Cheney Mason Jars the Truth, By George!

It’s hard to believe that Casey Anthony was found not guilty of first-degree murder three years ago, but she was. My coverage of the case began in November of 2008 and continued in earnest until the verdict. That’s when it ended. Many people wanted me to resume writing about her — the lawsuits and bankruptcy — but my job was finished. Those news stories were of little relevancy to me, so I never wrote about her again. Until now. Something (or someone) has piqued my interest. Most assuredly, it must be of major importance to stir me from my restful, peaceful, crime-free, post-Zimmerman Rip Van Winklish sleep, right? Yes, and it’s Cheney Mason. Just as the Casey Anthony saga began with a flurry of horrible lies, the nest of iniquity continues.

Certainly, I have reasons to seek vengeance on those who took down the presiding judge at my expense, but I’m not a begrudging type, and the years have softened my stance to some extent. Jose Baez apologized years ago. It was nothing personal against me, he said, but he didn’t feel Casey could get a fair trial, especially in light of the check fraud pleas. That’s a different story and I understand more about the incident after years of study and reflection; however, I firmly believe the idea was the brainchild of a vindictive Cheney Mason. Mason had it in for Judge Stan Strickland and you are just going to have to trust me on it with no further explanation at this time. Asking the judge to recuse himself from this case is not the reason why I decided to pick up my pen. It’s to set the record straight over what I consider to be a persistent and perpetuating lie perpetrated by Mason — that poor, little Casey is innocent of any and all wrongdoing, and that the media and prosecution are guilty of everything. 

In his book, Presumed Guilty | Casey Anthony: The Inside Story, Baez wrote:

Casey and I had discussed her sexual abuse, and I felt it was only a matter of time before she would tell me the truth about what happened to Caylee.

This was immediately followed by:

The day I had a major breakthrough with Casey came in the early months of 2009 […]

He continues to explain what Casey told him about the drowning and her father’s involvement:

“Don’t worry. I won’t tell anyone. I’m taking care of it. Don’t say a word of this to anyone, especially your mother,” and he walked away.

Believe what you want. My point is that for over two years, until the onset of the trial in downtown Orlando, her defense team maintained an oblivious facade about the cause of Caylee’s death, and the public and many facets of the media were eschewing whatever Baez, et al, spit out. If she was so innocent, why not come forward much sooner than the trial? To be Nancy Grace-like, it would have been a BOMBSHELL and it would have sent the prosecution reeling into a downward, spiraling tizzy… momentarily, at least, until it had a chance to regroup. Instead, the young woman sat in jail from October 14, 2008 to July 17, 2011.

(I think it’s important to remind you, before I go on, that Baez was not death penalty qualified, so Mason was hired, pro-bono, in March of 2010, a year before Casey opened her mouth about the death of her daughter, as cited above. Mason had collaborated with Baez prior to officially joining the defense, too, so he was aware of his new client’s alibi and the accusation of sexual abuse. Unfortunately for George Anthony, he was going to be the defense scapegoat and he didn’t have a clue. If I was a minor target, George was huge.)

§

Presently, I know precisely what Mason is spewing. It’s called marketing propaganda and he’s doing it to promote his new book, Justice in America: How the Media and Prosecutors Stack the Deck Against the Accused due out soon. I think it’s important and fair to first note that Mason does come with credentials. He’s a highly regarded veteran of criminal defense trials, as CNN’s Jean Casarez just pointed out in her interview with him, What life is like for Casey Anthony, updated July 4:

A former president of the Florida Association of Criminal Lawyers, Mason, who just that year had been selected by Florida Monthly magazine as one of Florida’s top lawyers, was disgusted with the local media coverage about the relatively inexperienced Baez.

That’s great. What a hero. Definitely, Baez was treated with contempt by the public and press, but it came with the territory of representing the most reviled woman in America and Baez knew that. What he needed was help forming a strong and capable defense, not a pompous ass press secretary/superhero. For now, though, let’s continue with the version Casarez wrote and elicited from Mason:

Shortly before jury selection was to begin, Mason got word that Anthony’s handwritten letters describing sexual abuse at the hands of her father were going to be made public under Florida’s open records law.

He believed it was only right that Anthony’s parents, George and Cindy, were warned. He called them to his office late on a Friday afternoon.

“We had them one at a time come into my personal office and made the announcement: ‘Monday’s going to be a bad day for you George. I felt man to man I would tell you in advance.”“

Mason said George Anthony’s reaction was “basically none.” “He looked at me … I turned sideways a little bit, he clapped his hands down on his thighs — let out a big sigh but didn’t say anything,” Mason said.

“He never admitted doing anything,” Mason said. “All we had were the letters and (separately) the statements Casey had made to the psychiatrist.”

According to Mason, he then called Cindy in to inform her.

Next it was Cindy Anthony’s turn. “We called Mom in, Cindy, and told her and she immediately welled up with emotion, cried, was very upset,” Mason said.

This is not what I recall from my experience with the case. Please note that Mason said George and Cindy Anthony went to his personal office after he got word, yet in his book, Baez wrote something contrary to Mason’s revelation.

Two psychiatrists evaluated Casey for the defense, Drs. Jeffrey Danziger and William Weitz. Danziger was initially appointed by the court in 2008 following her arrest. For the defense, he met with her four times in November and December of 2010. Weitz conducted two interviews in February and March of 2011. According to Baez:

After the prosecution took the depositions of the two psychiatrists, both sides agreed they should be sealed because they contained medical information as it related to Casey’s mental health, and there were issues of sexual abuse by George and Lee, which was protected under state law. Perry immediately sealed them, saying that he wanted to review them before deciding whether they should remain sealed.

Baez continued:

A couple of days later, Cindy called me to say she and George had an appointment the next day at the state attorney general’s office to discuss the depositions of the shrinks.

I lost it. I smelled the skullduggery of Ashton and immediately contacted Perry, telling him that the state was planning to meet with the Anthonys to discuss the information that he had sealed. 

Perry had a clear response: “Sealed means sealed.” Despite this clear message from the judge, the prosecution went ahead and had its meeting anyway. That was the arrogance of Ashton, whose attitude was, “I can do anything I want because I can get away with it.”

And get away with it he did.

In fact, according to Baez, the prosecution didn’t show the Anthonys the depositions, it showed them the notes they took during the depositions:

[…] The benefit to the prosecution by making sure the Anthonys found out what was in the shrinks’ depositions, of course, was that when the Anthonys found out that Casey was revealing George’s sexual abuse, they would turn on Casey, no longer support her, and became [sic] state-friendly witnesses.

I thought Cheney was going to have a heart attack. […]

This is proof that Mason did not individually call George and Cindy into his office to “warn” them. Instead, Baez warned Mason about what the Anthonys learned from prosecutors. But wait! There’s more…

Before Presumed Guilty was released, then assistant state attorney Jeff Ashton published his book, Imperfect Justice | Prosecuting Casey Anthony. He had something to say about this matter, too, and it offers a third view, far removed from Cheney Mason’s.  Beginning on page 215:

Even though the witnesses had been withdrawn [Danziger and Weitz], Linda [Drane Burdick], Frank [George] and I wondered how much of this George and Cindy knew. Just because the defense had dropped the witnesses didn’t mean they were abandoning the argument completely. There was still a chance that George could be dragged into this.

One evening around the time that all this was happening, Mark Lippman, the attorney who by then was representing George and Cindy, filed a strange press release. It said something to the effect that George Anthony had nothing to do with the disappearance of Caylee.

Ashton contacted Lippman, assuming that Baez had spilled the beans:

Mark told me that a few days earlier, Baez had asked for a meeting with just Cindy. When she arrived at his office, Baez, Dorothy Sims, and Ann Finnell via the phone were waiting for her with important news. Baez proceeded to tell Cindy that Casey had authorized him to say that Caylee had died at the house and that her death had been an accident. Baez also told Cindy that the state was investigating George’s involvement with Caylee’s death. Baez claimed that the authorities had information from a witness who said that George’s phone records held valuable clues.

I was speechless. Poor Mark only knew the tip of the iceberg. It was the cruelest thing I have ever seen an attorney do. […] To tell this grieving woman…

To say that Ashton was outraged would be an understatement. This is what pushed him to tell the Anthonys the whole story — to warn them.

I told Mark we weren’t investigating George, although sadly, there was more bad news. But I had to get back to him about it. Linda and I discussed the best way to handle the therapists’ reports and we decided to invite Mark, Cindy, and George to our office. I gave Mark a call.

“Are they saying that George disposed of the body?” He responded by telling Lippman it was worse than that. 

When Baez found out that Cindy was coming to our office to see what the doctors had said, he immediately shot off an e-mail to Judge Perry, essentially accusing us of violating Perry’s order.

Linda said that Judge Perry’s order indicated only that the transcripts would not be made public documents; it never restricted our ability to investigate the story, and there was no way we were going to let Jose’s lies go unchallenged. Baez would later attack us on this point, but the judge agreed with us.

The prosecutors decided to discuss their notes and recollections with the Anthonys since the depositions were, in fact, sealed. Caylee’s grandparents needed to know the truth about what was actually going on, despite the inherent risk of possible witness tampering accusations.

George and Cindy were visibly upset when they arrived at the state attorneys office, Ashton pointed out.

Before the meeting, we’d told Mark that we would speak to him privately and share what we knew with him. Then it would be up to him to decide what to tell the Anthonys. We put George and Cindy in the conference room and took Mark into the office with us.

Lippman heard the entire story…

Mark left and went to the conference room to talk to the Anthonys for what seemed like twenty to thirty minutes. Linda and I were in a nearby conference room when Mark came to find us. Cindy and George had questions, and we accompanied him back to the conference room. Cindy was sitting at the table just looking down. George was next to her, his face bright red. Cindy looked angry. George looked like he had been crying, like someone had just killed Caylee all over again. He was just devastated.

“I just want you to know that none of this is true,” George said to us.

Cindy patted him on the hand and said, “It’s okay, George. Nobody believes this.”

His words would catch in his throat as he assured us one more time, “I just want you to know that everything I told you is the truth and I am not changing any of it.”

I remember Cindy saying something like, “I don’t know what’s wrong with her,” referring to Casey. At least she was finally willing to admit that there was something not right about Casey. How it would affect her testimony at trial, though, was anyone’s guess.

There you have it. The rest is history. But is Cheney Mason rewriting the history books to glorify himself? To give himself most of the credit for saving poor, innocent, child-like Casey? Sometimes, certainly in this case, when someone keeps telling himself the same thing over and over and over again, he begins to believe it. Mason is, after all, one of Florida’s BEST attorneys, as I’m sure he would quickly remind us and his mirror. And if Washington chopped down the cherry tree, he chopped down the giant Ashton tree. And didn’t tell a lie. Yes, man-to-man, he gently pulled George into his office to softly break the news. What a kind and compassionate father figure. Only, I wouldn’t buy a used lemon from the man.

The amazon.com Website promo intro of Mason’s book says, “He shares never before revealed media bias, and enough case secrets to make readers re-examine their conscience and the quick path to judgment and personal conviction of Anthony.”

I am deeply concerned about the honesty of those “case secrets,” especially coming from a man with so much documented bias against the media. Until he needs to use us.

§ 

I think it’s important to mention something more enlightening about the defense psychiatrists, Drs. Danziger and Weitz. They were most likely removed as witnesses out of fear that the judge would have granted the state their own psychiatrist, who would have interviewed their client. That would have been problematic for Casey and the entire defense. It’s also necessary to say that Danziger was highly uncomfortable with being a mouthpiece for these “very, very serious allegations against someone in a situation where there is no other evidence he actually did anything.” (Imperfect Justice, Page 210.)

Casey Anthony: Not Very Appealing, Part 3

DOUBLE JEOPARDY

In POINT TWO of the appeal, Casey’s defense wrote that:

II. The Appellant’s constitutional rights were violated when she was convicted of four separate counts of providing false information to a law enforcement officer because each count stemmed from the same single offense where there was no break in the temporal aspect of the crime.

In that sense, if I fire a bullet through the brain of someone (who dies, obviously) and, as it passes through my intended victim, kills the person standing immediately behind him; does that constitute two homicides but one murder charge because it was one bullet? After all, it stemmed from the same single offense. That’s the logic of this Appellant’s argument. The defense also argued Fla. Const. Article 1 §9:

”[…] that individuals are given ‘protection from multiple convictions and punishments for the same offense arising out of a single episode.’”

I completely disagree. First, let’s look at the testimony by law enforcement at Casey’s murder trial acknowledged by her defense:

TRIAL TESTIMONY

Corporal Rendon Fletcher:

“Corporal Fletcher relayed that the Appellant, after questioning, stated that her daughter was missing, in the custody of a nanny, and that the Apppellant was conducting her own search.” LIE #1.

Lieutenant Reginald Hosey (then Sergeant) and Officer Adriana Acevedo:

”[…] Officer Acevedo escorted the Appellant to the last stated location of the ‘nanny.’” LIE #2.

Hosey: “[…] after being escorted to the Sawgrass Apartments, […] the Appellant was led back into her residence…” LIE #3. There was never a Zenaida Fernandez-Gonzalez living at Sawgrass, in Apt. #210 or anywhere else. She led Hosey on a wild goose chase.

Detective Yuri Melich:

“The recorded statement by the Appellant stated that she worked at Universal Studios, Zenaida Fernandez-Gonzales was Caylee Anthony’s babysitter, and that the Appellant informed Jeffery Hopkins and Juliette Lewis of the disappearance of her child.” LIE #4.

You cannot simply lie to every law enforcement officer that comes down the pike and consider it one big lie. It may have been one in Casey’s mind, but each lie to each officer is a separate offense.

On March 12, 2009, I addressed the fraud charges filed against Casey by her onetime friend, Amy Huizenga, on a post titled Double Jeopardy. Casey stole and cashed her checks while she was out of town. Thirteen third-degree felony charges were filed in all. She was convicted of six and Judge Stan Strickland withheld adjudication on seven.

This applies today because the defense tried to do the same thing then; to count the separate charges as one. They failed. On The Wisdom of Solomon, dated January 10, 2010 - three years ago! - I wrote:

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. He said that he had given this a lot of thought prior to sentencing.

“There was not an even number of offenses, so I withheld in seven, I adjudicated in six. If that seems Solomon-like, it is.

On each and every count, Casey must submit a DNA sample because she is now a convicted felon. There it is, the words everyone has been waiting for…convicted felon. Time to move on to the next chapter, but first, Casey apologized to Amy Huizenga.

