The Strange Tale of the Missing Deadlines

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

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

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

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

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

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

A LITTLE BACKGROUND

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

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

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

CONTEMPT! CONTEMPT! CONTEMPT!

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

Jill:

Can you please ask the Judge the following:

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

Sincerely,

Jose Baez

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

State calls defense motions "in limine" lemons

“… most convictions result from the cumulation of bits of proof which, when taken singly, would not be enough in the mind of a fair minded person. All that is necessary, and all that is possible, is that each bit may have enough rational connection with the issue to be considered a factor contributing to an answer.”

- Judge Learned Hand in United States v. Pugliese, 153 F.2d 497, 500 (2d Cir. 1945)

The state of Florida just filed its  response to several motions in limine filed by Casey Anthony’s defense. Remember, in limine is just a fancy Latin way of saying “on the threshold.” They are motions filed asking the court to prohibit or limit certain testimony or evidence at trial. In this case, the prosecution struck back at seven of them, as if that’s a lucky number. I guess it depends on how Judge Perry interprets the law, which means that luck will have no bearing at all. They are:

1. Motion in Limine to Preclude Testimony or Alleged Statements of Witness Anthony Lazaro Connected to Inquiries, Conversations, or Interrogation by Corporal William Edwards Related to Sexual Relations with the Defendant
2. Motion in Limine to Preclude Testimony Connected to Questions and Responses of Witness Anthony Rosciano in the Interview by Corporal Yuri Melich and Sergeant John Allen Related to Sexual Relations with the Defendant
3. Motion in Limine Regarding any Testimony that the Defendant has a History of Lying and/or Stealing
4. Motion in Limine Regarding Testimony of Neighbor Brian Burner in Reference to the Shovel
5. Defense Motion to Exclude Irrelevant Evidence of Tattoo
6. Motion in Limine to Prohibit the Use, in any fashion of Internet MySpace References Attributable to the Defendant as “Diary of Days”
7. Motion in Limine to Prohibit the Use, in any fashion, of a Posting on the Internet MySpace References Attributable to Cindy Anthony, the Mother of the Defendant

Before I go any further, I must address a couple of things. I realize the prosecution and defense are not competing against each other in a spelling bee, but wouldn’t you think they would know how to spell Lazzaro and Rusciano by now? After all, both men will be crucial to the case, especially Lazzaro. Oh, and what’s with all those capital letters, if I may add my 2 cents worth? With all of the other letters capitalized, at least the $3.00 and $5.00 words, what happened to fashion, and since when was Myspace written with a capital S ? If you believe it’s MySpace or My Space, don’t think I didn’t do my homework. Am I nitpicking? Well, I guess it’s not all that important, except for the slight chance the defense will try to have the case thrown out on a technicality, which would be preposterous…

“Your Honor, my client dated Lazaro and Rosciano, not the other two guys.”

“Overruled.”

The defense was careful to point out the significance of following stringent due process standards established by the Supreme Court since this is a capital case and death is different. However, and in my opinion, each and every case argued in a court of law is important, regardless of its magnitude. I am certainly not alone in this view, and one thing any prosecution should never strive for is the conviction of an innocent person. This particular prosecution seems to be on the up and up and not overzealous. They are also much more organized than Casey’s defense, at least at this juncture, and they argue well. For example, the response was quick to point out that “in order for any evidence to be excluded, the evidence would have to have the effect of inflaming the jury, or improperly appealing to the juror’s emotions.” This is a recurring theme in the state’s rebuttals.

In some cases, it’s just plain common sense that should dictate the judge’s decision on the in limine motions filed by the defense. I understand fully the reasons why a good defense files a lot of motions, one of which I have explained before; that you throw everything at the wall and hope something sticks, and if all else fails, throw the kitchen sink and pray it pokes a giant hole in the wall the prosecution has built. “Relevant evidence is relevant evidence, hearsay is hearsay, and improper character evidence is improper character evidence despite the crime or the penalty.” Rules of evidence “should never be abrogated or applied any differently” because of the punishment the defendant is facing. In other words, it is what it is, or what you see is what you get. Florida Statute 90.401 states that relevant evidence is evidence tending to prove or disprove a material fact. The prosecution cited this statute and a quote from McCormick on Evidence §185 that says relevant evidence “has a tendency to establish a fact in controversy or to render a proposition in issue more or less probable. To be probable, evidence must be viewed in light of logic, experience and accepted assumptions concerning human behavior.” One way to look at this is simple. In and of itself, to borrow a neighbor’s shovel is meaningless, but coupled with other bits of circumstantial evidence, a clearer picture may arise about why the shovel was borrowed and for what purpose. As the state wrote, “Each item of evidence is a link in the chain of proof.” Also, as Judge Learned Hand wrote, “[I]ndividual pieces of evidence, insufficient in themselves to prove a point, may in culmination prove it,” because the “sum of an evidentiary presentation may well be greater than its constituent parts.”

The state’s response also looked into prejudicial v. probative analysis under F.S. 90.403, regarding exclusion on grounds of prejudice or confusion: “Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” What happens here is anyone’s guess, because the state acknowledges that the “trial court has broad discretion in determining the admissibility of evidence and in weighing its probative value against any prejudicial effect.” It is at this point the state argues its case against the motions in limine filed by the defense.

