jail.

Most of the letters were published months ago, and their content was already discussed, but it doesn’t hurt to refresh what we learned then.

In her conversations with investigators, Adams claimed that Casey made two references to the nanny. One was that there was no Zenaida, and the other one claimed that she and Zenaida were childhood friends. I must make clear that jailhouse snitches are not credible, so this will probably never see a courtroom. Adams told authorities that Casey gave her daughter “stuff” to make her sleep. They discussed chloroform, and Casey said she would give Caylee “antihistamines or something” because she had problems getting her to take naps.

Casey said she asked Zanny to watch Caylee so she could prepare to move out of the Anthony home completely. She had saved up money. “Unfortunately, my plans got beyond tangled when Zanny wouldn’t tell me where she and Caylee were.”

She claimed she was an emotional wreck and was sexually abused by her brother. “I woke up night after night with my sports bra lifted over my chest or if I had a regular bra, it would be unhooked.” Lee would walk into her room at night and feel her breasts.

“When I told my mom about it two years ago, she made excuses, saying that he was sleepwalking. Not only did she say I was lying, but when I explained everything, her reaction was literally like a knife in my chest: ‘So that’s why you’re a whore?’”

It’s interesting to note that Casey also claimed she thought her father did the same thing when she was much older and that she sought help from a doctor when she was 18. It’s also interesting to note that no doctor (that we know of) has stepped forward to back her accusations.

Liz Brown works for the DePaul Center for Justice in Capital Cases. She was listed as the contact for the defense team after Andrea Lyon left. Yes, the center still fights the death penalty. She issued a statement that said the letters “reflect the natural desire for companionship when isolated for 23 hours a day, and clearly demonstrate Casey’s unconditional love for her daughter, Caylee. Despite these intentions, it is obvious in the letters authored by Robyn Adams that her sole purpose and only goal in corresponding with Casey Anthony was to create ‘leverage to get out of prison early.’ Furthermore, despite numerous inaccurate media reports, the letters written by Casey Anthony do not contain a single reference to chloroform or any admissions of guilt. Casey Anthony maintains her innocence and looks forward to her day in court.”

Pictured above are River Cruz (Krystal Holloway) and George Anthony. River claimed that she and George became intimate after Caylee disappeared. George emphatically denied that. She said her cell phone showed images and text messages that backed up her contention of an affair. She said that George told her that the death of his granddaughter was “an accident that snowballed out of control.”

At the time, Brad Conway was the family attorney and he stated the affair never took place.

Today’s discovery contains photos, text messages and contact information that OCSO took from a Samsung phone in March of this year. Whose phone was it? You can guess, but the above photo was taken from it, and one of the text messages listed in the “Contacts” was George saying on December 19, 2008, that he was, “Just thinking about you! I need you in my life.”

Yuri Melich voicemail from Maya Derkovic

Deputy Whitmore audio interview

LE audio interview with Lori Cree

(Transcript of Lori Cree interview)

LE audio interview with Maya Derkovic

I will continue updating and adding links as they are released.

33 Comments

Dave Knechel | tagged

Sylvia Hernandez | in

Orange County Corrections Department,

marinadedave |

Thursday

Dec162010

'Tis the Season to Give

Thursday, December 16, 2010 at 6:31PM

… How about a Doc-Dump Tomorrow?

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

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

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

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

Dave Knechel | in

marinadedave |

Wednesday

Dec012010

I Swear

Wednesday, December 1, 2010 at 10:43AM

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:

Any contracts or agreements, in any manner or form, setting for the scope of work or expected compensation.
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.
All records of bills submitted by or payments made to the expert.
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.
Any notes taken by the expert or for the expert during, or referencing their examination of any evidence in this case.
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 Huggins¹ ² 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.

51 Comments

Dave Knechel | tagged

William Slabaugh | in

JAC,

TES,

TexasEquuSearch,

WESH,

WKMG,

marinadedave |

Monday

Nov292010

Watch Bob Kealing

Monday, November 29, 2010 at 4:30PM

Bob Kealing has a BIG story on WESH. Watch it if you can!!!

Online and live on WESH-TV.

Here is his report: http://www.wesh.com/caseyanthony/25951506/detail.html

Dave Knechel | in

Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure,

WESH,

marinadedave |

Saturday

Nov272010

...To Judge Perry's Court We Go

Saturday, November 27, 2010 at 1:40PM

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.