“I’m sorry for what I did. I’d like to sincerely apologize to Amy. I wish I would have been a better friend.”

§

That same standard for double jeopardy applies today, as surely as the day I wrote it in the 2009 article based on those fraud charges:

In essence, Casey’s defense team points out that under law, she should be charged for one crime by one count. The defense also claims that charging her with multiple counts for the same act prejudices her, therefore the counts should be dismissed.

According to the motion, “Miss Anthony is guaranteed double jeopardy protection by the Fifth and Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Sections 9 and 17 of the Florida Constitution for duplicative charges.” Let’s take a look at what the law says:

I will leave the indentation out for now, but the following paragraphs are from my 2009 article:

Amendment 5 – Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment 8

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Florida Constitution – Article 1, Sections 9 and 17

SECTION 9.  Due process.

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, or be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense, or be compelled in any criminal matter to be a witness against oneself.

SECTION 17.  Excessive punishments.

Excessive fines, cruel and unusual punishment, attainder, forfeiture of estate, indefinite imprisonment, and unreasonable detention of witnesses are forbidden. The death penalty is an authorized punishment for capital crimes designated by the legislature. The prohibition against cruel or unusual punishment, and the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, shall be construed in conformity with decisions of the United States Supreme Court which interpret the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment provided in the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Any method of execution shall be allowed, unless prohibited by the United States Constitution. Methods of execution may be designated by the legislature, and a change in any method of execution may be applied retroactively. A sentence of death shall not be reduced on the basis that a method of execution is invalid. In any case in which an execution method is declared invalid, the death sentence shall remain in force until the sentence can be lawfully executed by any valid method. This section shall apply retroactively.

The double jeopardy rule of the Fifth Amendment is intended to limit abuse by the government in repeated prosecution for the same offense as a means of harassment or oppression. It is also in agreement with the common law concept ofres judicata which prevents courts from relitigating issues which have already been the subject of a final judgment. There are three essential protections included in the double jeopardy principle, which are:

1. being retried for the same crime after an acquittal
2. retrial after a conviction
3. being punished multiple times for the same offense

Does the defense motion to dismiss those extra charges, something it sees as ancillary in nature, hold any merit? In Solem v. Helm (1983) 463 U.S. 277, a split court found that a life sentence without the possibility of parole for a seventh nonviolent felony was unconstitutional. In Solem, a bare majority of the court held a court’s proportionality analysis under the Eighth Amendment should be guided by objective criteria, including the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty; the sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction; and the sentences imposed for commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions.

In Harmelin v. Michigan (1991) 501 U.S. 957, a life sentence without possibility of parole for possessing 672 grams of cocaine was upheld. The case produced five separate opinions. While seven justices supported a proportionality review under the Eighth Amendment, only four favored application of all three factors cited in Solem. As one court has concluded, disproportionality survives; Solem does not. (McGruder v. Puckett (5th Cir.’92) 954 F.2d 313, 316.) In Harmelin, Justice Scalia, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist, determined Solem was wrongly decided and the Eighth Amendment contained no proportionality guarantee. Justice Kennedy, joined by Justices O’Connor and Souter, found the Eighth Amendment encompassed a narrow proportionality principle. In other words, the Eighth Amendment does not require strict proportionality between crime and sentence. Rather, it forbids only extreme sentences that are ‘grossly disproportionate’ to the crime. Moreover, in Solem v. Helm, the court focused on the nonviolent nature of both the defendant’s current offense of uttering a ‘no account’ check (one of the most passive felonies a person could commit) and his prior offenses. The majority acknowledged a life sentence for fourth-time heroin dealers and other violent criminals would pass constitutional muster.

While we ponder the legality of the double jeopardy clause in the appeal, allow me to look at the April 19, 1995 Oklahoma City bombing which killed 168 people and was the deadliest act of terrorism within the United States prior to the 9/11 attacks. I don’t need to go into any detail of what transpired. This is purely about the charges, the trial, and the conviction.

On August 10, 1995, Timothy McVeigh was indicted on 11 federal counts, including conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction, use of a weapon of mass destruction, destruction by explosives and 8 counts of first-degree murder. On June 2, 1997, McVeigh was found guilty on all 11 counts of the federal indictment. He was executed by lethal injection at 7:14 a.m. on June 11, 2001, at the U.S. Federal Penitentiary in Terre Haute, Indiana.

Despite killing 168 people, McVeigh was only charged with 8 murders. Casey was convicted of four misdemeanor counts of lying to law enforcement personnel. The convictions should stand. Double jeopardy, in this case, would mean reducing her convictions from four to one. No dice, I say! Why? If Timothy McVeigh’s attorneys used the same logic and prevailed in a similar motion to dismiss the counts by reducing the eight murder charges to one, that means out of 168 deaths he was responsible for, he would have been tried for one single murder and the entire weight of those deaths would have been reduced from 8 to 1. Would he have been sentenced to death for one murder? If so, would it have been appealed? Yes, and it would have carried much less weight. With Casey, it’s the same thing in my book, although the charges are not similar. I am merely making an analogy.

Ultimately, double jeopardy should not be an appeal issue as far as I’m concerned. Casey was convicted, sentenced, and she did her time on all four counts. That cannot be taken away from her. In the end, it will hinge on whether she was in police custody when she was questioned.  Was she free to go and was she Mirandized? Should she have been? By her own admission, she spoke freely. Should she have been Mirandized just because she decided to sing like a bird? Not until she was placed in custody, meaning under arrest or when her freedom was greatly deprived; enough to be equal to an arrest. Custody could be interpreted as being handcuffed and placed in the back of a police car. It could also include her interrogation — an attempt to elicit incriminating statements — but to what extent? Who said she was a suspect at the time?

I believe the appellate judges will rule against her. Those misdemeanor convictions will stand by a vote of 2-1. No matter what the outcome is, she’s still — and shall always remain — a convicted felon. Thank you, Amy Huizenga.

Shop Amazon’s New Kindle Fire

Nelson Acts Admirably - Sets Trial Date

The new judge in the George Zimmerman murder case, Debra S. Nelson, wasted no time when she set a June 10, 2013 trial date at a routinely scheduled docket sounding this morning. The hearing lasted a whole six minutes.

This ends months of speculation over whether it would follow in the footsteps of the Casey Anthony case, which took nearly three years to end; from her arrest in mid-July of 2008 on a first-degree murder charge to her being found not guilty on July 5, 2011.

According to the Orlando Sentinel, “Zimmerman attorney, Mark O’Mara, was noncommittal about when he’d be fully prepared.”

One of Zimmerman’s defense attorneys, Donald R. West, filed a motion on October 12 asking the new judge to consider assigning a senior judge to assist in the hearings.

MOTION TO SCHEDULE STANDING HEARINGS TO ADDRESS DISCOVERY AND OTHER CASE MANAGEMENT ISSUES OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO REQUEST ASSIGNMENT OF A SENIOR JUDGE TO MANAGE DISCOVERY

The motion cited several discovery problems to date:

Upon reviewing the discovery provided it became apparent that the state had failed to include information it had or should have had, or provided the information in a form that was useless for review by [defense] experts or investigators. The defense made specific oral, then written requests to the state to clarify or to produce this discovery.

It also includes other complaints, such as accusing the state of groveling over expert depositions and witness sketches, among other assorted frustrations and delays. While I can understand the frustrations, I fail to see why the problems couldn’t be handled by one fell sweep. In other words, the judge could issue a stern warning that both sides (to be judicially fair) produce discovery in a timely and organized manner. Why the motion goes beyond that by suggesting the “Appointment of a Senior Judge to Handle Discovery Matters Including Problems that Arise During Depositions” is beyond me.

It’s almost as if the defense is hinting that Judge Nelson might not be qualified to handle the whole case. Why?

Remember, Zimmerman waived his right to a speedy trial and the wheels of justice turn slowly, and at this morning’s hearing, O’Mara flatly stated that he had no idea whether he’d be ready by June 10 or not, so why is there a hurry now, and is the defense sending mixed signals?

This Court has a heavy docket, it may be weeks before the Court can schedule sufficient hearing time to address the many issues that have already arisen and will most certainly arise as the discovery phase of the case continues. In order to promote an orderly progression of the case toward a realistic trial date, promote an economy of resources and avoid delay and disruption of this Court’s docket it is suggested that the Court, at a minimum, schedule regular hearing time to address case issues. But, recognizing the heavy time demands this case will require, this Court is asked to consider requesting assignment of a senior judge to preside over discovery and related matters during the pretrial phase of the case.

Senior judges are retired judges, like O.H. Eaton, who serve on an on-call basis to assist in the absence of a judge, or to help one with a heavy docket. In this situation, Nelson wasn’t even given an opportunity to get her feet wet before this motion was filed. If I had gotten a letter like that, I’d dare say someone was blatantly questioning my competence before I had a chance to prove my worth. As a writer, I’d more than likely lambaste the person, but as a judge, I’d gracefully turn down the request and proceed on schedule. Judges, after all, are more thick-skinned than ordinary people like me.

In the quote from the motion, West wrote, “… promote an economy of resources…” I interpreted those words as meaning that regularly scheduled hearings and/or adding another judge to the case would save the county oodles of money. It really caught my attention, so I called the Chief of Court Services in Tallahassee. Is it cost effective to bring on a senior judge? No, right? Well…

Yes, it is.

Senior judges are paid a flat fee of $350, plus change, per day. That means you utilize a judge for the full 8 hours, if possible, which turns into a much more manageable $43.75 per hour. It would be foolish to have a judge show up for a 15 minute hearing because they would still earn $350.

Judge Nelson has two options. She can outright deny the request or she could take the motion into consideration. If she chooses the latter, it would set off a dynamic that would involve the administrative judge and the chief judge of the circuit. It would mean a mini-conference of sorts, moving up the circuit ladder directly above her. She wouldn’t be able to assign a new judge on her own, in other words, but she would be part of the decision-making process.

What I didn’t take into consideration with “… promote an economy of resources…” is that each circuit gets an allotment of senior judge days from the state. They are built into the fiscal budget, which runs from July 1 through June 30 of each year. If a circuit needs to go over that allotment, the state understands that courts are not going to make frivolous requests. There are checks and balances and formal mechanisms in place and the court would petition the chief justice for more days, so it’s not as if the taxpayer is going to be on the hook for wasted funds. There is also the option to have a magistrate handle some of the docket, but in most cases, they are limited, too, because of heavy workloads.

Nothing personal, but here’s the way I see it. If anything, this defense is responsible for a majority of the delays because of the motions filed to recuse two judges, including an appeal. This gave the defense time to square things with the state, and if these problems do exist, this is the matter that the defense should request the court address — not whether the judge can handle the docket. George Zimmerman already removed two judges and before the new one had a chance to sit on the bench, he questioned whether she is up to the job or not. Well, she is. At this morning’s hearing, she noted that she will be reassigned to the civil court in January, and that will free up her schedule and give her more time to continue with this case. Remember, Judge Strickland was in civil court when he was handed the Anthony case. There is nothing unusual about retaining cases.

Senior judges, for the most part, fill in when judges fall ill or a vacancy opens up. In the new judge’s case, it is neither. My questions are simple. What kind of message is George Zimmerman trying to send to the court? That he will never be happy no matter who sits on the bench? Or is he still gunning for one judge in particular? Either way, he’s out of options. Damn the torpedoes, Judge Nelson, full speed ahead. You are at the helm and George is downstream searching for a paddle.

 Cross posted on Daily Kos

A Full Nelson?

On November 6 of this year, Americans who are registered to vote will have the opportunity to elect the next president of the United States. This may or may not include hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens and half the roster of dead people in the city of Chicago, but that has nothing to do with the context of this post.

If President Barack Obama prevails, he will have another four years in the White House. If Mitt Romney wins, he will be sworn in as the 45th president on January 20, 2013 — Inauguration Day. How this election fits in with the topic du jour is quite simple. There will be a smooth transition between the outgoing and incoming members of the executive branch. It’s the same as it’s almost always been since the inception of this great country. Every four or eight years, we witness this peaceful transference of power, and the country never skips a beat.

It’s the same with the George Zimmerman case. In a 2-1 vote, the Fifth District Court of Appeal rendered its decision regarding Judge Kenneth R. Lester, Jr. 

PER CURIAM.

George Zimmerman petitions for issuance of a writ of prohibition. This is the proper mechanism for challenging the denial of a motion to disqualify a trial judge. See, e.g., Lusskin v. State, 717 So. 2d 1076, 1077 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Reviewing the matter de novo, see R.M.C. v. D.C., 77 So. 3d 234, 236 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012), we grant the petition…[.] Accordingly, we direct the trial judge to enter an order of disqualification which requests the chief circuit judge to appoint a successor judge.

PETITION GRANTED.

While some may gloat over the decision to remove Lester from this case, I most certainly do not. I feel that the judge scolded Zimmerman and nothing more. I am convinced that he would have soldiered on, putting that reprimand behind him. He would heve continued to rule judiciously and fairly, but that’s old news now; what’s done is done. There’s no point in arguing over the how and why of it. While we had our discussions and disagreements over the motion to recuse and subsequent writ of prohibition, today, it is nothing more than water under the bridge, and it’s time to move on.

I am convinced that, just like our election process, there will be a very smooth transition from Judge Lester to the person Chief Judge Alan A. Dickey names as his successor. Who will it be…?

First of all, let me explain what I know about the inner workings of a courthouse, having some experience in it. 

At the very beginning of the Casey Anthony case, Ninth Circuit court Chief Judge Belvin Perry, Jr. asked several judges if they’d be willing to take the case. One by one, they said their dockets were too full. Keep in mind that these were judges working the criminal division, not civil. Judges routinely rotate between criminal and civil every two years or so. No one wanted the case. Perry then turned to someone else. He made a wise choice when he asked Judge Stan Strickland to take the case. You are one of my best judges and, most certainly, extremely qualified to handle it. Strickland agreed, despite having recently moved from criminal to civil. It’s important to note that Strickland continued to hear civil cases, too. Judges, like criminal defense attorneys and prosecutors, are not narrow-minded or restricted. Like servers in a restaurant, they can wait on more than one customer at a time. Trust me, to Judge Lester, the Zimmerman case was just a job and nothing more. What happened to him is part of the process.

When the first judge in the Casey Anthony case was asked to step down, he did so without argument. Why he did it is of no relevance in the Zimmerman case. What matters now is, where do we go from here? When Judge Strickland removed himself from the bench, what happened next was somewhat revealing and it will be similar, if not identical, to the type situation that Judge Dickey is faced with today.

