Freeze-Fryed in Florida

© All rights reserved by Orlando Sentinel photography

Looking at three days of court proceedings, point and counterpoint arguments could be interpolated in terms of physics, introducing similarities and differences between matter and antimatter, in particular, matter/antimatter asymmetry, where matter particles share the same mass as their antimatter counterparts; although the electric charges are opposite, and matter dominates antimatter by the billions, thus, creating a lack of harmonious balance and arrangement.

Did you understand that? I didn’t think so, and I’m not going to go in that direction or off on any sort of tangent. Nope, no circumlocution. Well, I could, but let’s stick to the matter at hand and discuss the law instead of the testimony we heard from State and Defense “expert” witnesses. We could discuss them until our brains are fried, or we might just wait until the Frye hearing continues…

A Frye Hearing

A Frye hearing, also called the Frye standard, is a special type of motion in limine filed prior to or during a trial. Defense or State experts from fields of forensics explain their findings in court and the opposing side issues counterpoints from their own experts, stating that the reasoning behind the testing and rationale is pure junk. In other words, it’s not commonly accepted in the scientific community; therefore, it shouldn’t be admitted into evidence. The testimony should be disallowed because the testing information isn’t really based on true scientific principles. Indeed, it can be controversial at times, but is the junk pure bunk? In this particular case, will any of the State’s testimony be allowed at trial? That’s the problem facing Judge Debra Nelson. Unfortunately, testimony from one of the Defense experts was delayed and the Frye hearing was left in the lurk for the time being. The judge had to freeze proceedings because the expert was stuck on a tarmac somewhere. There was no way to continue.

Is that legal? Of course it is. While jury selection begins Monday morning at 9:00 am, questions the Defense and State plan to ask prospective jurors were turned in weeks ago. The Court has discretion over what line of query will be allowed and she will let both sides know on that morning. The line of questions will have nothing specifically to do with Frye or anything related to the issue. In other words, George Zimmerman’s defense team won’t ask about matters directly concerning what is and what isn’t acceptable scientific testimony, and what should or shouldn’t be admissible during trial. Meanwhile, the Frye hearing will continue at the discretion of the judge; after voir dire has been suspended for the day — or days. Hmm… for some strange reason, I expect to spend long days and lonely nights contemplating this trial.

The Daubert Standard May Be Coming…

We should now understand that a Frye hearing is an attempt to exclude scientific evidence. This is the standard in Florida at the moment. Come July 1, it may change if the governor signs the Daubert bill recently enacted by the state legislature. Ha! Right in the middle of this trial! Wouldn’t you know it!

So what’s the Daubert and how does it differ from Frye? In Frye:

The burden is on the proponent of the evidence to prove the general acceptance of both the underlying scientific principle of the test and procedures used to apply that principle to the facts of the case at hand. The trial judge has the sole discretion to determine this question and general acceptance must be established by a preponderance of the evidence. (See: The Frye hearing in Florida: an attempt to exclude scientific evidence.)

In Daubert, there are relevant factors involved in establishing the validity of scientific testimony. Daubert was amended on April 17, 2000, to include:

Rule 702. Testimony by Experts

If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.

A 1993 court ruling, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, held that Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence did not rely on the Frye general acceptance test as a basis for assessing the admissibility of scientific expert testimony. Instead, it incorporated a flexible reliability standard.

Rule 702 was amended again, on Apr. 26, 2011, and took effect that December 1:

Rule 702. Testimony by Expert Witnesses

A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if:

(A) The expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;

(B) The testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;

(C) The testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and

(D) The expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.

In Daubert, the court held that the subject of any expert’s testimony must establish a standard of evidentiary reliability based on scientific knowledge. There are five criteria articulated by Daubert:

(1) Whether the methods on which the testimony is based have been tested;

(2) The known or potential rate of error associated with the testing;

(3) Whether the method has been subject to peer review;

(4) Whether the method is generally accepted in the scientific community;

(5) Whether standards exist for the use of the method and whether the expert has followed these standards. (See: Daubert Expert)

OK! OK! Enough of the legal jargon, Dave! What’s the bottom line? In essence, Frye has to do with the admissibility of scientific evidence and Daubert deals with the admissibility of an expert witness’s testimony. Under Frye, if either side wants to introduce evidence, it must demonstrate to the court that the scientific community has reached a general acceptance of the basic methods and principles used to come to a conclusion. Except for one little detail…

[The Frye motion] is usually used to preclude or exclude scientific evidence that is not the result of a theory that has “general acceptance” in the scientific community.