35 Comments

Dave Knechel | tagged

Bernard Cassidy,

Brandon Sparks,

F.R.C.P.,

Thanksgiving | in

JAC,

TES,

TexasEquuSearch,

WFTV,

marinadedave |

Saturday

Nov062010

Nunc pro tunc no slam dunk

Saturday, November 6, 2010 at 6:39PM

In Latin, nunc pro tunc literally translates into “now for then.” In other words, retroactive. Chief Judge Belvin Perry, Jr. listened to several matters brought up at the hearing held on October 29, including issues over funding that dated back to May, hence, nunc pro tunc. Four days later, on November 2, the judge delivered his ORDER ADDRESSING RETAINMENT AND PAYMENT OF EXPERTS, INVESTIGATORS, MITIGATION SPECIALIST, AND OTHER COSTS. Written in chambers, without bravado and with his usual brevity, it addresses three separate motions filed earlier by Casey Anthony’s defense.

MOTION ONE

On September 30, Ann Finnell filed the Motion to Determine Reasonable Budget for Due Process Costs in a Capital Case and Motion to Incur Certain Specified Costs. A long-winded title, indeed, that came with a short reply from the judge on each specific element. Casey had requested authorization for anticipated costs for the penalty phase, if this case ever truly reaches that stage, plus mitigation costs addressed previously in an order dated May 12, 2010 nunc pro tunc to May 6, 2010.

Private Investigator

The defense asked for the authorization of a $5,000 cap on the use of a private investigator “to provide services for the penalty phase such as locating and interviewing mitigation witnesses, documents, and other relevant evidence.” Judge Perry reserved judgment and told the defense to submit an itemized list, by November 5, of the investigative services needed to support the request. It sounds reasonable enough. After all, one of the key points the judge made at the hearing was that he was not going to write an open check.

Psychiatrist or Psychologist

Here, Casey’s defense asked for the authorization of a $7,500 cap “for services by a licensed psychiatrist or psychologist to examine and conduct forensic testing on Defendant, to render an opinion regarding cross-examination of any State expert, and if needed, to testify at the penalty phase.” The court granted this part of the motion, but set the cap at $2,500 for pre-trial services at JAC rates. Please note that this is pre-trial work and not money going to a possible penalty phase. That money will be addressed at a later date the judge left unclear. I also get the feeling the defense may be able to ask for more if needed, although there was no mention in his order.

Copying Costs

The defense asked for a $1,000 cap to cover copying costs during the penalty phase. Think Xerox. The judge gave them $500 at the approved JAC rate. When the judge asked Ms. Finnell whether that amount would work, she said it most likely would. She didn’t sigh, in other words, or beg for more.

Mitigation Specialist

Casey wanted the court to authorize an additional 100 hours for services of the mitigation specialist, Jeanene Barrett. The court granted her request in full - 100 hours to be provided by Ms. Barrett or another in-state investigator at the JAC rate of $40 per hour. That gives her $4,000 to work with at the full rate. Can she request more? Probably, but the judge wants everything to be itemized and explained.

Attorney Travel Expenses

Ann Finnell wanted a $4,000 cap for expenses she expects to incur as she travels back and forth between her office in Jacksonville and Orlando. The amount covered anticipated trips to and from Ft. Myers. George has family there. Despite public arguments over whether Jeanene Barrett has already been there, done that, it’s moot and nothing more. The judge denied the request because of JAC policies and procedures, and the earlier court ruling entered May 12, 2010 nunc pro dunc to May 6, 2010. This means the order is retroactive to May 6. No money, honey.

Travel Expenses for Investigator or Mitigation Specialist

Casey requested the authorization of a $1,500 cap on travel expenses for one investigator or one mitigation specialist to journey to Ohio to obtain records and interview potential witnesses. At the hearing, Judge Perry said to use the telephone wherever possible, and/or to try to hire someone within the state of Ohio who will work at JAC rates. That would save Florida a lot of money on round-trip airline tickets. Here, he reserved any ruling until the defense can offer reasons in support of their initial request. Explore the options first. Whatever the defense can figure out, the judge will meet with them in camera in order to shield the strategy from the prosecution.

Attorney Travel Expenses for Trial

The defendant asked the court to authorize payment of Ann Finnell’s anticipated travel expenses to attend the trial commencing in May of 2011. The judge had no choice but to deny the request because of JAC guidelines and the earlier order entered May 12, 2010 nunc pro tunc to May 6, 2010.