[Since this writing, Judge Debra Nelson has been named to replace Judge Lester.]

During the Anthony mess, media pundits were reporting that, generally, chief judges take on highly problematic cases. Judge Belvin Perry certainly did end up doing just that, but in the interim, it was far from as simplistic as the news actually reported. Behind the scenes, Perry was asking his Orange County circuit court judges to take over the case. I will never reveal how I know that, but it came from more than two sources — all at the top. One-by-one, they turned him down. Do you see the caseload I’m sitting on? I’ve got over 3,000 cases on my docket right now, was the common mantra. Ultimately, Perry was left with no choice. It was, after all, a most problematic case and, reluctantly, he decided to take the helm. The rest, they say, is history.

§

In one of his recorded phone calls from jail, Zimmerman discussed what judge he wanted with his wife, Shellie. This was just as Mark O’Mara signed on to defend him, so it was an early conversation. Zimmerman hoped to get retired judge O.H. Eaton. Eaton has a sterling reputation as a fair judge, levelheaded and extremely knowledgeable in law. What Zimmerman knew about him then is a mystery, but even I was aware of it.

He ain’t gonna end up with Judge Eaton. And I’ll tell you why I think that. Eaton is a retired judge. That’s not to say he’s too old. It has nothing to do with that. Retired judges are not salaried. Retired judges are freelancers. They make a lot more $ per hour than sitting judges. This trial is at least a year away. Would the taxpayers of the 18th District, particularly voters in Seminole County, agree to that kind of arrangement? Granted, you couldn’t end up with a better judge, but would he be willing to take on the task if asked? He doesn’t need it. He’s the kind of retired judge who listens to cases to take the burden off other judges, but they are not major cases like this one. If Dickey runs out of judges in Seminole County, better yet that he would discuss this matter with some of his active judges in Brevard County before handing it over to someone outside of his circuit. Technically, Eaton is no longer active.

One of the names being bandied about is Seminole Circuit Judge Debra S. Nelson. She is every bit as qualified as Judge Lester to sit in judgement of Zimmerman. As a matter of fact, she is most deserving because she is also a no-nonsense judge who was appointed to the 18th Judicial Circuit in 1999 by then-governor Jeb Bush.

In 2007, Judge Nelson presided over a rape case. The accused male, then 41, was eventually convicted of dragging a 10-year-old girl into the woods, choking and raping her. It might be interesting to note that the perpetrator, Antonio Rosales, was in the United States illegally. Also, during the trial, he confessed to murdering a woman in Tucson, Arizona.

While his trial was under way, he went berserk in the courtroom:

His defense attorney, Tim Caudill, moved for a mistrial. He claimed that the outburst tainted the jury. Judge Nelson rejected that, and upon sentencing, she did something unusual. Let me preface this first. Because of the girl’s age, in rape convictions, the charge carries a mandatory life sentence. Judge Nelson decided to take it two steps further. She added two additional life sentences, but she never gave a reason why. To this day, the sentence stands. (See also: Orlando-area jury convicts illegal immigrant of 2003 child rape)

What’s most interesting to me is that Judge Nelson has a reputation for setting harsh sentences. In George Zimmerman’s case, he’s facing a mandatory 25-years to life in prison. That’s because of the 10-20-life law enacted by Governor Jeb Bush in 1998. It’s sometimes referred to as “Use a gun and you’re done” law. According to Florida’s 10-20-life statute, anyone who pulls a gun during a crime receives:

• Felon in possession of a gun - mandatory minimum 3 year prison sentence
• Brandishing a gun in the commission of a crime - mandatory minimum 10 year sentence
• Discharging a gun in the commission of a crime - mandatory minimum 20 year sentence
• Injuring or killing another person in the commission of a crime, by discharging a firearm - 25 years to life in state prison

Just ask Marissa Alexander, a young Jacksonville mother who was convicted of three counts of aggravated assault and sentenced to 20-years for firing a warning shot into a wall during an argument with her husband. She lost her Stand Your Ground motion and she had, what appears on the surface, to be more of an excuse for pulling the trigger than Zimmerman will ever be able to conjure up. Incidentally, the prosecutor during that case was none other than Angela Corey. She said that Alexander was angry and reckless the night of the shooting, not fearful of her life. She will bring the same argument into court when Zimmerman files his immunity motion. Was he more angry or afraid? If in fear, was is objective or subjective?

Judge Lester ruled judiciously and so will his successor. Whoever Zimmerman ends up with, that’s it. There will be no more musical benches, and who he gets will not be singing anything in his ears. He may be laughing today, but his silly games are now over.

Just for your information, In 2012, Judge Lester was deemed the best judge in Seminole County (in all categories) by his peers of criminal defense attorneys and prosecutors. So was another judge in Orange County back in the day. Oh well. If Judge Dickey decides to take the case, it’s not going to be any easier than Nelson or anyone else. Judges are not amused by the antics of George Zimmerman. Of course, that’s my opinion, but I am allowed to be judgmental… or let me say, I am allowed to say so. So will the next judge. Zimmerman is plum out of dismissal motions.

Click to enlarge image

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S VERIFIED MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE

This article was written prior to the court’s decision regarding Judge Debra Nelson.

Bond, Revoke Bond

Call me old fashioned or set in my ways or something, but I got used to the courtrooms run by Orange County judges Stan Strickland and Belvin Perry, Jr. By that, I mean, when we went to the Casey Anthony hearings, chances were good that the honorables would have been inclined to rule on new motions — ones presented that day — at a later date, giving the prosecution and defense (and us) time to ingest and digest the gist of what had just been presented. In other words, the judges routinely gave the opposing side an opportunity to work up a legal response to be argued at a subsequent hearing.

Don’t get me wrong. In no way am I questioning the manner in which Seminole County judge Kenneth R. Lester, Jr. (yes, another junior) runs his courtroom. As a matter of fact, I sensed from the start that this was a no nonsense judge; one who knows the law and how to interpret and implement it. Fair and firm… that’s what I’d call him. Balanced, too, but while attending the hearing last Friday, I never expected to hear a motion that had been filed a mere two hours earlier, followed by an immediate decision from the judge. Where did that come from, and why didn’t Mark O’Mara, George Zimmerman’s lead defense attorney, protest? Well, there’s more to the story, but first, the matter at hand. While the ending may have shocked us, it wasn’t the reason why we were there to begin with.

The hearing was to argue for and against releasing information pursuant to Florida’s rules of discovery, otherwise known as the Sunshine Law. The state said that the names of witnesses should be kept out of public view for their own protection. The defense agreed, and added that things should be kept at a slow pace for now. There’s no reason to release the information at the moment because there are a lot of people to interview further. This will take time.

The media wants everything made public because that’s the law, argued Orlando Sentinel attorney Rachel Fugate in response, and, eventually, the names will be made public anyway. Why not now? So far, she said, the state and defense haven’t shown good cause why any information should remain behind closed doors, and to be honest, it all depends on which way you look at things. Here, the crux of the matter goes well beyond protecting innocent witnesses, unlike the Casey Anthony case, which she compared it to. Casey never admitted that she killed anyone. George did, and that’s part of the problem, aside from race and outrage being major factors. Most of the public agreed with the prosecution in State v. Casey Anthony. Here, it’s deeply split.

Aside from race, the state contends that George Zimmerman’s statements to investigators add up to a confession, and because of that, they are exempt from disclosure. Of course, the defense disagrees. Yes, the defendant admitted he shot and killed the victim, but it was not a murder. It was in self-defense.

Judge Lester called it a matter of what’s inculpatory and what’s exculpatory. One says it’s a fish; the other says it’s a fowl, he added. Inculpatory is evidence that can establish a defendant’s guilt, while exculpatory is evidence that tends to clear a defendant of guilt.

In the end, the judge decided to follow the law and release the discovery documents, but not without poring over them, piecemeal, in camera, and redacted, which means he will most likely censor some of what’s released, like in the first document dump. And just like Judge Perry, Judge Lester reminded the attorneys that this will be no trial by ambush! What you see is what you get.

Incidentally, defense attorney Mark O’Mara said he expects to see a new round of discovery by Monday or Tuesday, so keep your eyes open, folks.

§

When Judge Lester abruptly revoked George Zimmerman’s bond on Friday, it caught me off guard. Like I said at the beginning of this post, I pretty much thought the court would allow time for the defense to prepare. After all, the motion was filed that morning. But I missed something along the way.

At the April 27 hearing to discuss the motions filed by media attorneys, O’Mara stated that his client had misinformed the court about his financial standing at the bond hearing held a week earlier, on April 20. (This signaled the prosecution to go on the offense and dig up some damning information.) While George sat silent in the courtroom, his wife Shellie, out of camera view, lied under oath about their financial situation. He was fully aware of what she was saying and doing. Instead of being flat broke like she testified, he had amassed a small fortune in excess of $135,000, give or take a few truckloads of chicken feed.

That’s not all. There was a problem with the passport — or passports — George held. At the bond hearing, he surrendered his U.S. passport and “tendered it to the court.” It was due to expire in May anyway. So far, so good, except that he failed to inform the court that he held another passport. It seems the first one was lost and he had applied for a replacement in 2004. Passports are good for ten years, so that means the new one is still good for another two years. Meanwhile, the old one resurfaced and that’s the one he turned over. While there is nothing illegal about it, the state had every right to cry foul. George is, after all, a defendant in a murder case, and the state takes EVERYTHING seriously. So does his team of defense attorneys.

And then there’s the judge.

While Judge Lester overlooked George’s indiscretion concerning the passport, he may have done so because of George’s overt lies concerning his finances. Obviously, that was the case in court last Friday, and because defense counsel had previously mentioned the money issue back on April 27, it was no real surprise when the state smacked George with its MOTION TO REVOKE BOND that day.

Did the defense see it coming? I don’t really know, but I will say this. Upon entering the courthouse, you have to pass through a security screen which includes removing your shoes. When you get to the 5th floor courtroom, you must pass through another security checkpoint before entering. As I was placing my personal items back in my pockets, Mark O’Mara came upon me. We spoke briefly. I told him how polite and respectful he was to me when Bill Sheaffer introduced us during the Anthony trial. Mark, if you recall, was hired as a legal consultant for WKMG. If you think back, you may remember Mark NeJame was also with the CBS affiliate. Anyway, whenever O’Mara and I saw each other again during the trial, we always exchanged greetings. He’s a real gentleman. This time, I did wish him the best in the courtroom and he didn’t seem preoccupied with anything that may have been coming down the pike. After the hearing, I spoke to him again, and he agreed when I said it wasn’t a good day.

“No, it wasn’t,” he admitted.

If I had to take an educated guess, I would say that the defense team did not expect this broadside from prosecutor Bernie De la Rionda, and to be honest, I don’t think it was the motion itself as much as it was De la Rionda’s blow-by-blow vocal delivery and the judge’s abrupt decision to revoke bond. It was a veritable wham-bam-thank-you-ma’am, slam dunk, bada-bing sorta thing.

Here’s the bottom line. George Zimmerman lied. While you may not have heard his own voice doing the lying, he did so through his legal counsel and through the testimony of his wife, in sickness and in health; through good and through bad. And the bad part about it was that he manipulated his attorneys and his spouse. That, in my opinion, is what really perturbed the judge the most. And lying to the court, of course. It’s a cold day in hell when you can pull the wool over a judge’s eyes, let alone get a chuckle out of him for trying.

While he sat in the Seminole County jail awaiting his bond hearing, George played his sudden fortune like a Wall Street pro, only he did it in code, assuming the law would never understand a word of it. Well, George, those plastic decoder rings you used to get in cereal and Cracker Jack boxes as a kid were invented a long, long time ago, before Dick Tracy, and it doesn’t take much of a brainiac to figure out that $135 = $135,000 in code-speak. Duh. It’s stuff like this that truly makes me wonder if George actually thinks of himself as some sort of comic book superhero who’s above the law. It’s not Superman… it’s… it’s Zimmerman!

Despite George’s immature attempt at deception, I’m going to go out on a limb and take a stab at how the judge will respond to a second bond motion filed by the defense requesting his release. Sure, it will be granted, but the judge is out of town this week, so George will have to sit and stew for awhile. God knows, he earned it. Of course, when the hearing is eventually held, he will kiss a good chunk that money in limbo good bye. Bond should be set to the tune of $1,000,000 if you ask me, which, when decoded, translates into a $100,000 down payment; still a mere pittance to a guy like him and his loyal minions, but a huge slice of the pie when it comes to the not so small matter of mounting legal fees.

[Since this writing, the defense team has decided against filing a new motion for a bond hearing at this time. See: Update For Motion On Bond]

Until the hearing comes, George and his defense team will need to do some serious head banging. He profoundly impacted his credibility with the judge. To those who disagree, listen to O’Mara’s own words. “There is a credibility question that now needs to be rehabilitated by explaining in a way what they were thinking, when they did what they did, and we’ll address it… I think that explanation or apology, if it is, should go directly to the person who deserves it. In this case, that is Judge Lester.” (See: George Zimmerman returns to Seminole County Jail)

Take a look, too, at what the Orlando Sentinel put together from their own reporting and research. This is something a jury will not ignore.

Zimmerman’s untrue statements

• The night he shot Trayvon Martin to death, police say Zimmerman told them his record was squeaky-clean. In fact, he had been charged in 2005 with resisting arrest without violence during an altercation with a state alcohol officer. Zimmerman wound up in a pretrial-diversion program, a scaled-down version of probation offered to nonviolent first-time offenders.
• When he was booked into the Seminole County Jail on April 23, he told the booking officer that he never had been in a pretrial-diversion program before, documents show.
• At his April 20 bond hearing, while making a surprise apology to Trayvon’s family, Zimmerman said he didn’t realize Trayvon was so young. In his call to police moments before the shooting, however, he described Trayvon — who was 17 — as in his “late teens.”

These things, plus the money deception, will not bode well for the defense. The judge will give George an opportunity to explain himself, but what does O’Mara think? “My understanding was that Judge Lester seemed to indicate that he wanted testimony. That is a very complex decision to make about what effect that would have, not only at the hearing itself, but any future testimony, so we haven’t made that decision yet.”

I don’t think I’m even close to going out on a limb when I say that George can kiss the old stand your ground defense good bye. Since it will be Judge Lester’s decision to make, wasn’t it really stupid of George to lie to him, of all people? Wasn’t that a blatant lack of common sense and honesty? Or was it stupidity? Couldn’t the night of February 26 have been the same thing? A blatant lack of common sense and honesty?