ARGUMENT REGARDING MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE TESTIMONY OR ALLEGED STATEMENTS OF WITNESS ANTHONY LAZARO [sic] CONNECTED TO INQUIRIES, CONVERSATIONS OR INTERROGATION BY CORPORAL WILLIAMS [sic] EDWARDS RELATED TO SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH THE DEFENDANT and MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE TESTIMONY CONNECTED TO QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES OF WITNESS ANTHONY ROSCIANO [sic] IN THE INTERVIEW BY CORPORAL YURI MELICH AND SERGEANT JOHN ALLEN RELATED TO SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH THE DEFENDANT

As I argued in an earlier post about the rather sticky subject of sex, the state was careful in wording its response. The relationship with Rusciano predated the disappearance of Caylee, so what transpired in the bedroom is of little to no value. Lazzaro’s, however, is a different story. Casey slept with him every night after Caylee was last seen. This continued until he left for New York, but of importance is what Casey was like. Common sense tells us that a mother, ANY MOTHER, would be so incredibly desperate to find her missing child, sexual intimacy would be totally out of the question.

The state adds that “the existence of an intimate relationship between the two during the time frame when Caylee Anthony was last seen and when she was reported missing by her grandmother is highly relevant.” I certainly agree. According to Lazzaro, Casey never mentioned her missing daughter to him other than to tell him she was with her grandmother, Cindy, or the nanny. This is extremely important in painting a picture of Casey’s demeanor on June 16, when the state says Caylee was last seen, through July 15, when the party door slammed shut. When Lazzaro learned of the “kidnapping”, one of his first text messages to Casey expressed incredulity that she never told him anything about it the whole time she was with him. How odd.

ARGUMENT REGARDING MOTION IN LIMINE REGARDING ANY TESTIMONY THAT THE DEFENDANT HAS A HISTORY OF LYING AND/OR STEALING

As Cindy once said, a liar does not a murderer make. That’s true, but when it’s part of the time frame between June 16 and July 15, should it matter? The state acknowledges the difficulty of bringing it up if Casey never takes the stand and cannot be cross examined. There is also the issue over how long Casey had been doing it. Most of her life? While Cindy pursued the truth about her granddaughter and Casey continued to lie, I don’t see any evidence that this was the first time Casey lied about anything. She was (and remains) a born liar. To be honest, I don’t know any murderer who desires to tell the truth about what they did, so this defense motion in limine, in my opinion, could go either way with the judge. The state says her lies are “relevant to the conciousness of guilt which may be inferred from such circumstances.” To me, inferred is too flimsy of a word.

ARGUMENT REGARDING MOTION IN LIMINE REGARDING TESTIMONY OF NEIGHBOR BRIAN BURNER IN REFERENCE TO THE SHOVEL

If you ask me, this one’s a no brainer and I shouldn’t have to cite anything from the state’s official response. Common sense dictates the answer. The child was missing long before anyone knew it, the car smelled like there was a dead body in it, a shovel was borrowed, but not used, and the body was eventually found tossed in the woods around the corner from the house. I say, if the judge decides the shovel is of no relevance because it “could” have been used to dig up some nonexistent bamboo roots, then the remains must be tossed, too, because there’s no solid proof Casey “could” have thrown them in the woods. Or did. Does that make sense? Good. By the way, I have bamboo in the front yard and I’ve never seen a root, let alone tripped over one. It grows in clusters and most of it was grown here for a reason. Usually, you find it facing north because if buffers the cold wind that comes down from the north. It was used to help protect citrus from freezing air.

As for the shovel, it will go hand in hand with what Brian Burner indicated he saw. On three separate days, the defendant backed a vehicle into the garage. That’s something he had never see her do before. We can draw our own conclusions, but the state left this question for the court: “Does the evidence of borrowing a shovel from the neighbor within two days of the child missing have a tendency to render a proposition in issue - that it was borrowed with the intent to conceal remains - - more or less probable?” You can decide for yourself.

ARGUMENT REGARDING DEFENSE MOTION TO EXCLUDE IRRELEVANT EVIDENCE OF TATTOO

Once again, this is an easy one to figure out, and the state said it best in its final sentence about this motion. “The tattoo is relevant to show the Defendant’s state of mind during this time period, and the inscription obtained can certainly be read either as an epitaph for her daughter, or signaling a new beginning for herself.” Does this seem like a person waging their own investigation into the disappearance of their child?

ARGUMENT REGARDING MOTION IN LIMINE TO PROHIBIT THE USE, IN ANY FASHION, OF INTERNET MYSPACE REFERENCES ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE DEFENDANT AS “DIARY OF DAYS”

and

ARGUMENT REGARDING MOTION IN LIMINE TO PROHIBIT THE USE, IN ANY FASHION, OF A POSTING ON THE INTERNET MYSPACE REFERENCES ATTRIBUTABLE TO CINDY ANTHONY, THE MOTHER OF THE DEFENDANT

I lumped these two motions together because they are similar, in my opinion. Casey wrote a passage in her Myspace page on July 7 that the defense attributes to a song written by Hayden Christianson. To be quite frank, I am of a completely different generation than Casey. As much disco/punk/goth/mosh/hip hop/etc., etc. styles that have passed by me through the years, and my own changes in music appreciation and lack thereof, I can’t make a call on it. Is it from a song? Is it from a poem? Did Casey make it up? Does it mean anything? I don’t know, and that’s where the wisdom of a judge takes control. Allow it and let the two sides battle it out if it’s all that important. The same thing is true with Cindy’s entry in her Myspace account. After not seeing her granddaughter for several weeks, she asked Lee to help her post an important message to Casey. As to the meaning of the posting, the state will not attempt to argue that Cindy knew her grandchild was dead. Cindy was desperately seeking Caylee and her daughter kept them apart. Casey ignored her mother’s pleas and this will show the relationship that existed between the two. There wasn’t much of one.