MOTION TWO

Motion for Additional Hours of Investigation (guilt phase)

On October 25, Jose Baez filed a motion on behalf of his client. He asked the court to authorize an additional 300 hours for in-state investigative services in order to “continue investigating the evidence alleged in the State’s on-going discovery.” Of course, this request was above and beyond the hourly cap addressed during the May 12 nunc pro tunc to May 6 approval. What he ended up with this time is not what he asked for, though. The judge granted an additional 60 hours to the tune of JAC’s $40 per hour rate. Instead of $12,000, he ended up with $2,400. For now. Although not stated in the order, the judge did leave the door open for additional funds later on, if the need arises and the defense can account for every single dime.

MOTION THREE

Motion for Clarification of the May 12th Order regarding both Travel Time and Reimbursement for Travel Expenses and Mileage of Out-of-State Experts, Mitigation Specialist, Investigators, and State Experts

This is in response to a motion filed by Jose Baez on October 25 “because the order entered on May 12, 2010 nunc pro dunc to May 6, 2010 did not specifically address the travel time and expenses incurred or anticipated for these persons. Accordingly, clarification is needed as to the authorization for payment of such costs” according to the order. The court granted this motion, nunc pro tunc to May 6, 2010, and authorized “the payment for travel time and reimbursement for travel expenses and mileage of out-of-state experts, the mitigation specialist, investigators, and state experts at the JAC approved rates and in compliance with JAC’s policies and procedures in this motion and its attachments.” In the May 12 order, ORDERS ADDRESSING MOTION TO SEAL RECORDS RELATED TO THE JUSTICE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSION/RETAINMENT AND PAYMENT OF EXPERTS, INVESTIGATORS, MITIGATION SPECIALIST, AND OTHER COSTS/RECONSIDERATION OF DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO WAIVE APPEARANCE AT CERTAIN HEARINGS/PROCEDURES FOR FUTURE MOTIONS… hold on, I need to catch my breath after that one… the judge addressed many areas of the defense’s earlier motion. I’m not going to go over every aspect of it. This is merely to sort out the reason Judge Perry had to take another look at his order and why he decided to respond now. In essence, the earlier order listed the approval and caps for each individual he cited, but omitted travel expenses:

Dr. Henry Lee - Criminologist Expert: A cap of 8 hours for in-court services and a cap of 25 hours for out services.
Jeanene Barrett - Mitigation Specialist: 384 hours for services.
One investigator (in-state): 300 hours for in-state services.
One Investigator (out-of-state): 100 hours for out-of-state services.
One K-9 Expert (out-of-state): 20 hours for services.
One postmortem hair banding expert: 20 hours

For the following experts, caps as to the number of hours to be incurred has not been determined. Therefore, the judge ruled that they shall be approved by subsequent order:

One forensic entomologist (out-of-state)
One forensic anthropologist
One forensic botanist (out-of-state)
One forensic pathologist (out-of-state)
One digital computer forensic expert (out-of-state)
One DNA expert (out-of-state)
One forensic chemist (in-state)
One forensic chemist (out-of-state)

Also in that order, he found that the following experts were not relevant and necessary to provide Casey with adequate representation:

Jury consultant (denied with prejudice)

I recall the judge saying at the motion hearing that Cheney Mason is a qualified jury consultant and that was enough. This was also before Ann Finnell came along.

One additional DNA expert (denied with prejudice)
One additional forensic botanist for consulting only (denied with prejudice)
One additional forensic Biologist for consulting only.
One trace evidence expert (denied without prejudice)

With prejudice is another way of saying forget about it. It’s a done deal. Without prejudice means a motion can be re-addressed later by taking on a different tack, or by rewriting an incorrect motion, or because - as is the case here - the defense needs an opportunity to decide whether Dr. Lee can provide the trace evidence services. If not, counsel could then request approval from the court for someone else.

One taphonomy expert (denied without prejudice) to allow defense counsel to request a Rogers hearing.

In my unqualified opinion, a Rogers hearing (in this instance) may be requested if the defense’s expert opinion testimony is incomplete. Taphonomy, from the Greek taphos (death), is concerned with the processes responsible for any organism becoming part of the fossil record and how these processes influence information in the fossil record. Many taphonomic processes must be considered when trying to understand fossilization. See: Taphonomy

One cell phone expert (denied without prejudice - to determine whether this expert is needed after the state’s expert is deposed.)