Because I am so sure this case will go to trial unless a plea deal is made — which I strongly doubt, George is going to have to do something to regain his credibility, but I don’t know what. His defense team is doing its best at damage control, but how much good will it do?

From the George Zimmerman Legal Defense Website, Details Regarding The Request For A Second Bond Hearing For George Zimmerman:

(Edited for content)

While Mr. Zimmerman acknowledges that he allowed his financial situation to be misstated in court, the defense will emphasize that in all other regards, Mr. Zimmerman has been forthright and cooperative. He gave several voluntary statements to the police, re-enacted the events for them, gave voice exemplars for comparison and stayed in ongoing contact with the Department of Law Enforcement during his initial stage of being in hiding. He has twice surrendered himself to law enforcement when asked to do so, and this should demonstrate that Mr. Zimmerman is not a flight risk. He has also complied with all conditions of his release, including curfew, keeping in touch with his supervising officers, and maintaining his GPS monitoring, without violation.

Why did George stay “in ongoing contact with the Department of Law Enforcement” when he first went into hiding? Because he thought of himself as one of them? A cop’s cop? Among his peers? The first thing a defense attorney worth his weight in salt would say to a new client is to shut up. That’s why this statement is meaningless. Of course it was his initial contact because, on advice of counsel, he stopped talking after that.

He has twice surrendered himself to law enforcement when asked to do so, and this should demonstrate that Mr. Zimmerman is not a flight risk. He has also complied with all conditions of his release, including curfew, keeping in touch with his supervising officers, and maintaining his GPS monitoring, without violation.

This, too, goes without saying. Isn’t that a given? This is what he was supposed to do, and most people comply with the law. Besides, once the cash was out of his hands, where was he supposed to hide? With what? Once the defense learned of the money, it was transferred into a trust fund where George couldn’t touch it. Neither could his wife.

The audio recordings of Mr. Zimmerman’s phone conversations while in jail make it clear that Mr. Zimmerman knew a significant sum had been raised by his original fundraising website. We feel the failure to disclose these funds was caused by fear, mistrust, and confusion. The gravity of this mistake has been distinctly illustrated, and Mr. Zimmerman understands that this mistake has undermined his credibility, which he will have to work to repair.

“We feel the failure to disclose these funds was caused by fear, mistrust, and confusion.” This is damage control at its finest. This is why exemplary defense counsel deserves to make the big bucks, and I’ve got to hand it to Mr. O’Mara, who I totally respect and admire. That sentence says it all, but it’s a classic contortion of relativity and relevance. It’s pointing the finger one way while speaking in another direction. Why? While focusing on George’s innate fear, mistrust and confusion, which we can all relate to, its actual intent is to confuse us and take the heat off him.

If George was really fearful, mistrusting and confused, why did he lie to the court? If he did nothing wrong, what was he fearful of there, of all places? The court was the first place he should have trusted. After all, the truth shall set him free. Right?

Bond, Revoke Bond

The Pyrrhic Victory of George Zimmerman

I try to avoid being controversial, but for those who don’t know me, seldom will I back away from something because it’s too sensitive an issue. Some things just irritate me to the point where I have to write about them.

In April of 2009, I published an article titled, Casey Anthony Must Die! Six months later, the presiding judge, Stan Strickland, called me to the bench to compliment my work for being fair to both sides; the prosecution and defense. Nearly a year after my article appeared, Casey’s defense team filed a motion demanding that the judge step down. They accused me of being pro-prosecution and based it on that post. Therefore, the judge was biased, but there’s no proof the judge had even read it. And had the defense team taken the time to actually read it, they would have known the title had little to do with Ms. Anthony’s demise. In fact, I thought it preposterous that 2,000 years ago, Romans crucified Christians for no other reason than their own pleasure, and here it was, 2,000 years later, that God-fearing Christians, of which there were many, wanted Casey’s head on a silver platter with no trial at all. It was the hypocrisy that riled me. Today, the hair is standing up on the back of my head. Again.

Teenagers are willing to take risks. It’s the nature of the beast. We need look no further than college campuses to see how far they are willing to go to have fun. Even high school kids do things we wouldn’t fathom as adults, but how quickly we forget that we were young once, too. Sometimes, kids break into their parents’ liquor cabinets and drive drunk. Sometimes, they just take risks for the thrill of it, like driving 100 miles-per-hour to find out how well they can take a sharp curve in the road. Who doesn’t think they have a full life ahead of them when they’re 17-years-old? Foolishness comes with the territory, and Trayvon Martin was a boy, not a man.

I have spoken to adults about real-life incidents like the above examples. When a thrill-seeking teenage boy slams his vehicle into an oak tree, killing him and a few of his best friends, I have been told that, while being a terrible shame, those kids, especially the driver, got what they deserved for being so selfish, silly, stupid and sinful. They should spend the rest of eternity in Hell; all based on one fatal mistake made at a time in life when the brain is far from being fully developed. Who cares what they could have grown up to be?

Take Trayvon Martin. He was suspended from school for 10 days for having a plastic baggy in his possession that contained trace amounts of marijuana. Sure, he was wrong, but so are many other people dating back as far as I can remember, and at pushing 60, I can tell you a lot about the Hippie days of my youth. Did he deserve to die because of it? Absolutely not, but you wouldn’t know it by the remarks made by many people on various blogs, forums and other places where venting is allowed regarding the tragedy that took Trayvon’s young life and what led up to it. As a matter of fact, one such person wrote that it was bad parenting that caused the boy’s death. He should have known better than to walk outside in a world filled with hoodlums. In fact, he was one of them. Of course, the fact that Trayvon walked all the way to a 7-Eleven store and back unscathed had no bearing whatsoever on George Zimmerman’s act of holding up the fort of his own gated community, according to that commenter. To serve and to protect. Oh wait… you have to be a cop to say that, and it’s bad enough for Trayvon’s parents right now without laying another guilt trip on them. It was their fault. Imagine that!

Today, this unfortunate event has spurred all sorts of non-violent social and political unrest, although it has calmed since Zimmerman’s arrest. It’s pitted whites against blacks and blacks against whites in something that needn’t be racial at all except for the perception by some that the Sanford Police Department swept it under the rug for that very reason. I don’t know about that, but I can certainly understand why civil rights leaders attached themselves to this case and how it never would have gotten this far had it not been for the dedication of attorney Ben Crump and others who were willing to keep pressing. This is not just about one boy. It is about the fear of every parent of color living in a predominantly white society. Sadly, it’s also split conservative and liberal values and reaved Republicans and Democrats when this should be nothing more than an issue of justice — plain and simple; and justice comes from a courtroom and nowhere else.

Until this plays out in court, we will continue to argue over truths, half-truths and lies. Factual information will become so distorted that we end up knowing nothing. I saw firsthand how convoluted the facts became throughout the Anthony case, from the beginning to the end. People fought like cats and dogs over a family they didn’t even know. Friendships were lost, smear campaigns took hold, and in the end, nothing was gained. Not even a conviction.

Here we are again. Another tragedy and so much at stake. Tell me, will I lose your friendship today? I hope not, and for the sake of argument, I will readdress a timeline I published one week ago. According to Trayvon’s father, Tracy Martin, and from what investigators told him, George Zimmerman said that he began following the boy and in no time, Trayvon walked over to his truck.

“Why are you following me?” Trayvon asked.

“I’m not following you,” Zimmerman responded after rolling down his window.

Here’s where it falls apart:

7:04 PM:  Trayvon received a phone call from his girlfriend.

7:08 PM:  Trayvon’s phone call with his girlfriend ended.

7:09 PM:  Zimmerman spotted Trayvon while sitting in his truck and called the non-emergency police number. Log records showed the incoming call was received at 7:09:34 PM.

7:10:35 PM: Zimmerman told the dispatcher that Martin was coming toward him.

At no time during this period did Zimmerman say anything to the dispatcher about a verbal exchange between the two, while seated in his truck, nor is there any record of it on the phone call. As a matter of fact, Zimmerman said the boy was running away. This may have had something to do with why a charge was filed. Almost simultaneously, Trayvon was walking toward him and running away, and no verbal exchange took place.

7:11:48 PM: Dispatcher asked Zimmerman which way Martin was running. This is when he exits his truck.

7:12 PM:  Trayvon’s girlfriend called him back.

7:13 PM:  Zimmerman said his truck was parked at a cut-through. 15 seconds later, he lost sight of Trayvon.

It’s very important to note that Zimmerman was in his vehicle until he got out and chased after Trayvon. The dispatcher warned him against doing so upon hearing wind resistance from the cell phone.

7:13:41 PM: Zimmerman ended his call to the dispatcher.

Meanwhile, Trayvon was still on the phone with his girlfriend.

7:15 - 7:16 PM: Trayvon told his girlfriend he thinks he lost the guy. She then heard voices:

Trayvon: Why are you following me?

Zimmerman: What are you doing here?”

Trayvon’s phone cut out at 7:16 (approximate.) His girlfriend said it sounded like the phone was dropped. Who hit who first is a big issue, but it does seem Trayvon got the upper hand.

7:16:11 PM: First of seven 9-1-1 calls came in. A high-pitched male voice is heard screaming for help, and then…

7:16:56 PM: A GUNSHOT IS HEARD.

According to the initial police report, officers Ricardo Ayala and Timothy Smith arrived on the scene at 7:17 PM, seconds after the fatal shot.

When interviewed by the police, Zimmerman was unaware that Martin was on the phone with someone who would offer up a different account. So were the investigators.

What is so sad about this is that people are making up their own facts to suit their versions of events. Of course, the events are mostly based on what we’ve learned from the media and each side’s support group made up of friends and relatives, plus some eye and earwitness accounts. In truth, Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman did not exchange words early on or it would have been recorded. By his own admission to the dispatcher, he reported seeing this boy walking, looking strange and on drugs or something before there was any interaction, and no confrontation while in his truck occurred as he described to the police, if Tracy Martin’s account from investigators rings true.

As far as I’m concerned, all I want is the truth, so help me God. Just give me some truth. Whatever transpired leading up to Trayvon’s death, it had to have happened within the final minute after his cell phone fell silent and that’s all there is to it. One person’s account of events is not adding up.

Aside from a tragic death and the family devastated by it, this will be no picnic for George Zimmerman. For lack of a better way of expressing it in words, he may have won the battle that fateful night of February 26, but the war is far from over. The heavy cost of winning that battle was astronomical, and the horrible consequences now following George are destroying him from within. He will never have a reason to celebrate, even if he beats the second-degree murder charge in court. There will be no sense of achievement, and that, my friends, describes a Pyyrhic victory to a tee. Ad victorem spolias. Just ask the Romans.

I strongly encourage you to read Trayvon Martin: Before the world heard the cries by Daniel Trotta.

Jose Baez: Free as a Bird

Yesterday, The Florida Bar cleared Jose Baez of the two complaints filed against him after finding no probable cause. He will face no disciplinary action whatsoever. The decisions were sent to Mr. Timothy Patrick Chinaris and Mr. John A. Weiss, both co-counsel for the respondent.

Complaint of The Florida Bar against Jose Angel Baez
The Florida Bar File No.: 2011-30,708 (19A)

NOTICE OF NO PROBABLE CAUSE AND LETTER OF ADVICE

In the matter of last year’s sanction and $583 fine by Chief Judge Belvin Perry, Jr. for his willful violation of an order by the court to share discovery documents with the prosecution, the Florida Bar’s grievance committee “believes the failure to fully comply with the discovery orders was unintentional and realizes that Mr. Baez has expressed remorse for his conduct and also had to pay fines to the court due to previously imposed sanctions. The committee accepts the explanation that the complexity and volume of the case caused unintentional lapses.”

Please note the acknowledgement of the complexity and volume of the Anthony case.

At the same time, the committee did not let Baez get away without any form of reprimand. It added that, “Nevertheless, every attorney has an obligation to ensure that each and every court order receives full compliance. Mr. Baez is strongly advised that he should be cognizant of the need to completely comply with all orders of the court in the future.”

Complaint of The Florida Bar against Jose Angel Baez
The Florida Bar File No.: 2012-30,171 (19A)

In a letter from The Florida Bar addressed to Jose Baez’s legal representatives, “the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit Grievance Committee ‘A’ unanimously found no probable cause for disciplinary proceedings in the above-referenced case. The vote was 7 to 0. The committee is comprised of both lawyers and nonlawyers.”

This complaint was filed over his neglect to correct the mistake over Casey’s probation period being served while incarcerated. Judge Stan Strickland alerted the court after the trial ended that his order was specific about Anthony’s probation being served after her release, if ever. Due to a court mistake, the order was not made clear, but in the end, Strickland and Perry asserted that attorneys are bound by their profession and obligated to clarify and rectify any and all errors. Baez claimed he overlooked it and it was not done intentionally.

In it’s response to this complaint, the grievance committee stated that it had “thoroughly reviewed all the court records and documents and conducted several interviews. The grievance committee is cognizant of the fact that the case involved a complex fact situation and many months had passed since the probation order at issue. Your client indicated to the grievance committee that his representations to the court were not made to mislead the court but were made based upon his understanding of the context of the question. The grievance committee has concluded that there is not clear and convincing evidence that the conduct violated the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar in this matter. Therefore this case is now closed.

“For the reasons set forth herein, our file on this matter has been closed. Pursuant to the Bar’s records retention schedule, the computer record and file will be disposed of one year from the date of closing.”

Well, there you have it. No more Casey, no more complaints. Whatever your opinion in the matter, the case is closed and Jose Baez is free to fly south or anywhere else he chooses. Time to move on.

To view the documents, please click on the images to enlarge. The bottom links are the PDF files.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Complaint of The Florida Bar against Jose Angel Baez
The Florida Bar File No.: 2011-30,708 (19A)

Complaint of The Florida Bar against Jose Angel Baez
The Florida Bar File No.: 2012-30,171 (19A)

Odds & Ends and Odd Endings

JOSE BAEZ

By now, most of you are already aware that Jose Baez is no longer affiliated with the client who turned his name into household fame. Cheney Mason made that clear a month or so ago when he stated that Baez severed all ties with her right after sentencing. It’s now official:

By clicking on the above image, you can inspect it at a much larger scale. Very revealing are the lines drawn through his name, his affiliation with the client and his work number, that signify his departure. Scan all the way down to the bottom left and you’ll also find that a Notice of Withdrawal [of] Attorney of Record was filed on 2/21/2012. 