Well, there you have it. My thoughts on some of the motions that will determine the make-up of the impending trial. In order for the defense to mount a strong case, it will have to overcome the almost insurmountable evidence, albeit circumstantial, against their client. As of today, this is a case the state can readily win. Do I blame the defense for filing any of these motions? Of course not, but even if it wins 3 or 4 of them, it’s still quite an uphill battle. No matter what, how Casey acted during the month her daughter was missing will be her biggest hurdle to overcome.

One final thought regarding the $583 sanction against Jose Baez - I talked to an attorney about it and he said that it’s not necessarily a bad thing. I know Judge Perry refused to consider another look at it today, but sometimes a lawyer will find that the fine is worth it when it comes down to how much time the defense can buy to keep important information out of the state’s hands. Was this the case here? I can’t say, but in the long run, will it really hurt Baez? After the trial is over, life goes on and he continues to represent clients. Vita perseverat.

This won't be a Friday Happy Hour

I spoke to a rather powerful attorney earlier today. This person told me that when a judge schedules a hearing for 4:00, 4:30. 5:00 or 6:00 on a Friday afternoon, of all dates and times, it means the judge is not particularly happy with something that’s going on. It’s written in stone and you can bank on it. I asked if this meant Casey’s defense, and I was told, no, this goes for both sides. The two sides should have been able to work things out without getting the court involved. Since the court must intervene, I would expect to hear some sort of reprimanding that will include both sides of the aisle. 

Friday afternoon at 5:00 pm should be a hideous wake up call. The judge is losing his patience. He’s already told everyone that if he needs to step in, they won’t appreciate the hours he sets. I mean, who wants to be in court after hours on a Friday afternoon? Right… No one, including the judge.

I will write about the experience. It should be interesting.

A lot of lawyering, a lot of frustration

I arrived at the courthouse about a half hour early, early enough to breeze through security and go up to the 23rd floor. That afforded me ample time to have a good conversation with one of the senior reporters covering this story before others arrived. We talked about several issues related to the case, and one of the topics dealt with journalists and bloggers. There are a lot of crazy nuts out there, this person said, and because of where he and other media people work, be it a newspaper, network or local TV, cable or radio, there is a shield that protects them from harassment and stalking. Not so with bloggers. Bloggers are out in the open and ripe for attack, especially if they identify themselves like I have. In this, there’s no envy; instead, it’s more like a bit of empathy and compassion. Earlier this week, a letter was received by the court via U.S. Mail that attacked this blogger and the media folks were aware of it; some, but not all. It’s safe to say it went absolutely nowhere except the file that holds all correspondence related to this case, such as the letter from Joy Wray sent to Judge Stan Strickland before the nut jobs came out en masse. Fortunately, media people recognize when something is newsworthy, when it’s junk, and when to never give psychos their day in the sun. That letter came straight from a psycho; too cowardly to sign a name, let alone a real one, as if it would have mattered in the least. This is the type of correspondence that never makes its way to a judge. Instead, it collects dust in perpetuity.

Red Huber walked in and sat down in a chair. There are sofas and chairs outside the courtroom, more so on the 23rd floor, for people to relax before or after court proceedings. Sometimes, attorneys are interviewed there. I asked Red about cameras in the courtroom. He said he was the official photographer in the media pool, meaning that he is the only person who has a hand-held still camera. It’s quite a fancy one, I might add, but he is an incredible professional. I asked him about cell phones. He told me he caught an unnamed TV journalist holding up an iPhone (or something similar) while a hearing was in progress. He called on a deputy and the deputy warned the person that if something like that ever happened again, they would be barred from the courthouse. Red Huber is very proud of his work, and rightfully so. Imagine a low-res cell phone image plastered on a station’s Web site. That would have gotten the network affiliate in a bit of hot water because it’s not something Red would ever take credit for.

The media folks were called to file into the courtroom and as we did, the reporter said blogs are becoming more interesting and pertinent, and he makes it a point to read them, including mine. It’s part of the job now. That was encouraging.

We entered the courtroom before any of the attorneys, so when they meandered in, all at once, we said our hellos to both the prosecution and defense. I had a good feeling that Ann Finnell would make her debut and she did. I think it’s important to remember that the opposing sides seem to only be that way in the courtroom, not that they do an awful lot of socializing together outside, but I sensed a more relaxed attitude and an almost warmth that dissolved once the sides took to their stations and donned their battle gear, which was nothing more than notebooks and pens. Oh yes, this is the 21st century and I know Jose has an iPad. One of the first things I noticed was that video monitors all around the courtroom were turned on for a change. That was great because it afforded us a good view of the proceedings. In some of the video footage you got to view, you probably saw some of us looking up. That’s why. They were hung above us. We could actually see the faces for a change.