In his May 12 order, the judge granted a cap of $3,500 for the costs of public records requests and denied all travel costs incurred by defense counsel, meaning attorneys only, but it didn’t address travel costs for experts. What the judge needed to clarify to both the defense and the JAC is what JAC will be held responsible for paying. In its own response to the defense motion, JAC did not make that clear. At the same time, the official JAC Expert Billing manual states that:

“Experts may not bill for time spent traveling on a case unless an hourly rate has been established by law or a court order for the travel time. Generally, travel time is not reimburseable.”

In this case, the judge did not establish an hourly rate, but the JAC manual does address a mileage rate for reimbursement of $.0445 per mile when out-of-county experts travel more than 50 miles. Will the judge set an hourly rate for the experts’ travel time? The order did cite attachments, which were not released to the public as far as I know. The answer may be in those documents.

Personally, I can’t imagine a better judge when it comes to knowing law. And I wouldn’t hold my breath if I were the defense, expecting him to flub somewhere down the pike. As much respect as I have for Judge Strickland, Judge Perry has a clear docket, and that translates into one important thing: He’s got more time on his hands to make sure this case is handled by the book. That means less things to consider upon appeal. Of course, that’s only if Casey is convicted. Meanwhile, stare decisis et non quieta movere. The defense must maintain what has been decided. In other words, it cannot alter the legal principle under which judges are obligated to follow the precedents established in prior decisions. That’s why the judge denied the defense counsel’s Motion for Reconsideration that dealt with the previously rendered denial of its motion to seal jail logs, including commissary records and telephone and visitation logs. Oh, I could go on, but that one’s for another day.

50 Comments

Dave Knechel | tagged

pathologist | in

JAC,

Ninth Circuit Court,

Touch DNA,

marinadedave |

Saturday

Oct302010

A lot of lawyering, a lot of frustration

Saturday, October 30, 2010 at 11:29PM

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.

90 Comments

Dave Knechel | tagged

Bent v. Sun Sentinel,

Red Huber | in

Linda Drane Burdick,

Linda Kenney Baden,

Orange County Corrections Department,

Mark Lippman,

Orlando Sentinel,

Suburban Drive,

marinadedave |

Wednesday

Oct202010

Casey McDingles

Wednesday, October 20, 2010 at 9:29PM

HERE’S WHAT REAL WITNESS TAMPERING IS ALL ABOUT

There is a no-brainer running around like a chicken without its head who insists she knows what witness tampering is all about. She doesn’t, and this will serve to quash any and all rumors she keeps firing into wasted Internet bandwidth. At the same time, it will explain exactly what it is. Merely interviewing someone is not. Suggesting they change the truth most assuredly is.

In reality, two Texas EquuSearch volunteers told WFTV that a private investigator working for the defense tried to manipulate them into changing their stories about what transpired down along Suburban Drive in September of 2008.

Brett Churchill and Brett Reilly have accused PI Jeremiah Lyons of slinging words their way that would cause them to alter their testimony about searching the area where Caylee’s remains were found three months later by Roy Kronk, another defense target.

According to the WFTV report, Lyons was recently in court examining EquuSearch records. The station reports that he’s keeping low key while talking to volunteers who are not very happy about it.

In this case, both volunteers are prosecution witnesses. Churchill has been deposed by the defense and Reilly has talked on record to investigators. Both have stated that the exact area where the toddler was discovered was under water and unsearchable at the time. According to Churchill, Lyons went to his house and lied about Reilly’s story. “He basically was asking me if what I said in my deposition was the exact story because he had others who fared differently, one of them being Brett Reilly.”

Reilly had earlier warned Lyons not to twist his words after witnessing what Casey’s defense had done to others involved in the case. Lyons promised him he wouldn’t.

Let me tell you, from first-hand experience, I know all about what a professional manipulator Jerry Lyons is. They don’t get any slicker, but in my case, the defense ended up with the short end of the stick. What he succeeded in doing was to somewhat change the tenor of this court. It abruptly went from Strickland to stricter. Strickland to stricter… trust me, they will be words that linger.

The report also states that Reilly complained to Cheney Mason and that both volunteers contacted the sheriff’s office.