There hasn’t been much said about it until now, but it’s most likely what I assumed since it was first reported. First of all, Casey Anthony is an ingrate. She only thinks of herself, which is something most of us will agree on. I can’t say for sure, but my guess is that it was one of those “I quit!” moments, followed by a typical response from an ingrate, “You can’t quit! You’re fired!”

While I am not offering any sympathy or line of defense for Baez, I do look at it from a rational point of view. After the trial, logic dictated that he didn’t need her any longer. He won the case and garnered one heck of a lot of publicity. He’s set because of it, no matter what anyone may think of him. He’s not the first criminal defense attorney to clasp a client from the clutches of the executioner’s claws, nor will he be the last. Think of Johnnie Cochran and OJ, but the world didn’t go wild when he was found not guilty of two counts of first-degree slaughter, and Cochran’s legal practice and notoriety gained significantly in the wake of that trial.

Here’s one little detail I’ll bet you’re not familiar with. Baez was the lead attorney on another murder case while the Anthony story was taking center stage. Contrary to what some may think, attorneys do work on multiple cases at a time. Speaking of time, please take time to watch the video below. It will open a number of eyes because, clearly, this client was not guilty, contrary to what the prosecution thought.

Back to the famous fall out. What Bob Kealing reported on Tuesday, in a nutshell, was that Casey was quite upset that her attorney didn’t land her a big dollar TV interview; something her parents were able to do for their charity, and trust me, I use that term loosely. In any event, so what? The man spent the last three years of his life eating, breathing, and… well, never mind, all things Casey. He was attacked from the left and from the right; from the front and from the back, but lest you think I’m being too kind, I am not. He knew what a strain it would be, but he also knew what the end reward could be and, in the end, he gambled correctly. The best possible thing for him to do was to stop affiliating with her. In a thunderous flash, she became toxic. Now, I’d venture a guess that he’d disagree with me publicly on what I just wrote, but that’s the way I see it. Like it or not, because of the outcome of the Anthony trial, he’ll have speaking gigs and new clients for years to come. That is, as long as he keeps his license to practice law, and I expect him to do just that, whatever the outcome of the Bar complaints filed against him. In other words, I don’t think they are significant enough to disbar him if he loses.

JEFF ASHTON

There’s a little bit of a situation unfurling with former prosecutor, now candidate Jeff Ashton, over his decision to represent his son in a Seminole County DUI trial. Clearly, there are two brains of thought. It’s understandable that any attorney would come to their child’s defense. I’ll give him that and add that no matter what, we can look at his worth as a caring parent and not argue the point. At the same time, he is running for the office of Ninth District (Orange/Osceola) State Attorney. If elected, he would be responsible for prosecuting people in the same boat, so was it a wise thing to do? In a later press conference, he said he had a problem with voters who couldn’t understand what he did as a father. Like I said, he’s loyal, but I read a lot of comments on Hal Boedeker’s Orlando Sentinel television blog and many of them were firmly against his decision. Some of them added that he’s just another typical lawyer and no hero after all. Do I agree with that assessment? No, but I will say that, in my opinion, he could have saved himself a lot of votes had he cashed in some of his courthouse chips and asked another attorney to handle his son’s affairs. Now, word comes that he’s defending his daughter, according to Seminole County court records. She was charged with driving without a license and for failing to show proof of insurance. 

While I refuse to blame Ashton for the Casey Anthony loss, at least not to a large extent because it was a team effort, he failed to win his son’s case. If he loses his daughter’s, too, his odds of winning the Democratic primary for state attorney will begin to deteriorate, but not enough to harm him beyond hope. However, it’s a tough road ahead any way he looks at it. Lawson Lamar has a huge political machine in Tallahassee and throughout the state, and lots of powerful friends, not to mention a much larger campaign chest. There’s also the old idiom, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Obviously, he doesn’t see it that way. 

That leads me to Linda Drane Burdick, but first, a little more information. When asked if she would support Jeff in the election, she said that she couldn’t do that in a Democratic primary because she a registered Republican. However, a month or so later, she donated $100 to Lamar’s reelection campaign. Incidentally, two other candidates are in the race. Ryan Williams, also a Democrat and former assistant state attorney, entered the race in September of 2011. And recently joining the fray is Orlando criminal defense attorney Joerg Jaeger, a Republican hellbent on defeating Ashton. He told Orlando Sentinel Senior Reporter Anthony Colarossi that, “I don’t think Jeff is fit to be state attorney.” And he’s made that point exceedingly clear.

JUDGE LINDA DRANE BURDICK?

Back to Miss Linda. In case you haven’t heard, the lead prosecutor in the Anthony trial threw her hat in the ring, along with 22 other applicants, to fill the bench left void when 9th Circuit Judge James Turner was removed for violating several judicial principles, including hugging and kissing a court clerk. This was also reported by Anthony Colarossi in the Feb. 13 issue of the Orlando Sentinel. If I could vote for her, I would! 

LAST WORDS

There have been many changes since the end of the Anthony fiasco. Judge Strickland retired at in December of last year and I don’t blame him. He had an outstanding career on the bench and it goes without saying that we wish him all the best. He is right where he wants to be at this stage in life and all is well in the world.

I also want to wish Jeff Ashton continued success in his career, including the upcoming election, but like Drane Burdick, I won’t be voting for him, either, but not for the same reason. You see, I live in the 18th District, and that’s Seminole County. If you want to learn more about him or contribute to his campaign, read HERE.

Thank you, and hopefully, I won’t have more to say about ‘you know who’ until the date of her civil trial filed by Zenaida Gonzalez - the real one, with no Fernandez in her name.

Leafy Things... with a Dash of Dirt

I’m sure you know there’s more than one explanation for the word leaf.  The Dictionary.com website describes it as “one of the expanded, usually green organs borne by the stem of a plant” and “any similar or corresponding lateral outgrowth of a stem.” It’s safe to say that leaves grow on trees. It’s also true that a leaf could be a two-sided page in a book.

Speaking of trees, I really wanted to write about a tree today, but the book on that is closed at the moment. This was no ordinary tree, mind you, because it was older than Moses and quite majestic. Until several issues are resolved, the tree story will have to wait. In the meantime, I will tell you about a leaf or two in a couple of books.

The winner of the autographed copy of Jeff Ashton’s book, Imperfect Justice, has been notified. While keeping this person’s identity as close to the vest as possible, I will tell you it was Charlee, who lives in Texas. Like I promised, I put all entries in a hat, although I really used a big kitchen bowl instead, and my mother picked the e-mail address while it dangled above her head, sight unseen. Interestingly, today is Charlee’s birthday, so it couldn’t have happened on a better day. Congratulations Charlee, and Happy Birthday!

I think most of you are aware by now that I was mentioned in Ashton’s book. Not only did he reference me as Dave Knechel and Marinade Dave, he even managed to spell my last name correctly. Trust me, Knechel is not an easy one. Of course, I personally thanked him for the acknowledgement and for getting it right.

The second one was brought to my attention by someone you know from my blog and elsewhere around the Internet, Karen C. She told me about a book, From Crime Scene to Courtroom, written by famed forensic pathologist/lawyer Cyril H. Wecht, MD, JD, and noted true-crime journalist Dawna Kauffmann. Subtitled Examining The Mysteries Behind Famous Cases, this book examines the mysteries behind Michael Jackson, Casey Anthony, Drew Peterson, Brian Jones, and more, as the cover asserts.

When Karen told me about this book, of course, I had to order one. While it showed me in a positive light, it managed to get my name wrong. Oh, Knechel was right, but I’m not David L. Knechel, as the book states on page 68 and in the index. I’m David B. Knechel and I have no idea where the “L” came from. Okay, it’s a small mistake, but I did call the publisher this morning to request a correction in subsequent printings. I made it a point to say I was not complaining. As I am well aware, all editors hate mistakes.

In the book, I am described as “an Orlando-based writer, graphic artist, and barbecue aficionado, whose website is called MarinadeDave.com.” Granted, a marinade does not a barbecue sauce make, but back when I was manufacturing and selling it, several of my friends purposely asked me, “Hey Dave, how’s your barbecue sauce doing?” knowing full-well it was not a barbecue sauce.

It only took me a few times of quickly correcting them: “It’s a marinade, not a barbecue sauce!!!” that I finally grasped their only intent — to upset me.

I remembered from years ago how one of my closest friends got exceptionally angry when we asked him how his condo was doing.

“It’s not a condo, *&^*#%^&*()*!! It’s a townhouse!!!” Trust me, I got over the barbecue/marinade joke very early on, and when they still tried, I answered them calmly and ignored what they called it.

On page 75 of the book, I am mentioned again. “The press corps was out in full force for the Anthony trial. Attending some, if not all, of the proceedings were national figures like Nancy Grace, Jane Velez-Mitchell, Jean Casarez, Beth Karas, Geraldo Rivera, Greta Van Susteren, Ashleigh Banfield, and Diane Dimond of thedailybeast.com, as well as local print, television, and radio journalists — among them blogger ‘Marinade Dave’ Knechel, who covered the case for Orlando magazine.”

Trust me, I am highly flattered. Yes, of course, I became part of this case, and there’s no denying it. Fortunately, none of the real and true investigators and authors have implicated me in any way, shape or form of scheming to take down Judge Strickland. That was only the fodder of simple-minded people, including a blogger who shall remain nameless for now.

In any event, I did lay out my plans with a book editor today. I was told it was a good concept as long as it also contains facts about the actual case, along with the sordid details. I know if I do, names will be exposed, including two people who claimed to be in the courtroom daily during the trial when they were not there. One “reported” on a blog and the other is mentioned in the above list. Sorry, I guess you’ll just have to wait.

Jeff Ashton to run for State Attorney?

The Orlando Sentinel and WESH are reporting that Jeff Ashton is poised to announce his run for state attorney. He will make his announcement on the steps of the Orange County Courthouse on Tuesday morning at 11:00 AM. WESH quoted Ashton and the Sentinel speculated.

Lawson Lamar is the present state attorney for the Ninth Circuit Court. He has enjoyed running unopposed in the past, so this should be interesting. Personally, I think Ashton would be a great choice. At present, he is taking care of his best-selling book responsibilities (Imperfect Justice) and, since the trial ended, working as a consultant for the Maitland, FL law firm of Troum & Wallsh.

Just after 6:00 pm today, this statement was made on his official Facebook page: “Please stay tuned we will be releasing more information on what next and how everyone can help, in the next few days. Till then have a happy new year.

Incidentally, Judge Stan Strickland left the bench today. We all wish him the very best in his future endeavors.

From the Court House...

I attended the hearing yesterday — the one pertaining to the release of the video deposition of a tricked out defendant in camouflage that the Morgan & Morgan law firm took on October 8. She continuously invoked her 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination, so, in essence, no reliable information came out of the deposition. Morgan & Morgan represents Zenaida Gonzalez in the civil suit against the mother of Caylee Anthony, accused of her murder and acquitted on July 5 of all charges except lying to law enforcement. She has been in hiding since her release from the Orange County Jail on July 17, and for good reason. She is one of the most hated persons in the world.

John Morgan argued that the defendant has no special rights that should prevent the video from being released under Florida’s liberal open government in the sunshine law. For the defense, Andrew Chmelir argued that there was absolutely no reason for releasing the information, and that if it were to become public, it would open his client up to greater scrutiny and hinder her right to a fair trial. Circuit Judge Lisa T. Munyon is presiding over the civil case and, after listening to both sides, she said she has 10-days to decide and will issue an order within that time frame.

Initially, I was against the lawsuit for a number of reasons. One was that Zenaida is only one of a dozen or so people in the immediate area who share the same name as the fictitious nanny named back in July of 2008 as Caylee’s kidnapper. The Zenaida represented by Morgan is the only one suing for defamation. She cites that her good name was ruined and she has been unable to work ever since. Personally, I think it is time for her to move on with her life, but at the same time, I am in agreement with the plaintiff to a certain extent. John Morgan told her from the start that there would most likely be no money forthcoming if she wins the suit because the defendant would not make money off the death of her daughter. Of course, that was prior to the verdict, when most people, including Morgan, felt she would be spending the rest of her life behind bars or sentenced to death. Since her acquittal, she has yet to capitalize on her story, and rightfully so. Public outrage is so strong, for any media outlet to touch it would surely be toxic. Besides, as Judge Stan Strickland once said, the truth and Ms. Anthony are strangers. You can’t believe a word she says. Why would any entity pay for lies?

Today, I do think that Zenaida Gonzalez deserves to have her good name back, but is it necessary to win the lawsuit in order to achieve it? I don’t know, but it wouldn’t hurt. For sure, Ms. Anthony should have been more forthright about this particular Zenaida, so in that regard, especially since Jose Baez admitted in his opening statement that Caylee was dead all along, his client could have readily dispatched this particular Zenaida and no harm would have been done.

Which way am I leaning about the release of the deposition video? Although I do not think it will hurt Ms. Anthony, I’m not sure why it should be. For one thing, I disagree with her defense’s argument that it would impede her right to a fair trial, where the case would be litigated in a courtroom, not in front of the media and under public scrutiny. After all, she can’t receive any more damage than she’s already brought upon herself, right? But on the other hand, I’m not sure one of Morgan’s arguments is all that valid. Does a law firm’s video deposition fall under the same rule of discovery as the state? In my humble opinion, I don’t think so, so how will the judge rule? I don’t have a clue, but it will be very interesting to find out. How many of us really want to see her? Be honest.

§

Why did I decide to attend the hearing? Oh, I guess it was for old time’s sake. I expected to run into some of the same people I mingled with throughout the hearings and, of course, the trial. I felt it would be very good to let everyone know about my health, too, and I was right. There were days during the trial when I looked like death warmed over. One of the deputies told me, “And then you had to run home and write about the day, only to return in the morning.” He was right, and I told him it was more than just that. I had a very disciplined and demanding editor who yelled more than Great Caesar’s ghost! at some of the things I wrote. I will admit that the experience taught me a lot about writing, thanks to him.

It was a very good day to mingle and reminisce. It was also good to re-acquaint myself with John Morgan from years ago, and he was curious about me, meaning he certainly knew who I was. To be honest, he is a very friendly and approachable sort, and extremely polite. When his son, Matt, saw us talking, he made it a point to introduce himself, too. There was no huge ego. Obviously, his mother and father brought him up right, and no doubt, he’s got a tremendous future ahead and I wish him all the best.