When Casey walked in, flanked by officers of the court, she was noticeably thinner. Her hair was pulled back tightly in a bun and she seemed to have a sad, blank stare, from what I could see before she sat down and faced forward. Within a minute, George and Cindy shuffled in and took their seats in the second row. Their attorney, Mark Lippman, sat directly in front of me. Cindy wore a burgundy colored blouse that complemented George’s lavender colored shirt.

Chief Judge Belvin Perry, Jr. arrived on schedule, although I was a bit disappointed he was 4 minutes early. Oh well, my late Grandfather Landis was always punctual, and like him, sometimes early. God knows, I’d rather be early than late.

The judge wasted no time getting the hearing under way. The first order of business was the MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. Jose stood and walked to the podium. This is a motion Casey’s defense has fought for more than once, and it’s been shot down each time. Today was no exception, but I sensed a little more desperation in Jose’s voice. It was either that or a combination of frustration and exasperation. Personally, I don’t care what Casey eats from the commissary. I don’t fret over her personal mail and phone records, but inquisitive minds want to know, and because it’s the law, there’s no bending it - or in this case, Bent, as in Bent v. Sun Sentinel. Jail records are under the control of the legislative branch, not judicial. This time, Jose spent the brunt of his argument on mail from family, friends and strangers. He cited the case of the city of Clearwater (City of Clearwater, 863 So. 2d at 154) where it was deemed that private e-mails stored on a government computer are not automatically public record. In other words, private documents are not necessarily public record by virtue of their placement on an agency-owned computer.

OK, fine, but there’s more to it. When the attorney for Orange County Corrections got up to speak, she stated that she was merely there looking for clarification; that the county had no real dog in the fight, but she saw a problem. Here is where I have seen the defense go in the past, and it’s one of the reasons why some of the motions are lost, in my opinion. The county objected to the mail issue because the motion didn’t request it.

The Orlando Sentinel attorney then took center stage. One of the questions I posed to Red Huber before the hearing began was about this motion. I asked him if this was pooled, too, so all media outlets would share in the costs of any and all proceedings. He said, no, this is solely the Sentinel’s job. The attorney reminded the Honorable Judge of his ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL JAIL VISITATION LOG RECORDS, back on June 7. There, the judge wrote:

The Court agrees with the County that a criminal defendant’s desire to “maintain the confidentiality of visitors” in a high profile case does not qualify as a lawful exemption. As mentioned supra, the Defendant’s Motion does not provide any statutory exemption or legal authority for the Court to “seal” documents that constitute public records.

Instead, the counsel for the defense entreats the Court to judicially create an exemption in this case. The Court is unable to acquiesce. Any exemption from the Florida Public Records Act must originate in the legislature and not by judicial decision.

Friday, Judge Perry took the Bent decision into consideration, but he only denied the Motion for Reconsideration at this time, and those were his precise words, which leads me to think the door is not completely closed. There is no doubt the Bent issue will be argued for years to come, but he did settle the matter of audio recordings. He said he will treat Bent as if it is final. In other words, audio recordings will remain under wraps. All other jail correspondence will be accessible to the public. So it shall be written, so it shall be done.

§

The judge brought up the JAC motion and Ann Finnell stood up and walked over to the podium. She is a rather stately woman, but not statuesque by any means. In my opinion, she appeared to be a quintessential professional, and she was. She had a certain elegance and a homey warmth about her, if that makes any sense. She looked like she would be a wonderful mother, aunt and grandmother, although I know nothing about her personal life. Well, hardly anything.

It was during this back and forth the judge became most animated, although he didn’t direct it at Finnell, in particular. It was the entire defense, but that’s because the course of the conversation really opened up into other areas, such as TES, which had nothing to do with her. Jose and Cheney piped in and it seemed to frustrate her a little. She made it clear she was not involved at all in TES documents at one point, but prior to the confusion, Judge Perry asked her about the 384 hours the court approved for Jeanene Barrett. She said that at least a half to a third of those hours had been exhausted. She said she needed at least another 100 hours. The judge said he wants to first see how the hours had been utilized before giving her more.

He asked her about the 300 hours given for private investigators. This is when Jose responded. He said he needed an additional 300 hours. The judge said he realized some of those hours will remain under seal, but where did they go? Jose said that many TES searchers didn’t want to get involved. The judge was pretty clear about all those searchers. The defense is not to go on some sort of fishing expedition. “You’re not to go drilling for oil when there’s no sign of oil anywhere.”

The majority of searchers were nowhere near the remains. He said he had provided them a special master. They were given the right to read the records and take notes. Jose said the defense had made over 1,000 phone calls and talked to 150 who were in the area. The “area” was confusing because there was no clear definition of what constituted the Suburban Drive vicinity. Cheney Mason said a lot of searchers looked on their own; that they had uncovered people from leads and some people who did not report everything to TES. Even so, some TES records were not clear. He questioned whether Texas EquuSearch kept bad records or whether they hid info on purpose? Here is where the judge made his succinct statement du jour:

“I am not going to write an open check. I am just not.”