A DATE WITH CASEY

Great news is coming right up for those who want to see what Casey’s new tooth looks like. She is slated to appear at next week’s hearing, which will be at 1:30 pm on the 29th. It had been scheduled to be a status hearing, but with her attendance announced, it signaled that there would be more to the hearing than just an update from the attorneys. She has not been in court since her mother and brother took the stand back in July. Of course, plain old status hearings don’t require her presence.

What this should mean is that Judge Perry will hear several arguments, two of which should be the simultaneously filed MOTION TO DETERMINE REASONABLE BUDGET FOR DUE PROCESS COSTS IN A CAPITAL CASE AND MOTION TO INCUR CERTAIN SPECIFIED COSTS filed recently by new attorney Ann Finnell, and quite possibly the prior rulings over the public’s access to Casey’s jail records. This would include phone calls, visitor logs and commissary purchases. In my opinion only, I don’t care if she pigs out on nachos or not. I do not need to know how many hair barrettes, hair pins, hair claws, banana hair clips or how many other products she buys, including female doodads. With the latest ruling in south Florida, this information may have to be rerouted through the state and released through document dumps instead of coming directly from the jail. Hopefully, I will know more about that soon.

With regard to the budget request made by Finnell, the funding agency, the JAC (Justice Administration Commission) doesn’t like her cost estimates. The commission filed a response last week that questions some of the estimates as being too high and others that shouldn’t be billed to taxpayers. In a post I published two weeks ago, I wrote:

The distance between Jacksonville and Orlando, from her office to the jail, is 145 miles each way. The distance from her office to Fort Myers is roughly 300 miles. She anticipates at least one trip per month to Orlando and back, and at least two trips to Fort Myers. Overnight lodging is expected for the trips to Fort Myers and some of the trips to Orlando, all of which is feasible. She’s asking for $4,000.00. Let’s see… a round trip from Jax to O’do runs about $134.00. Jax to Ft. Myers would be double that - $268.00. We are 7-8 months away from showtime, so 7-8 Orlando trips would run… let’s give her the benefit of the doubt and say 8 months. 8 trips would cost almost $1,100.00. To Fort Myers and back twice would add up to around $540, bringing our total to $1,640.00, not including hotel stays, and I think it’s safe to assume she’s not going to spend the night at the No Tell Motel, but still, that’s over $2,400 in lodgings. Nope, that one should be questioned by the judge. If the court chooses to approve, it brings our tally much higher…

The JAC is requesting it shouldn’t have to foot the bill for attorneys’ travel expenses; that the costs should come out of the money the Baez Law Firm was paid by Ms. Anthony or be absorbed by the individual attorney.

Any way we look at it, the mere fact that Casey will be in the courtroom almost demands that some semblance of verbal chicken poop will be flying into the fan come next Friday afternoon. I’m looking forward to it, so I must admit, I will not quit. I will attend, as I intend.

Dave Knechel | in

Jerry Lyons, Jeremiah Lyons,

Human Interest,

JAC,

Jose Baez,

Ninth Judicial Circuit,

Roy Kronk,

TES,

TexasEquuSearch,

Tim Miller,

WFTV,

marinadedave |

Friday

Sep242010

Tell the Lord Bugsy says hi

Friday, September 24, 2010 at 12:10PM

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

14 Comments

Dave Knechel | tagged

Christina Charbonier,

Danita Sullivan,

Jermaine "Bugsy" Lebron,

Legz Diamond | in

Hunterdon County Democrat,

Marinade Dave’s Caylee Anthony Posts |

Thursday

Sep162010

Pie in the sky?

Thursday, September 16, 2010 at 3:35PM

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.

48 Comments

Dave Knechel | tagged

YMCA | in

Newspaper,

State Attorney's Office |

Tuesday

Sep142010

Baez team announces new attorneys

Tuesday, September 14, 2010 at 10:47AM

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?

88 Comments

Dave Knechel | tagged

Roy Black | in

Binger v. King Pest Control,

Morgan & Morgan,

Zenaida Gonzalez |

Wednesday

Sep012010

Trial By Ambush

Wednesday, September 1, 2010 at 12:02PM

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.

135 Comments

Dave Knechel | tagged

Erica Gonzalez,

Fusian Ultralounge,

Marine Enterprises v. Bailey,

Trial by Ambush | in

Dave Knechel,

Death Penalty,

Frank George,

Jeff Ashton,

Jose Baez,

Linda Drane Burdick,

Ninth Judicial Circuit,