Finally, allow me to put one rumor to bed. According to an extremely reliable source, who shall remain nameless, Judge Strickland is relinquishing his bench for exactly the reason he stated. After 16 years, he wants out. He wants to help his wife with her business. This has absolutely nothing to do with any sort of investigation into how he handled the issue with the “blogger” named Marinade Dave or his statements made after the trial on Nancy Grace. Yes, WFTV hinted that there may just be an investigation, but my source was quick to point out that Channel 9 is the first and biggest one to sensationalize the news. Anything for ratings.

Rest assured, there is no investigation and Judge Strickland had every right to say anything he wanted after the trial ended. Besides, he already knew by then that he was going to retire. The decision was something he gave much thought to. This is a judge who so richly deserves a huge round of applause from all of us. I am honored to know him.

I will be away from my computer for several hours today. If you get caught in moderation, I will let you out when I can - later today.

The convenience of karma and the cancer disconnect

I want to thank everyone for their concern over my health. I came out a victor in Round 1. The bone marrow biopsy showed no cancer in my blood or marrow. Previously, I had been diagnosed with chronic anemia and thrombocytopenia, which is low platelets. Yesterday, a new diagnosis was added to the list… monoclonal gammapathy. That’s abnormal plasma cells in the bone marrow. I will have to learn to live with it. There is a risk, albeit low, that it may develop into cancer one day, but I’ll take that with a smile. Friday, I get the lung biopsy. I was supposed to have it this morning (10/4), but no one told me to stop taking baby aspirin.

There is little understanding about what caused the blood conditions to manifest. They just strike people. At least I can stop worrying about it, although I will have to be checked every 3 months to keep tabs on whether it does turn into cancer, but if so, it could be years down the road.

I really wanted to go to the hearing on Wednesday afternoon — the one concerning the motion WKMG-TV filed that asked the court to release a video recording of Mizzanthony’s shocked and distressed jail house reaction to news that her daughter’s remains were found very near to where she lived. You see, back in 2009, Judge Stan Strickland agreed with the defense that the video would have been too prejudicial to show a jury because it could have negatively affected her right to a fair trial. Consequently, he sealed it. That was then, and now that the trial is over, what harm would it do to release it? After all, the defense openly admitted she knew all along that her child was dead.

WKMG’s attorney, Jack Kirschenbaum, stood toe-to-toe with Jose Baez in court, both arguing in front of Chief Judge Belvin Perry. While Kirschenbaum cited Florida’s open government in the sunshine laws, Baez stuck with his concerns over medical privacy. Perry is expected to render a decision by week’s end, and my educated guess is that he will side with the media. Why? Because administering the defendant a sedative in a waiting room with a TV does not constitute doctor/client privilege. Besides, the issue over the defendant receiving a fair trial is no longer a factor.

One of the reasons I wanted to attend the hearing was to see some of the people I interacted with during the course of the case — countless reporters, deputies, attorneys, and the bevy of courthouse employees and everyday people I got to meet. You know, for old-time’s sake. I had an 11:30 appointment to see my gastroenterologist and I figured I’d have plenty of time to make it to the courthouse by 3:00. Alas, I didn’t leave the doctor’s office until then. The doctor explained, apologetically, that it wasn’t from overbooking as much as it was from the federal government’s new law mandating that all medical offices must be computerized or face stringent penalties. I understand how the learning curve would be difficult for medical personnel of a given age, plus the fact that the software is quite complex and not mastered in a day. In any event, the only outcome of my day was learning that I will have both an endoscopy and a colonoscopy on October 18. Whoopee! Fortunately, I will be sedated.

Since I’m addressing doctors, sedatives, journalists and the court system, I’m going to haphazardly segue into one word that kept creeping up during the course of the whole Anthony ordeal — karma. But before I get into it, I want to apologize for not being all that attentive on my blog of late. For sure, I wanted a lengthy break after the crux of the Anthony mess came tumbling down in July, but it’s pushing October and I feel I owe you a legitimate explanation. I’ll get to that shortly.

Dictionary.com defines karma as “an action, seen as bringing upon oneself inevitable results, good or bad, either in this life or in a reincarnation.” It goes on to mention fate and destiny as descriptors. Unfortunately for some of my readers, I have a real problem with karma. To be quite frank, I just don’t believe in it and I’ll tell you why. Take the case of Mizzanthony. All through the legal process, countless numbers of people were adamant about her karma coming back to “bite her in her azz”, only it didn’t happen that way. Otherwise, she would have been found guilty and sentenced to life or death for murdering her daughter, Caylee Marie. Speaking of Caylee, what did she do to warrant such horrendous karma that she had to die at such a young and innocent age? If karma killed Lee Harvey Oswald, what karma killed JFK?

While karma was a constant theme during the Anthony case, it was only used matter of factly, as a matter of convenience. In other words, when karma failed to get the defendant while incarcerated and tried in open court, it morphed into something else — that karma will get her while she’s out of jail and free. Just move the karma around to suit one’s fancy. Some people actually believe they have power over people by inflicting karma. Take a look at the slugs that attacked me and my friends unmercifully during the past two years. Karma was going to get us because they had ordained it so. In that regard, karma is pitted against karma; the good karma being us and the bad karma being them, although they would stupidly beg to differ. May the best karma win! Caylee’s mother may live to be 90, but karma will catch up to her then? Come on, we all know better than that. Eventually, she will have to meet her maker, and that’s what counts.

Regardless, karma goes against the will of God, at least in the Judeo-Christian sense. I don’t think the Bible puts much faith in reincarnation, for example, and I think it’s safe to say that most of my blog’s readers fall under the auspices of the Judeo-Christian credo and, therefore, karma is a direct conflict with the principles of both books of the Bible, although Job 4:8 (KJV) does state, “Even as I have seen, they that plow iniquity, and sow wickedness, reap the same,” but I’m not about to get all preachy on you. In this particular regard, a simple explanation can be found with one of our contemporaries, Orenthal James Simpson.

While O.J. was acquitted of murdering Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman in 1995, he sits in Lovelock Correctional Center in Nevada until, at least, 2017; sentenced to 33-years for kidnapping and armed robbery in 2008. His first possibility of parole comes in 2017, but don’t count on it. Was it karma that finally caught up with him? Hardly. You see, if you hang around bad people and do bad things, your odds of getting caught multiply tremendously. That’s precisely what happened to OJ, plain and simple. He was responsible for his own undoing because he chose to hang around a bad crowd. He did it to himself, with no help from fate, destiny, karma, kismet, or whatever else you want to call it. He chose his own path.

That leads this article to yours truly and how karma did not come beckoning at my front door. Conveniently, the devil’s rejects who attacked me incessantly during the past two years will rejoice after reading this, but I don’t care. While they are sure I am Satan incarnate, sane people know otherwise. You know me as a caring individual. You know my sensitive side. Understanding human behavior is not in a troll’s vocabulary. For them to compare me to Hitler and Stalin¹, two of the worst people to ever walk the earth, is pure insanity. How anyone could make a comparison like that is beyond the realm of accepted behavior. Well, enough of them and their trashy troll talk.

Everyone who has followed me for the past three years knows that I’ve had a number of health issues, none karma related. Recently, I was able to get some complex blood work done. One of those tests showed an abnormality in my blood protein, specifically, elevated M protein. For years now, my platelets have been quite low, along with RBC, hemoglobin and hematocrit counts. I was diagnosed with thrombocytopenia and chronic anemia years ago. Trust me when I tell you I am not seeking sympathy of any kind, nor am I looking for any sort of hand-out.

I have been seeing a specialist in the field of hematology and oncology. You know, a blood disorder and cancer doctor. I have had x-rays taken of every bone in my body in search of lesions. I have had CT scans and PET scans. I also had an MRI. Why my veins haven’t collapsed by now is beyond me. On Monday, my hematology/oncology doctor performed a bone marrow biopsy on my right hip. Believe me, in my case, it wasn’t nearly as painful as it sounds. While those tests were being performed, something new crept up; something totally unrelated to the problem with my blood. Something that put everything else on hold.

My long-time readers will remember when I was laid up with pneumonia back in December of 2008. It was confined to my right lung, and it’s not at all unusual to recur at any time in the future. Here’s where the karma comes in, or should I say, lack of karma? Some of the recent tests showed “an infiltrate is present within the left upper lobe and the right major fissure thickening.”

What this means is that there is an astute possibility that I have a cancerous tumor in my left lung, as in lung cancer. That’s something no one wants to hear. My doctor said it was large, and the PET result stated it had an “uptake value of 2.7.” The injection I got before the scan contained a radioactive substance and glucose. Cancer cells absorb the material 10-times more than healthy cells, so they light up like Christmas trees. 2.7 is not full-blown cancer like 5.0, but it’s enough to make any doctor sit up and take notice. It’s also the reason why all other health concerns are now on hold. The “major fissure thickening” is the area between lobes, near a vertebra. While that one shows no sign of cancer at this time, it may down the road. Next week, I will be put under a derivative of morphine and Valium, and my left lung will be biopsied. No matter what it is, and I’m fairly certain I know, the growth will most likely be removed after it’s evaluated.

This is just the start of many pokes and probes and possible operations. Trust me when I say it has weighed heavily on my mind, as my close friends and family will attest. Here and now, I am going to explain the matter of karma. I never did anything morally wrong enough for some silly karma to come and get me, despite being bitten in the azz by a biopsy needle. No, this problem has nothing to do with karma. The only thing that matters is the fact that I smoked cigarettes and cigars for nearly 40-years. It was my choice to smoke and no one else’s, and it’s what caused it. (I did quit four years ago.)

When giving my mother the news, I told her the most important part — the only reason why it was found early was because of tests taken for another type of cancer. Had I not had those tests at this time, odds are it wouldn’t have been diagnosed until it was too late. I have no real symptoms and that’s the problem. By the time real symptoms creep up on you, this type of cancer, which is extremely aggressive, has grown arms and legs and spread like wildfire. That’s the main reason why lung cancer has such a high mortality rate.

While I will insist it’s not karma, I will say I do believe in divine intervention, although I’m no authority on it. I think, in my case, it’s what made sure the right tests were performed at the right time — that caught it early enough. At least, that’s what I’m praying. So, if you wonder why I haven’t written much lately, truth be told, I’ll readily admit I’ve rested on my laurels, I can be a great procrastinator, and I have a lazy streak at times. But one thing is certain — there’s a lot on my mind right now that limits my creativity and I shouldn’t be that way. I need to find new stories to write about, but until I do, please bear with me. While I do not believe in karma, I do believe in the power of prayer, and that’s precisely what I am asking you to do. Please keep me in your prayers. That’s all I ask.

And if you smoke, please quit now.

Of Biblical Proportions

SOLOMON, PART I

On January 27, 2010, I wrote a post titled, “The Wisdom of Solomon”. It was two days after The Honorable Judge Stan Strickland listened to Amy Huizenga’s thieving friend plead guilty to thirteen counts of fraud. Here is part of what I wrote that day:

State Attorney Frank George stood up at his respective podium and began to speak. On July 8, 2008, Casey wrote a check in the amount of $111.01 that accounted for charges 2, 3, and 4. She wrote this check at Target.  On July 10, she passed a check at Target in the amount of $137.77 that accounted for charges 5, 6, and 7. Also on July 10, she passed a third check at Target for $155.47 and that took care of counts 8, 9, and 10. Counts 11, 12, and 13 took place on July 15 when she wrote a check for $250 at the Bank of America. He then brought up count 1 which referred to a deliberate scheme of conduct overall. She planned on writing checks until they bounced off the walls, I would guess. Good thing we live in the information age, where account balances are instantaneous almost everywhere we go.

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. He said that he had given this a lot of thought prior to sentencing. “I’ve done what I thought is fair based on what I know.”

In closing, he added what he felt was the right thing to do:

“There was not an even number of offenses, so I withheld in seven, I adjudicated in six. If that seems Solomon-like, it is.”

Of particular interest now is the Solomon-like decision Judge Perry faces regarding the recent clarification of Casey’s probation period set by Judge Strickland. I find it ironic that good old Solomon once again rears his head at the now acquitted and much detested convicted felon.

MOSES, PART I

That brings me to another biblical figure - Moses. He was the guy who cast ten plagues on the people of Egypt. He also parted the Red Sea after he turned the Nile into blood. The pharoah was none too happy with that, so he let Moses and his people go out of Egypt to be slaves no more.

My reason for bringing up Moses has little to do with him, actually. It’s more about the pharaoh at the time, and what his edict was while Moses was packing up the Israelites to wander in the desert for forty years. Every mention of his name and every word etched in stone was struck from the official records. (Historical records actually show that Ramses II was not in charge at the time, but Hollywood disagrees.)

As Ramses II, Yul Brynner exclaimed in Cecil B. de Mille’s film The Ten Commandments, “So it shall be written, so it shall be done.” In this same light, I proclaim that the name Casey Anthony will no longer be permitted on this blog. It is now stricken from the record. However, I do have an appropriate replacement. We know that Caylee called Cindy Ci Ci, and George was Jo Jo. What did she call her mother? How about Ca Ca? From now on, Caylee’s mother will only be known as Ca Ca. Yes, you know how it’s pronounced.

SOLOMON, PART II

Back to the problem Judge Perry called “a legal maze” and “a legal morass”. What sort of decision should he make? According to the Department of Corrections, Ca Ca served her probation while incarcerated and was duly discharged a year later; free from all restrictions. According to what Judge Strickland said in open court on January 25, 2010, her probation was supposed to begin AFTER her release from jail, not while she was sitting in a cell, and he made it clear last week, on August 1, when he issued a corrected Order of Probation and corrected Court Minutes, nunc pro tunc to January 25, 2010. Nunc pro tunc, of course, means now for then; whatever the action is, it has a retroactive legal effect.

Here’s the dilemma. Ca Ca’s defense argues that she has served her probation while incarcerated and they have a letter from DOC to prove it. On the other hand, Judge Strickland made it abundantly clear that Ca Ca did not serve her probation as per his instructions, and his order stated that it was to begin after her release, only there was a mix-up on the first order, as written by the court. But that was not Judge Strickland’s fault. Meanwhile, Cheney Mason filed a motion on his client’s behalf, the EMERGENCY MOTION FOR HEARING TO QUASH, VACATE, AND SET ASIDE COURT’S ORDER. 

Judge Perry said (at the August 5 hearing on the matter) that what Strickland stated in court should trump all - not what the defense claimed. At the same time, Perry acknowledged that she DID serve out her probation in jail according to the Orange County Corrections Department. What a quagmire. “If anything could go wrong,” he said, “it went wrong here.”

Perry is quite aware of safety concerns, meaning keeping Ca Ca safe from harm. To openly serve probation now opens up a can of worms since her address would be made public due to Florida’s sunshine laws. You know, what with all those death threats and whatever.