Ann may have been rightly frustrated because it was at this point she said her motion was not about TES. It was about mitigation, such as medical history and school records. The judge interjected. “Miss Finnell, I’ve done a few capital cases.”

He turned to Cheney and asked him if he was planning on sticking around for the penalty phase, if Casey’s convicted. Cheney nodded and said yes.

Throughout this exchange, I looked up at the monitor to see the looks on the attorneys faces and that of Casey. Quite clearly, she was shaken. This was, shall I say, a bit more vibrant and enlightening and here she was in the thick of it. Sticking around for the penalty phase. Oh my. She seemed distressed to a certain degree. We’re coming to the end of the year and May is on its way. Time is running out.

When the dust settled, the new attorney continued. She made more requests, and in the end, Judge Perry approved some things and denied others. Her travel expenses from Jacksonville will not be covered. If she wants to send an investigator to Ohio, try phone calls first. There are investigators in that state that will work at JAC rates and not have to fly from Orlando or anywhere else. For each request, he wants to know the reason why he needs to spend taxpayers’ money. He said he’d be happy to take ex parte material into consideration and under seal. (Ex parte is generally a judge meeting with one party and not the adversary.)

The JAC attorney got up and rebutted. He said that the penalty phase funds may be premature at this time, but the judge disagreed. In the matter of capital cases, the cart comes before the horse, he said. With regard to psychiatric evaluation, he awarded $2,500 at this time. He said the standard exam may not be enough at the JAC rate. He approved $500 for copies and an additional 60 hours, or$2,400, for a private investigator. Most of all, he said he remains open for more expenditures, but he needs to know where all the money is going now and where it’s been going.

In several instances, I noticed that the defense does not come prepared. The judge asked how much money was spent on public records, for instance, and Jose didn’t know. At some point, he said something that caused a stir in the gallery. Sitting on the other side, someone roared in laughter. Jose turned to look, but the person was quickly silent and lost in the crowd. In my opinion, this was very rude. This is a murder case and not a joke, no matter what that narcissistic person thought of him. No one should ever laugh in a courtroom unless the judge prompts it. The murder of a child is a very serious matter. To be honest, I felt a little for Baez. The day wasn’t going his way and he told the court of the endless, almost thankless, hours the entire defense has been working. It was their life, and he was emotional about it. It did lighten up, though, however brief.

Judge Perry granted Linda Kenney Baden’s request to withdraw from the case, but not before he asked if there were any objections.

“I liked working with her,” Jeff Ashton exclaimed.

“Pardon?” Judge Perry asked.

“I liked working with her,” Ashton repeated. That brought out a few light chuckles, but here it was a lighthearted statement and the laughter was not made out of ridicule.

“Mr. Baez, it sounds like Mr. Ashton has objected,” the judge retorted.

“Yes, it does,” Baez joked.

§

Linda Drane Burdick asked for and received a 30-day extension on depositions. Some of the witnesses are difficult to track down. The defense is having the same problem. One of the things I’ve noticed about Judge Perry is his flexibility. As stern as he is, he’s very giving and in some cases, willing to bend.

The judge then reminded Ann Finnell that the deadline for listing all penalty phase witnesses is November 30, a mere month away. All of the state’s experts have not been deposed yet and that deadline is November 19. A Frye hearing was brought up. Jeff Ashton said he wants to sit down with the defense and go over what is new and what is old science. A Frye hearing is used to determine if novel scientific evidence is reliable enough to be permitted in court. It can also apply to testimony from psychologists and psychiatrists, not just forensic experts.

There was a brief exchange between Cheney Mason and Linda Drane Burdick that became somewhat heated. It was over some of the TES records still being held by law enforcement. Burdick explained that the defense had ample opportunity to look it over when their experts were in town back in July. Of course, the defense said they had never received property forms or receipts and Burdick begged to differ. Oh, the frustration of it all! The judge gave the defense two weeks to settle the matter. He then asked the state if all evidence had been disclosed. If not, everything must be disclosed by January. This means that there will be no surprises weeks before the trial is underway. The defense should have everything in its hands by the first month of 2011.

Before the judge gave the attorneys a rather stark speech, I must say that this was the first hearing I’ve attended where Linda Drane Burdick came across loud and clear. It was my observation that she seemed more agitated and direct, and certainly, more animated than I had ever seen her before. With that, the judge stated that if the depositions are not done on time, the court will set dates and he will make sure they are not convenient for either side. He said he will start running the case at his pace, so everything had better be ready come January.

“All the posturing has been nice, but come January, it will be according to my schedule.” And that means the schedule could be at midnight. If there are people unwilling to be deposed, by golly, the court will make them comply. Judge Perry means business.

§

A somewhat odd thing occurred near the end. The gentleman next to me started to breathe deeply. When I glanced his way, he was sound asleep. To me, this had been an exciting day, one filled with many highs and lows. Just like in church, the judge gave a great sermon, but I guess there’s always a chance that someone will be napping in the crowd. The hearing lasted two hours, as I expected, but I’m used to them by now. He wasn’t, obviously.