[T]he conclusions reached by the expert witnesses need not be generally accepted. Thus, a court’s inquiry into whether a particular scientific process is generally accepted is an effort to ensure that the result of the scientific process, i.e., the proffered evidence, stems from scientific research which has been conducted in a fashion that is generally recognized as being sound, and is not the fanciful creations of a renegade researcher. (See: Frye Motion Law & Legal Definition)

Sound confusing? It is! Whether you like Frye or Daubert, and whether or not Daubert is signed into law by the governor, the judge will have the final say on expert testimony. Period. I have no idea how this court will rule — not at this time — nor will I try to second-guess Judge Nelson from a criminal defense or prosecution perspective. I do expect that she has taken every bit of this into consideration, though, and will rule accordingly.

Until there’s more on the matter, jury selection is coming, and that’s what I’ll focus my efforts on. Believe me, if something comes up, you will be the first to know because I will be reporting from inside the courtroom.

Cross posted at: Daily Kos

Shop Amazon Gift Cards - Perfect Gifts Anytime

Do I Deserve To Die Too?

When I was 23-years-old, I was arrested and charged with possession of a CDS and for being drunk and disorderly. I was with a good friend, who was also charged. CDS stands for Controlled Dangerous Substance, and in the mid-70s, that included… shake and shudder… marijuana. Holy catnip! The charges were way more than trumped up, and the arresting officer, Jack Demeo, was later fired from the Delaware Township Police Department in New Jersey and banished from ever being a cop again. Anywhere. He was bad news and a disgrace to all fine, upstanding law enforcement officers the world over. His downfall? He flashed his badge at an Atlantic City casino and asked for gambling favors and free drinks. He said he was from the NJ Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control.

The charges against me were dismissed before the trial began, but during a Motion to Suppress Evidence hearing, Demeo testified that he was professionally trained by the military to sniff out marijuana. Really? All that was found was one stubby, little roach — 2/10 of a gram — at the bottom of my friend’s ashtray. Had we known it was there, we probably would have smoked it that night and gone out for M&Ms. Skittles weren’t around in those days. As Demeo and his fellow officer traipsed us into the station, right across from where I lived in the blinking light town of Sergeantsville, I asked him what we were being charged with…

“Being drunk and disorderly,” he screamed back. Of course, we weren’t drunk and disorderly. My friend was dropping me off at home. We were minding our own business — sound familiar? As a matter of fact, the illegal substance — the killer weed — wasn’t found until we were inside the station and Demeo had a chance to run out to retrieve the vehicle’s ashtray, return, and dump it on his desk. “AHA!” he exclaimed as he sifted through the cigarette butts and held up the overwhelming piece of evidence. “I got you now.” 

Today, the whole experience is a joke, and I’ll be the first person to admit I smoked pot back in the day. But so did several of our presidents. Did they decide to start a war because they were high on ganja? Hmm… according to George Zimmerman’s defense logic, that could be the case. Think about it. George W. Bush. Barack Obama. Former pot smokers and warmongers. Bear in mind, there were no wars under Bill Clinton; not technically, and, in Zimmerman’s favor, Clinton never inhaled the stuff. Perfect evidence! Mark O’Mara and Don West may be onto something but, to be fair, impartial and to add a legal disclaimer, there’s no evidence that any president smoked marijuana while in office.

I haven’t smoked pot in 20 years, but 20 years ago, I was 40. I first smoked it when I was 16. By 17, the age Trayvon Martin was when he was shot and killed, I was a seasoned smoker, sometimes toking before, during, and after high school. I never missed a day of work because of it. 24 years later, I knew a lot about the stuff, although my interest had really waned by then. Mostly, I was a recreational user throughout the years. I was never addicted to it and it led to no other drugs. Today, it’s not considered a “Controlled Dangerous Substance” in most states, and some have even legalized its use. In my opinion, it was never dangerous unless you consider driving under the influence, but it’s nothing like booze. When I smoked pot, it was usually done with my friends, we were too lazy to drive anywhere, and we sat around listening to Moody Blues and Pink Floyd albums eating whatever food we had; like Cheez Doodles and 2-day-old pizza. The munchies. We chilled out. Never, ever, ever did we think about fighting among ourselves or with anyone else. All we cared about was was getting high and not allowing anyone to Bogart that joint.