Phooey. Ask OCSO how many real death threats they’ve received since her release from incarceration. From my own experience with trolls and the “vengenance is mine” crap - yes, that’s the way one idiot spelled it, insinuating harm on me - almost every one of them lives far enough away to be a real threat, although I wouldn’t trust any of them face-to-face, and that leads me back to Ca Ca. Personally, I feel she should be more afraid the farther away from home she is, as she enters uncharted territory. There are more crazies out there in the world than there are in Orlando. Believe me, I thank God for the Atlantic ocean, but that’s another story.

Ahum.

Moving on, I am left with prior motions the defense filed before the trial which asked the court to seal jail records, including visitation logs, telephone conversations and commissary purchases. They were filed and denied while Strickland was on the bench, and they were refiled, along with new ones, after Judge Perry took over. Both judges made it very clear that the judicial branch holds no legal sway over the legislative branch; the one that controls jails and prisons. Consequently, neither judge ruled in favor of the defense because they had no authority to do so.

That leads me to what I think the judge should do. Since he has no power over the jail because it’s a completely separate governmental branch from the court, his decision should be based on those prior rulings. The court does not have to honor the administrative decisions the jail makes in its day-to-day operations. What both judges have been saying all along is that they have no control over the executive branch, and at the same time, the jail has no power over the judicial. There you have it - a very simple solution to a complex problem. Ca Ca did not serve a day of probation while incarcerated because she did not satisfy the court’s order. The heck with what the jail says.

MOSES, PART II

As Ramses said about Moses, let Judge Perry say the same thing about Ca Ca. So it shall be written, so it shall be done. While he wanders through what must be at least 40 years worth of court cases, let’s see how he rules. Personally, I think the answer should be a year of supervised probation. Afterward, she can find her Promised Land. By then, she should be old news and TMZ won’t pay her another dime.

Have a Happy Heavenly Birthday!

Last Laugh?

I’m sorry. I did state that I planned on walking away from the Casey Anthony case, and it’s still my intent, but I just had to say something about today’s news. I couldn’t resist, especially when it comes to Judge Strickland…

On August 1, 2011, Judge Stan Strickland ordered Casey Anthony to serve one year of supervised probation, nunc pro tunc. Nunc pro tunc is Latin for now for then. In other words, the judge issued a new court order showing that the earlier order was in error in its interpretation by the Department of Corrections. The words upon release were omitted in the original document.

According to the Orlando Sentinel, Strickland said, “From my reading of this, she should be reporting to probation in Orlando probably within 72 hours. I suspect she’s going to be required to report to probation.”

On January 25, 2010, Anthony pleaded guilty as charged to check fraud. Her attorney, Jose Baez, asked Judge Strickland to give her credit for time served and to place her on probation for a year. He obliged by sentencing her to time served, 412 days for each of the six charges he found her guilty of , followed by one year of probation. The 412 day sentences were to be served concurrently.

At issue, upon her release from jail on July 17, 2011, was whether she had served her probation during the year following her guilty plea to fraud. Clearly, a person cannot violate probation while sitting in a 4’x9’ jail cell 23-hours each day. The judge’s intent was for Casey to serve her probation upon her release from jail, not during. Therefore, he made that very clear in his amended order today.

Casey was also ordered to pay the following amounts: $5.00 for court costs, $50.00 for CCF, $225.00 for LGCJTF, $3.00 for TEENCT, and $65.00 for the Criminal Ordinance program. She must also pay the costs of investigation and prosecution. Attached to the new order were special conditions, along with the year of probation. Of course, there’s to be no contact with the victim, Amy Huizenga, which should be no problem at all. Each month, Casey must make a “full and truthful report” to her Probation Officer, along with $20.00 (payable to the state of Florida) toward the cost of supervision, and a 4% surcharge.

Here’s where the order gets tricky. The order states that Casey “will not change [her] residence or employment or leave the county of [her] residence without first procuring the consent of [her] Probation Officer.” Oddly, her last place of residence was 4937 Hopespring Drive. Something tells me she will fight tooth and nail to keep herself away from that house.

The order carries a total of 13 legal stipulations she must follow, such as not being able to own any sort of weapon. Attached are the two documents released by the Clerk of Courts today. I think we can fully count on her defense challenging this new order, but what judge will hear the motion? None other than Chief Judge Belvin Perry, according to the Orlando Sentinel write-up.

I do not believe Judge Strickland intended to have the last laugh. His design was for Casey to serve her probation upon her release from jail. Isn’t it ironic, though, that in the end, while Cheney Mason claims he was able to take the judge down, he couldn’t take him out? Rich indeed!

OneTouch Aug 01, 2011 (1)

OneTouch Aug 01, 2011 (2)

How the Cards Stack

Two weeks have passed and, surprisingly, Jose Baez did well in some areas. Where?

You’ll have to read about it on Orlando Magazine.

Click the image

Feel free to add your thoughts.

THANK YOU!

Orlando Magazine

 

I have been following Casey Anthony’s every move for the past 2½ years, but I am no stalker. You can’t stalk someone who lives in jail and makes an occasional visit to the courthouse, where I go to see her in person. We have never spoken, though our eyes have met and I believe she knows who I am. Casey is a big part of my life, but probably not for much longer. 

My immersion into the Anthony saga is not normal, I know. You’re probably sick of hearing about Casey Anthony, who is to go on trial this month, but her name is always on my mind. I’m 58 years old and take care of my elderly parents and two cats, working from home as a freelance Web designer. I would go stir crazy if not for outside interests that stimulate my mind and get me out of the house. I have a laptop and loads of free time. I love to write. I have a blog, marinadedave.com.

It was never my intention to become a crime blogger. Casey just happened to come along at the right time for me, when I was immersed in blogging about a passion of mine that, frankly, makes my fascination with the Anthony case seem normal.

You don’t get the moniker “Marinade Dave” for writing about a murder mystery; you get a nickname like that honestly. I used to make a marinade I sold in local markets, and in 2004 I started blogging about marinades and marinating tips. About 5,000 marinade lovers visited my site every month.

But there is only so far you can go with a blog on marinades, and I had reached my limit with it just as the story of the “Tot Mom” erupted into a national media frenzy in July 2008. That’s how CNN talk show host Nancy Grace referred to Casey during the early days of the mystery surrounding the disappearance of her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee Marie. In October 2008, Casey was indicted for first-degree murder while the search for Caylee continued.

The leap from blogging about marinades to blogging about the Anthony case does seem like a giant one, but it actually began as a small step. I just didn’t know at the time that I had put both feet in quicksand.

In November, while working as a videographer, I found myself in the vicinity of Jay Blanchard Park in east Orange County where a search operation was under way. I decided to stop by, and there I met an affable Leonard Padilla, the bounty hunter who had posted bail for Casey after she was first arrested on child-neglect charges, and members of a dive team searching the Econlockhatchee River.

I asked questions, took notes and shot video and a few photos, then went home to my computer. “The Search for Caylee takes a nose dive” was my first blog on the case, complete with visuals.

The blogosphere is not normal, either, and therefore, it is the perfect place for a guy like me. Through search engine optimization, key words and the power of Google, virtual unknowns like me can be read by thousands of people. My blog gives me some sense of legitimacy as a journalist, despite not working for a recognized media outlet. I’m on my own, but thanks to the Internet my voice is heard.

My first Anthony story brought me new traffic, exciting exchanges on my site’s forums and fresh inspiration. The next thing I knew, I was hip-deep in the quicksand.

On several occasions I drove to the home of Casey’s parents and to the nearby wooded area where the remains of Casey’s daughter were found in December 2008. At both places I shot videos and photos for my site. I attended the memorial for Caylee Marie at First Baptist Church of Orlando in February 2009, delivering hundreds of messages of condolences my readers asked me to pass along to the slain toddler’s grandparents, George and Cindy Anthony.

Since the beginning of the ordeal I have felt sorry for George and Cindy. They have lost a beautiful grandchild and have had to deal with the torment of not only knowing that she was murdered but that their daughter is on trial for that heinous crime and she could be executed for it.

Altogether I’ve written more than 200 posts on the Anthony case, covering everything from my thoughts on possible motivation that could have led Casey to kill her child (“Caylee’s Murder: Premeditated and pretty stupid, too”) to the irony I found in comments from some professed “good Christians” who wanted vigilante justice (“Casey Anthony must die!”) to the intricacies of various legal maneuvers in the trial (I have amassed a small library of law books).

Somewhere along the way my blog, which now attracts about 100,000 visitors a month, got the attention of the judge who originally oversaw the Anthony trial. I would have never known this had he not complimented my work, and I’m sure he wishes he now had kept that comment to himself.

While researching the media’s coverage of the Anthony murder case, Judge Stan Strickland read some blogs, including mine. He apparently thought mine was fairminded, and he told me so in his courtroom after a hearing—the first of about 30 I have attended in the case—in October 2009. That remark and a personal phone call to me while I was ill led Anthony’s attorneys to seek his removal from the trial, claiming Strickland was biased against their client.

Instead of fighting the claim, Strickland stepped down in April 2010 to avoid giving the defense ammo for an appeal. While the recusal was good for marinadedave.com, bringing to it thousands of new visitors, it also torqued the lunatic fringe that follows the Anthony case.

I have a small group of haters watching my site, but what a loud and rowdy crowd it is. They are of the mindset that Casey and her whole family should be taken out and shot, with their bodies left to the vultures. And if you don’t agree, or you believe in due process, or you keep them from posting their Jerry Springer-esque tirades on your forums, like I do, well, they get nasty.

The vitriol my haters have directed at me is of the cheap-shot variety: I have AIDS, I’m gay, I hate gays, I’m into child porn, my teeth are rotten and I smell bad. If only their harassment ended at name-calling. My home address has been posted on various Anthony related comment fields on the Internet, an oblique suggestion to do me harm, I believe. Posts on other blogs about the Anthony case make it quite clear that I’m being watched when I attend courthouse hearings. Last year an animal control officer stopped by my house, saying an anonymous e-mail had accused me of hoarding pets. (My cats would never stand for it.) My personal e-mail accounts and blog have been hacked.

Normal people would not do such things, but the blogosphere is kind of like the wild, wild West, only worse. There are no rules or codes of conduct. Hiding behind screen names and avatars, blog readers are emboldened by their anonymity to sling virtual mud in the comment forums.

But there’s no better place to throw something out there to see if it’ll stick. Between myself, my contributors and people on other blogs and forums, we have come up with some interesting theories in the Anthony case. For example, back in 2008 the last two houses on Hopespring Drive, where George and Cindy live, were occupied by a woman whose first name is Zenaida and a man whose last name is Gonzales. Put those two names together and you get the phantom nanny (with a “z” at the end of the last name) Casey accused of running off with Caylee. The backyard property lines that separate the two homes point directly to the spot where Caylee’s remains were found. If you type 8905 Suburban Drive in Google Maps, it takes you to the same spot, though there isn’t a house at that location. It’s all woods along that street.

Why 8905 as a street address? August 9, 2005, or 8-9-05, is Caylee’s birth date.

I don’t buy into such theories that suggest the plot to kill Caylee involved such intricate planning as expropriating neighbors’ names and using a birth date as some sort of code.

Still, it’s the bizarre that makes this case so engrossing to my readers and me.

But it will end, sometime in the next month or two probably, and when it does, I will have to move on. I imagine many of my readers will, too. I don’t see myself going back to writing about marinades, though.

That wouldn’t be normal for me anymore.

Stalemate?

I have been a little under the weather lately, but in all honesty, I had planned on writing about the Frye hearings and how I believe the judge will rule and why. Now, with so much attention focused on the impending 48 Hours Mystery program that’s scheduled to run this Saturday night, I feel compelled to proffer my thoughts on the matter. On the show, a mock trial jury acquits Casey Anthony of first-degree murder.

I recently wrote about a motion filed by Cheney Mason that accused Judge Perry of bias in favor of the state. On Fool’s Mate, I explained how useless the motion was. In my opinion, it was a feeble attempt to intimidate another judge into stepping down and it failed miserably. Belvin Perry, Jr. is going nowhere until this trial is over, but once again, I see the defense testing the judge’s fortitude, determination and resolve.

Yesterday, Orlando attorney Richard Hornsby published a new article on his blog that focuses on one particular aspect of the CBS piece - whether Jose Baez may have inadvertently waived attorney/client privilege because of a jury consultant who aided the defense. At issue is whether he was paid or not, and if so, by whom. Did CBS pick up the tab? Will we ever know? I strongly encourage you to read it because it is the most brilliant essay to date on this very strange and convoluted saga.

Early on, when this case was still in its infancy, Jose Baez successfully argued against a State motion requesting the imposition of a gag (or suppression) order. That was way back in November 2008. Judge Strickland said he would issue one as the trial nears. A few months ago, Judge Perry said he would impose one, too, as the trial draws nigh. With less than a month to go, when does His Honor plan on ordering one? I can’t think of a better time than now.

The law.com Website’s legal dictionary describes a gag order as:

“a judge’s order prohibiting the attorneys and the parties to a pending lawsuit or criminal prosecution from talking to the media or the public about the case. The supposed intent is to prevent prejudice due to pre-trial publicity which would influence potential jurors. A gag order has the secondary purpose of preventing the lawyers from trying the case in the press and on television, and thus creating a public mood (which could get ugly) in favor of one party or the other. Based on the ‘freedom of the press’ provision of the First Amendment, the court cannot constitutionally restrict the media from printing or broadcasting information about the case, so the only way is to put a gag on the participants under the court’s control.”

What this means is that the judge is powerless to stop media from running stories about the case, but he can stop everyone directly involved (meaning attorneys) from talking or writing about it. This would include investigators on both sides of the aisle. While CBS or any other media outlet would not be bound by law to kill a story, the legal implications should, nominally, deter editors and news directors from publicizing further stories based on inside sources or whatever means are still available. At the same time, it would have no effect on information garnered prior to the order, like Saturday night’s program.

On May 9, Judge Perry and all counsel affiliated with Case No. 48-2008-CF-015606-O will assemble inside a courthouse outside of Orange County. Its sole mission? To pluck a jury of Casey’s peers, who will then sit in judgment of her the following week, in what many consider the trial of the 21st century; still quite young. The jury will come to Orange County, where it will be sequestered. If this proves to be problematic, the judge will attempt to seat a jury from home, and if all else fails, somewhere else - until the job is done. Right?

Well, there may be some complications that could, quite possibly, quagmire the will of the people of the great state of Florida.