As we got up to leave, an attorney was loudly castigating one of Orlando’s best known journalists about dumb questions. It wasn’t pretty. I gravitated toward Ann Finnell. I had a message for her from her niece or cousin, but darn if I didn’t write it down. Instead, I had a senior moment and I asked her if she would be attending the next hearing. She said she would, and I said I would remember next time. She asked me how I knew it was really a relative and I said because I know her real name and she told me you would recognize it. She was more than friendly and open. She’s every bit a class act and you could tell that she’s a very caring person. Who better to handle a penalty phase? If Casey is found guilty, she’s in good hands. Anyway, it’s her cousin, and I’m sorry. I’ll make sure I get it right next time, and that will be on November 29, at 1:30 PM. I’ll be there. I need to set the record straight.

Pie in the sky?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“OK, how about a thousand?”

“You gotta be kidding me?”

“No, I’m serious. How about fifty?

“Fifty, you got it.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trial By Ambush

PART I

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PART II

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You be the judge

A hearing is scheduled for June 1 to discuss the defense team’s request to keep Casey’s jail visits private instead of publishing them like everyone else sitting in a government sponsored cell. There is also the matter of earlier rulings made by Judge Stan Strickland before he recused himself over a month ago.

This post is meant to clear up some issues that sprang to life when the defense filed the motion¹ 3 days before the judge stepped down. It was bad enough that the dismissal request was filed at 4:48 PM on a Friday afternoon, 12 minutes before the Clerk of the Court closed for the weekend. That was plenty rude and tacky, but after the judge removed himself, the defense fired back with its OBJECTION TO COURT’S “ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY TRIAL JUDGE”.

I want to explore that and the subsequent DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN PRIOR RULINGS BY DISQUALIFIED JUDGE. Therein may lie one of the motives for seeking the judge’s dismissal.

In his ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY TRIAL JUDGE, Judge Strickland made it clear that his decision was not based on any prejudice or errors in judgement, real or perceived, by Casey Anthony’s defense. It was all about future rulings under his command.

“If past is prologue, some defense motions may be denied. Since the undersigned has now been accused of bias and wrongdoing, potentially each denial of a defense motion will generate renewed allegations of bias. The cumulative effect will be to elevate an otherwise meaningless situation into a genuine appellate issue.”

He further added that the crux of the defense motion centered around his comments to a local blogger/journalist many months earlier. He explained that his words to the blogger/journalist were delivered in open court, with open microphones, in front of rolling cameras and not in secret. They were, in fact, a compliment for being fair and civilized. These are the words of Judge Strickland, not me, and at the time, neither one of us knew where the cameras were focused, nor did we know whether microphones were on or off. Honestly, there was nothing to hide, despite the fact that a portion of the raw video was surreptitiously snipped out.

Judge Strickland went on to chastise the defense for accusing him of being a self-aggrandizing media hound. Well, if that’s not the pot calling the kettle black, I don’t know what is. Perhaps, this is exactly what Cheney Mason meant when he blurted out at a post-hearing press conference that “this case is going to be fun!”

The fun is over. Where Judge Strickland confessed to a general affability that, at times, seemed to belie the importance of the case, he was every bit a professional. So is Chief Judge Belvin Perry, Jr., who is not as affable.

Of course, leave it to Mason to insist on having the last word.

In his objection, Mason cited the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration 2,330(f), Riechmann v. State, 966 So.2d 298 (Fla. 2007) and Florida Rules of Judicial Administration 2.330(j). He continued his wrath by saying the court“may not argue or dispute facts yielding any response, other than ‘granting’, or ‘denying’, the motion. To do so, automatically laces the Court in an adversarial position, contrary to the defense, and, by that act alone, is required to be disqualified.”

Excuse me, but didn’t the judge dismiss himself in his order? He didn’t do it later. My friend, a former Florida judge, told me in no uncertain terms that since the judge ordered his own recusal, he was well within his right to voice an opinion.

Florida Rules of Judicial Administration 2,330(f) states that:

(f) The judge against whom an initial motion to disqualify under subdivision (d)(1) is directed shall determine only the legal sufficiency of the motion and shall not pass on the truth of the facts alleged. If the motion is legally sufficient, the judge shall immediately enter an order granting disqualification and proceed no further in the action. If any motion is legally insufficient, an order denying the motion shall immediately be entered. No other reason for denial shall be stated, and an order of denial shall not take issue with the motion.

Florida Rules of Judicial Administration 2,330(d)(1) addressed Casey’s fear that she would “not receive a fair trial or hearing because of specifically described prejudice or bias of the judge.” Once Casey affixed her signature to the document, the deal was done and Judge Strickland had no choice but to step down. At the same time, the rule (f) is clear and at no time in his order did he admit to any wrongdoing. He could have denied the motion, but his concern over a possible appeal down the road usurped his right to remain on this case.

Here’s the comical part, the one that makes the objection a laughing stock:

(j) Time for Determination. The judge shall rule on a motion to disqualify immediately, but no later than 30 days after the service of the motion as set forth in subdivision (c). If not ruled on within 30 days of service, the motion shall be deemed granted and the moving party may seek an order from the court directing the clerk to reassign the case.