§

Now, to the matter at hand. In the DEFENDANT’S REPLY TO STATE’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER/MOTION IN LIMINE REGARDING TOXICOLOGY, Donald West argues:

As part of the autopsy protocol, the Medical Examiner submitted Trayvon Martin’s blood for laboratory analysis. Among the findings includes a positive level for THC and its metabolite. The active THC was measured at 1.5 ng/mL whereas the metabolite was measured at 7.3 ng/mL. This level is sufficient to cause some impairment (although it is considered to be less than that required for a DUI arrest) according to the State’s toxicologist, Dr. Bruce Goldberger. […] Dr. Goldberger opined that Trayvon Martin may have used marijuana within a couple of hours of his death or that it could have been longer than that depending on whether Trayvon was a chronic user or an occasional user.

Was I a chronic or occasional marijuana user? You can only have an opinion — depending on how you think. Are you really qualified? If I smoked it last week, would I be too impaired to write this post? Bullshit. Here’s where the reply from West gets stupid, ludicrous and just plain idiotic. Remember, my disgraced arresting officer said he was trained to sniff out marijuana. In his defense, at least he graduated from the police academy and didn’t draw his weapon on me. Zimmerman, on the other hand, never graduated anything beyond high school. (See: Records show George Zimmerman got D’s in criminal justice classes.) The Defense reply continues:

In George Zimmerman’s non-emergency call to the police, he describes the person, later identified as Trayvon Martin, as appearing as though he was “on drugs.” Additionally, on close inspection of Trayvon Martin’s physical appearance at the 7-Eleven, where he was recorded on video within an hour of his death, he “sways” at the counter as if he’s under the influence of some substance. Taken all together, it is likely that Trayvon Martin was under the influence of marijuana at the time of his death and that his thinking and judgment were impaired at least to some degree. This is relevant evidence for the jury to consider when it evaluates Trayvon Martin’s actions that night, and the jury should be allowed to give it whatever weight it believes it should.

What makes Zimmerman and West authorities on drugs? It’s a complete joke! I’m trying to be fair and impartial, but I find this to be totally disgusting and disrespectful. 

Attempting to turn pot into a viable part of Zimmerman’s defense does make me wonder about something. Have O’Mara and West ever smoked the stuff? I mean, both are around my age. A few years younger, actually, but they most certainly grew up during the Hippie pot smoking era of the 60s and early 70s. They were young once, like me. I went to college. To say pot wasn’t on any college or university campus (including theirs) is a huge lie. Did Mark O’Mara and Don West smoke pot? Did it make them feel violent? I want answers. I want the truth. At the same time, West’s reply to the State’s motion is a paradox. If he never smoked pot, he might be inclined to believe it brings on violence. Smoke that war pipe. Yet, on the flip side — and in my opinion — West could have been as high as a kite when he wrote his reply. You can act pretty silly if you smoke too much weed, you know.

Some of you may argue that O’Mara and West are not on trial here. I have no right to ask a question like that. You’re right. But Trayvon Martin is not on trial, either. Obviously, Zimmerman’s defense disagrees and I understand the tact it is taking. They have every legal right to try it, too. I thoroughly disagree, though, and I think any jury would see right through this ploy if it’s allowed to be introduced at trial.

According to the defense team’s “disjointed” argument, I could, quite possibly, deserve to die, just like Trayvon. Zimmerman and West are self-trained to sniff out evil pot users and both have built in “high” detectors. The reply document says so. Yup, and pot smokers are violent offenders, but only in Trayvon’s case. 

More to come…

Also posted on the Daily Kos. Please feel free to comment there. 

Shop Amazon Gift Cards - Perfect Gifts Anytime

Bond, Revoke Bond

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

§

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

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

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

And then there’s the judge.

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

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

“No, it wasn’t,” he admitted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zimmerman’s untrue statements

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

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

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

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

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

(Edited for content)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bond, Revoke Bond

From the FRYE pan into the FYRE? Part I

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

PART I - The Frye Pan

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

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

and

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

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

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

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

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

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

FACTS

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

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

FACTS PART II: UNCOVERING THE FRAUD

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

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

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

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

COMPUTER SEARCHES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PART II - The FYRE

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

State calls defense motions "in limine" lemons

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Overruled.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ARGUMENT REGARDING DEFENSE MOTION TO EXCLUDE IRRELEVANT EVIDENCE OF TATTOO

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

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

and

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

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

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

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

'twill be a very good year

Monday Monday

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

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

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

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

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

Alleged photos by Joseph S. Jordan

CELL PHONE IN BAG?

HAPPY NEW YEAR, EVERYONE!

It should prove to be a great one.