In May of 2009, Jose Baez requested a change of venue. This is a legal term for moving a trial to a different location. In a high-profile case like this, it could be next to impossible to seat a fair and impartial local jury due to the widespread publicity in print and broadcast media. However, a judge has other options. He could deny the motion and remain at home, risking a retrial on a post-conviction appeal, or he could deny the motion and attempt to seat a jury from a demographically similar area. Since the Rodney King case, courts have focused on efforts to ensure that demographics from another community are as similar as possible to the demographics of the community in which the criminal offense allegedly occurred. Although it’s only a jury that will be brought to Orange County in order to save taxpayers millions of dollars, it’s intent is to satisfy all parties without any of the bias stirred by so much local publicity. That’s the goal, anyway, but I see something else… an ulterior motive by the defense.

Granted, the wheels of justice are not always round. In the United States, a defense has every right to utilize any and all means available to exonerate their client as long as they abide by the laws of the land; in this case, state statutes and rules of criminal procedure. During Casey’s trial, her defense won’t have to prove she didn’t murder her daughter, guilt falls squarely on the prosecution. Prove it, in other words. In the meantime, the defense can do what it wants to diffuse the charges brought against her, meaning it could try to taint a jury throughout the state until a gag order is in place. Is it fair? Of course not, but it’s not illegal, and appearing on TV isn’t, either. Is the defense taking advantage of the present situation? You bet, but in all sincerity, is it really all that sinister?

Let’s say the location of a potential jury is demographically similar to Orlando and Orange County. Let’s say this area, because of the similarities, has a daily newspaper like the Orlando Sentinel and the requisite network television affiliates, ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC, including independents and radio stations. We can pick anywhere in the state, like Miami or Tampa or Jacksonville or Tallahassee. Why not throw Ft. Myers into the mix?

Eenie, meenie, miney moe, pick a jury, friend or foe.

Okay, let’s say Tampa. No, I don’t have a clue, so don’t ask. The population of Hillsborough County is 1,229,226 according to the 2010 census. The population of Orange County is 1,145,956. For the sake of argument, that’s close enough. Tampa has its own newspaper, The Tampa Tribune, and lots of TV and radio stations. I’m not discussing whether it’s too close to Orlando or not because, as you shall soon see, it won’t matter.

One of the most prevalent aspects of today’s world is that we are very much a global community. What just took place in Peoria, Illinois can be read and seen within minutes of the story breaking. We live in a digital world, and news travels as quickly as thunder catches up to lightning. Not only do we have tons of reliable sources available, we have a more powerful tool today - the Internet. I remember when small town newspapers offered communities intimate coverage of what was going on in their respective neighborhoods. Dora Holsopple made pancakes for her grandchildren after church services on Sunday. Mildred Holcombe’s dog bit the paper boy, Teddy Harvey’s son. Roy Kronk found the skeletal remains of a missing toddler. Odds are, you heard about the last one as quickly as I did, whereas, 30 years ago, you may not have heard about it at all. In today’s society, it’s darn near impossible to plug up holes that spill news and gossip from just about anywhere. That leads me directly to Casey’s defense. Remember, Jose Baez & Co. can do whatever it takes to free their client as long as it’s within the confines of law. Playing dirty may be an issue to you or me, but all things are fair in love and war - in this case love being Casey’s innocence, whether she is or isn’t. And while the defense cries foul over leaked information pertaining to their client, they are more guilty of doing it than anyone or anything else. To me, it’s more of a risk because if a jury is eventually seated, which should be the case, the defense cannot base an appeal on what they, themselves, did from the start. To me, it’s a big gamble. So is Saturday night. To understand the full extent of what the program probably entails, we have to wait until then to watch it, but meanwhile, in its description of a mock trial, therightjury.com states:

“A mock trial is a more in depth, formal, and extensive focus group which also tests the effect of opening and closing statements on the jury. In a mock trial, jurors will be exposed to opening statements, closing arguments, crucial witness testimony, and any evidence or demonstrative evidence which is important to the case. During mock trials, however, the attorneys play themselves, with one attorney from the firm playing the opponent and advocating accordingly. Should the attorney wish for his/her client and/or star/expert witness to be examined in front of the jurors, then the actual client and/or star/expert witness must be present.”

In Casey’s mock trial, she wasn’t present, but it seems so hypocritical, doesn’t it? While the defense complains about bad publicity, they go on national media exposés for the entire state to see. I strongly contend that they are doing their utmost best to taint a jury pool throughout the state for one reason only: to ensure that she will never be able to get a fair trial anywhere. God knows, media outlets are just about everywhere in Florida. So are antennas and cable channels. There’s also the Internet and satellite dishes. In my opinion, this defense knows exactly what it is doing. With so much at stake, Judge Perry said he would impose a suppression order before the trial begins. When? I say, the time is ripe. Slam the door shut! It’s getting stale. As much as I hate to see this sort of order coming for the sake of freedom of the press and what we are still allowed to disclose, there’s no better time than at the next hearing. This, on the precise Friday - one year ago - that Cheney Mason fired off a motion to dismiss the trial judge. Oh yes, I remember it well, but let’s not go there. It makes me gag.

Bye Bye Baez? NO! Read the motion

A Michigan inmate has asked Judge Perry to have Jose Baez removed from the case. 

 

CURTIS JACKSON

This morning, April 5, the Orange County Courthouse issued this statement regarding the motion filed yesterday with the Clerk of Courts:

Please see attached Motion (Defendant’s Motion for Withdrawal of Appointed Counsel) in the State vs. Casey Anthony. It is not filed by Casey Anthony.

It is filed by an inmate in Michigan.

He also wrote a letter to Linda Drane Burdick on June 8, 2010.

Judge Perry story

There’s a new article up on ORLANDO magazine that delves into the life and work of Chief Judge Belvin Perry, Jr. I encourage you to read it and come back here to comment. Terrytsk found it. Thank you, Terrytsk!

Order in His Court

Fool's Mate

In his court game of chess, Cheney Mason was the first to yell…

CHECK

That was nearly a year ago. Certainly, the recusal of the Honorable Stan Strickland is not so far in the distant past that we would forget what Casey Anthony’s defense team is forever up to. Would they have the audacity to do it again? For the past two-and-a-half years, we have watched them throw everything in their arsenal at the wall of justice in hopes that something sticks. Why not? They have a right to do that, but is Mason now trying to force Chief Judge Belvin Perry, Jr. against the same wall? Are they backing him into a corner with only one way out?

Judge Perry is a smooth operator, so smooth, in fact, that he always comes prepared to hearings with his own powerful set of weapons - case law. He’s well educated in the courthouse games lawyers play and he seems to have some sort of mental telepathy, as if he knows beforehand what tack the defense will take on any given day. It’s almost mystical, because we are left to wonder how he did it. How could he possibly know all that? The man is shrewd. He easily wipes the excess dirt off the wall without missing a beat, and the defense is oftentimes left with mud on their faces. Does this mean he’s biased, as Mason recently charged?

Much to the dismay of common folks like you and me, the court has had to put up with a wide range of oddball motions filed by this defense, so nothing is surprising. One such absurdity was a motion to disqualify the state attorney’s office. Huh? How could an assistant state attorney possibly represent the state if the entire office is disqualified? Case dismissed for lack of state attorneys! Of course, there are more like this one, but that’s not important.

On April 16, 2010, Cheney Mason filed his shot heard ‘round the judicial world demanding that the trial judge step down. In DEFENDANT, CASEY MARIE ANTHONY’S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY TRIAL JUDGE, he wrote, “The Defendant, Casey Marie Anthony, reasonably fears that she will not receive a fair trial because of the conduct and apparent prejudice and bias of the judge…” The motion cited several reasons. Most were centered around me, my blog, and three articles I wrote a full year before. The exchange between the judge and myself was precisely six months later.

In his ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY TRIAL JUDGE, Judge Strickland made several points, two of which were:

• [The defense] seems to have only recently lost confidence in the Court’s ability to be fair and impartial; and
• [The defense] has now been accused of bias and wrongdoing, potentially each denial of a defense motion will generate renewed allegations of bias.

We all know the outcome of Mason’s first chess game at the Orange County Courthouse soon after joining Casey’s team. In any event, my point is not to rehash the past. It’s to look into recent defense moves and what the future may hold.

COMES NOW, Cheney Mason, criminal defense attorney, recently filed a motion for a rehearing, aptly titled, MOTION FOR A REHEARING ON ORDERS DENYING MOTIONS TO SUPPRESS.  Judge Perry had earlier ruled on the defense MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS MADE TO LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS. The defense argued that Casey should have been read her Miranda rights when law enforcement personnel were initially summoned to the Anthony home due to 911 calls made by Cindy Anthony. The judge decided Casey was not a suspect at the time and was, therefore, a witness to a possible kidnapping. You don’t Mirandize witnesses. The new motion also included the MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS MADE TO GEORGE, CINDY, LEE ANTHONY, MAYA DERKOVIC, ROBYN ADAMS, AND SYLVIA HERNANDEZ, defining Casey’s 6th Amendment right to counsel and the improper use of agents of the state. In this case, the judge ruled that George, Cindy and Lee, by their own admission, were desperately seeking Caylee and wanted every bit of help they could muster, especially from law enforcement. Obviously, Casey was doing a lousy job of running her own investigation into the disappearance.

Although I feel that the crux of this defense motion for a rehearing lays in possible ramifications later on, such as an impetus to file an appeal if the defendant is found guilty, it extends into other areas as well, and that’s where we come right back to the succinct possibility that the defense will file yet another motion to disqualify the trial judge. What? Deja vu all over again? Admit it. It’s a nervous feeling running down your back.

In order to request that the judge step down, a couple of factors are problematic for the defense. In Judge Strickland’s case, he most certainly did not have to go, but he understood that the prevailing issue would remain if he denied the defense their request, as he so stated in his order. Every subsequent motion the defense lost could be grounds for an appeal. What caught us off guard now is the fear that Mason may be up to his old tricks. While certainly an option, it’s not easy. Here’s the statement Mason made in his motion that rattled nerves:

c. The Court Did Not Look at the Evidence from the Hearing Objectively and Instead Displays a Clear Bias [emphasis mine] In Explaining Law Enforcement Conduct Rather than Evaluating Whether a Reasonable Person Would Have Felt Free to Leave.

Shades of dismissal! Well, no, not really. Under FLORIDA RULES OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION, Rule 2.330, DISQUALIFICATION OF TRIAL JUDGES, “Any party, including the state, may move to disqualify the trial judge assigned to the case on grounds provided by rule, by statute, or by the Code of Judicial Conduct.” OK fine, but what it means is that the procedure for filing disqualification motions for civil and criminal cases is set out in Rule 2.160 of the Fla. R. Jud. Admin., amended by the Florida Supreme Court in 2004.

If this is the route Mason is considering taking, he should be mindful of the fact that a statute related to judicial disqualification exists. He should surely remember F.S. §38.10 from last year:

Whenever a party to any action or proceeding makes and files an affidavit stating fear that he or she will not receive a fair trial in the court where the suit is pending on account of the prejudice of the judge of that court against the applicant or in favor of the adverse party, the judge shall proceed no further, but another judge shall be designated in the manner prescribed by the laws of this state for the substitution of judges for the trial of causes in which the prescribing judge is disqualified. Every such affidavit shall state the facts and the reasons for the belief that any such bias or prejudice exists and shall be accompanied by a certificate of counsel of record that such affidavit and application are made in good faith. However, when any party to any action has suggested the disqualification of a trial judge and an order has been made admitting the disqualification of such judge and another judge has assigned and transferred to act in lieu of the judge so held to be disqualified, the judge so assigned and transferred is not disqualified on account of alleged prejudice against the party making the suggestion in the first instance, or in favor of the adverse party, unless such judge admits and holds that it is then a fact that he or she does not stand fair and impartial between the parties. If such judge holds, rules, and adjudges that he or she does stand fair and impartial as between the parties and their respective interests, he or she shall cause such ruling to be entered on the minutes of the court and shall proceed to preside as judge in the pending cause. The ruling of such judge may be assigned as error and may be reviewed as are other rulings of the trial court.

In a nutshell, it explains something about a judge if he/she is prejudiced. Does Judge Perry fit the mold? Is he in favor of the adverse party as Mason claims in so many words? Well, it doesn’t really matter. After Judge Strickland willfully stepped down, and he could have easily remained on the bench, Judge Perry cannot be disqualified because of alleged prejudice solely based on what Mason claims. The only way it would work is if Perry admits he is biased in favor of the prosecution. Even then, his admission is just recorded in the court minutes and the trial proceeds on schedule. Of course, this would be reviewed after a conviction and it would, no doubt, lead to a retrial, but let me assure you, this judge will not fail. He will never admit to bias, and because he’s the second judge, the rules are different now.

One of the misconceptions of trial court judges is that rulings are the basis for disqualifications. They are not, as Mason is claiming in his rebuttal motion. A judge may not be disqualified for judicial bias. He/she can be disqualified, however, for personal bias against a party. (See Barwick, 660 So. 2d at 692, and cases cited therein)

What effectively worked in the Strickland recusal was his personal relationship with me. Although the defense clearly distorted the facts, it did proffer a basis for the motion. In Perry’s situation, it’s purely judicial in nature. And laughable.

§

Lest you think I will leave you dangling with merely one slice of cake from the book of rules, allow me to add a thick, sweet, slab of icing to the entire cake. Rule 2.160 has something else to offer to save Mason from a mea culpa moment if he chooses to stay on top of his game. Section (g) deals with the filing of successive disqualification motions. This is to prevent the possibility of abuse, otherwise referred to as judge-shopping. Yes, you read it right… JUDGE-SHOPPING!

When Judge Strickland disqualified himself due to alleged bias, and I use that term loosely, his successor, Judge Perry, cannot be disqualified on a successive motion by Casey’s defense “unless the successor judge rules that he or she is in fact not fair or impartial in the case.” And that ain’t gonna happen, folks. Judge Perry is allowed to toss out any new dismissal motion. By golly, he was even brazen enough to tell the defense that, “No other motions for rehearing shall be considered,”¹ after the defense filed its MOTION FOR A REHEARING ON ORDERS DENYING MOTIONS TO SUPPRESS.

What nerve.  It looks like the Teflon judge has Mason backed into a corner. King takes pawn.

CHECK

See also: The Florida Bar Journal, Judicial Disqualification: What Every Practioner (and Judge) Should Know, Douglas J. Glaid, October, 2000 Volume LXXIV, No. 9