Excuse me, but this is the same person who filed the dismissal motion 12 minutes before the Clerk of Court retired for the weekend. The judge, on the other hand, promptly responded the following Monday, and did so because, DUH, the office is CLOSED for the weekend. That’s like giving someone poor directions and scolding him when he’s late to arrive at the designated destination. This was nothing more than a self-aggrandizing act by an overly egotistical and pompous lawyer who had to get the last word in. He fully knew the judge would not respond.

Here’s an interesting document. Could it have prejudiced the judge?

Letter to Judge Strickland

This letter, addressed to the Honorable Judge Stan Strickland, voiced a very prejudicial opinion regarding Casey’s innocence, replete with scientific analogies and evidence showing that she could not have been the murderer. Where was the State at this time? Clearly, Linda Drane Burdick could have demanded the judge’s head for accepting the letter to begin with, whether he read it or not. Of course, since it was not damaging to the defense, Casey’s attorneys never gave it a passing thought.

This is where I lead into the possible motive behind that fateful dismissal motion. Sure, I’ve heard a lot of opinions from local attorneys. One said that, with an ego like Mason’s, he couldn’t stand losing his argument during the indigence hearing  regarding where Casey’s defense money came from. Here, he came out in all his glory, telling the world that he is a lawyer to be reckoned with; one with an impeccable record, and one who knows how to hoodwink the court. Only, it didn’t work and he blew his top, speaking of which, he just had to top Judge Strickland by filing the dismissal. That’s all well and fine, but I think the underlying factor is the motion later filed that set-up the one demanding the judge’s head on a platter - the one concerning earlier rulings. Four key elements were introduced:

(A) Defendant’s Motion to Compel Production of Tape Recorded Statement of Joe Jordan and the Court’s Order on same dated April 7, 2010

(B) Motion for Production of Grand Jury Testimony of George Anthony filed by the state of Florida on September 16, 2009 and joined in by the defense, and the Order of the Court dated October 6, 2009.

(C) Defendant’s Motion to Compel Tips Gathered by Law Enforcement, dated November 4, 2008.

(D) The Order on Defendant’s Motion to Modify the Court’s Order on Defendant’s Application for Subpoena Duces Tecum for Documents in the Possession of Texas Equusearch.

In (A), the court turned down the defense request for the taped interview. Instead, it was sealed. The rationale is plain and simple; it is against the law to secretly record anyone, which is exactly what Jordan did when defense investigator, Mort Smith, interviewed him. He said that when he searched the area where Caylee was found, the remains weren’t there and the ground was dry. Other volunteers said the area was too wet to search. Read the judge’s order HERE. Joe Jordan was interviewed by the defense on Oct. 27, 2009 and was later interviewed by law enforcement in the presence of a prosecutor on Nov. 5, 2009. The court recognized that the two separate interviews conflicted with each other and decided the sworn statement by Mort Smith regarding what Jordan said was sufficient and no further action was necessary. It cited Florida Statute 943.o6:

Whenever any wire or oral communication has been intercepted, no part of the contents of such communication and no evidence derived therefrom may be received in evidence in any trial, hearing or other proceedings in or before any Court, Grand Jury, department, officer, agency, regulatory body, legislative committee, or other authority of the State, or a political subdivision thereof, if the disclosure of that information would be a violation of this Chapter.

The statute is very clear, and either the defense didn’t understand the law or it’s maintaining a stance Jose Baez told Judge Perry at one of the recent hearings,“My grandmother told me you’ll never get something unless you ask.” In that vein, his dear grandmother may have been right, but the judge - any judge - must not change the law in a ruling. The judge also wrote that since Mort Smith gave a sworn statement attesting to what Jordan said, “direct testimony regarding what Mr. Jordan stated is still available via the testimony of Investigator Smith.” It’s all quite simple. In my opinion, this will be denied.

(B) is rather interesting. The state requested the transcript of George’s grand jury testimony. The judge granted it.

THIS CAUSE coming on to be heard upon the State’s Motion for Transcription of Grand Jury Testimony, and the Court having been duly advised in the premises, it is hereby,

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the State’s Motion for Transcription of Grand Jury of George Anthony taken/heard before the Grand Jury on October 14 2008 is hereby GRANTED, the original of said transcript shall be delivered to the State Attorney and all of the requirements of grand jury secrecy pursuant to Florida Statute 905.27 shall remain in effect pending the further order of this court.

Notice, I said the state asked for the transcript, and only the state, yet in this latest motion to be heard on June 1, the defense wrote, “and joined in by the defense…” Nowhere in his order did the judge include the defense and the reason why is that the state filed the motion all by its lonesome. I did not see Baez and Jeff Ashton dancing arm-in-arm to the Clerk of Court’s office to file together, but I’ll guarantee it was filed in a timely manner because it came from the state. What this tells me is that the judge ruled in chambers and the defense feels left out. Why? It wasn’t the judge’s job to hand the testimony over to the defense and if the defense wants it, it should have filed a motion requesting it. What, exactly, is there to reconsider in this new motion? It is, after all, a motion to reconsider earlier rulings. Therefore, this is an attempt to make Judge Strickland look bad. If the judge grants it, it will be because of case law. Other than that, it’s a used car salesman’s attempt to sell Judge Perry a lemon.

(C) is a motion filed by the defense over a year-and-a-half ago. In it, Baez acknowledges it submitted an Attorney’s Demand for Discovery on October 15, 2008. I think we are all aware of discovery in the state of Florida, but perhaps, the defense is not, at least, not as much as we would like to think. After the prosecutor receives the demand, he/she is obligated to respond. The defense now has over 11,000 pages of discovery documents in its hands. At the time the motion was filed, the defense wanted access to the nearly 5,000 tips that had come in. Today, the number is astronomical and it’s on full display in the periodic document dumps. Also, the motion cited a Motion for Favorable Evidence in Case Number 48-2008-CF-10925-O that was filed on October 3 and included,

a. “Any police investigation reports or any other similar documentation in possession by any law enforcement agency which involves the investigation of tips, leads, and follow-ups conducted by said agency or agencies, based on the sightings of Caylee Marie Anthony.”

The October 3 motion was granted by Judge Strickland on October 10, but on October 21, the state filed a nolle prosequi on the case making the judge’s ruling inconsequential. A nolle prosequi is an entry made on the record in which the prosecutor declares that he will proceed no further. The effect of a nolle prosequi does not act as an acquittal. It allows the prosecution to re-indict the defendant on the same charges and more, if necessary, at a later date. The defense also asked for sanctions for the delay in the state’s production of discovery and for the undue burden it has caused and the costs associated with the filing of the motion. Tsk, tsk. If you recall, the state filed first-degree murder charges against Casey on October 14.

In March of 2009, The defense took a bruising from Judge Strickland. Linda Kenney Baden wanted Strickland to order prosecutors to hand over the FBI’s bench notes from DNA testing on evidence. The judge wouldn’t do that because prosecutors didn’t have them and he had no jurisdiction over the FBI other than in the state of Florida. He informed the defense that if they wanted the notes, they would have to ask the FBI. As for the sanctions for allegedly keeping evidence from them, the judge said, “The motion for sanctions is denied.”

Finally, (D) is a rehash, deja vu, all over again moment, as if it will remain suspended in time until the defense gets to interview every single inhabitant of the ISS, just in case Caylee was whisked away on a shuttle flight. There are roughly 4,000 people who voluntarily searched for her all over Central Florida. Why do they need to see the records of every one of them?

In the original ruling from August 27 of last year, Judge Strickland wrote that the records of 32 Texas EquuSearch searchers mentioned at a hearing held on July 21 would be made available to both the state and the defense. They were recognized as being in the vicinity of Suburban Drive. The remaining paperwork filed by nearly 4,000 others could be reviewed in Mark NeJame’s office. Any searchers found to have been within 200 yards of the site where Caylee was found could be flagged for future consideration.

On April 5, Casey was back in court. So was Mark NeJame. Fireworks went off in the form of angry arguments and explosive accusations. What the defense expected was to be able to go through all of the TES documents in search of someone who may have gone into those woods before Caylee was discovered. The volunteers who did search there have maintained that the ground was flooded and impossible to walk through. Tim Miller told the volunteers to stay out of areas covered with too much water for fear it may damage evidence, so with standing water, there came a standing order to stand down.

The defense was given ample opportunity to go to Mark NeJame’s office to look through all of the TES records. The main problem with a court order is it opens up all of the personal information to the public. In the end, Judge Strickland agreed with NeJame. Later that day, he denied the defense request, but reiterated that they could still go and look through the documents and if they end up finding something, it could be flagged, just like he said before. Then, they could go back to the judge and try to get that released. There was not going to be a blanket release of all the documents. In my opinion, there is no reason why Judge Perry should alter that ruling, so overall, I’m afraid this motion to be heard on June 1 is not going to be thrilling for the defense team. Oh well, there’s still the issue of keeping public records about Casey’s visitors at the jail private, but Judge Strickland already said it’s all about jail rules, not the court’s.

In one last tip of my hat to Judge Strickland, I must say he did justice in this case all along, and in the end, he continues. Cheney Mason made this a problem case when he asked the esteemed judge to step down. He should have known that Belvin Perry always takes over problem cases. Ultimately, I just don’t see a chief judge overruling one of his own judges, especially one who has an incredible penchant for the law; someone with a sterling record of fairness. But just as Jose said, it doesn’t hurt to ask. Well, not always. Be careful what you ask for.

Posted on May 23, 2010 by Dave Knechel| 216 Comments(D) The Order on Defendant’s Motion to Modify the Court’s Order on Defendant’s Application for Subpoena Duces Tecum for Documents in the Possession of Texas Equusearch.

Closer to the edge

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

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

- defense attorney Andrea Lyon, in court today

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

- prosecutor Jeff Ashton, in response to Andrea Lyon today

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

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

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

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

THE MOTIONS

Gender Bias

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

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

Automatic appeal of death sentence

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

Why the state is seeking death

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Information related to the potential penalty phase

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

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

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

State's motive in seeking death

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

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

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

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

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

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

End of hearing!

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

"Yes, when I was 23."

"So, you're 53..."

"No, not yet. Not until October."

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

Baez doesn’t know JAC

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

- J. Cheney Mason at Casey’s indigence hearing

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

Request to seal all documents from the Justice Administrative Commission

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

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

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

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

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

Show us the money!

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

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

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

“Death is different.”

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

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

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

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

A request for a forensic anthropologist was GRANTED.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheney Mason speaks!

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

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

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

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

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