Zenaida's Trial Against Casey Postponed

ORDER GRANTING RENEWED MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL

Patience is a virtue, and we certainly did learn that from all of the postponements in Casey Anthony’s criminal trial. This time, with regard to the Zenaida Gonzalez (Plaintiff) v. Casey Anthony (Defendant) civil trial, Ninth Circuit Court Judge Lisa T. Munyon chose to postpone it until January 2, 2013. This trial had been postponed in the past for several reasons, all stemming from motions filed by the defense, but this time, both sides agreed that one more postponement was necessary. Why?

Let’s start with the basics, beginning with what’s been going on since the start of the new year. On February 29, the defense made a request to continue the trial date by filing a motion to Abate Trial Deadlines. A continuance means to postpone a date set by the court. Last week, on March 6, the judge heard the motion and the plaintiff’s objection to the continuance. Zenaida and her team of lawyers were ready to go to trial. After hearing from both sides, Judge Munyon chose to deny the defense motion that day. Jury selection was scheduled to start on April 10, 2012, with the trial slated to begin the following week in the same courtroom as the criminal trial. That would be Courtroom 23.

All honky dory, right? No, because on March 9, Zenaida’s attorneys filed a Notice of Conflict stating that they were scheduled to be in a Duval County courtroom trying other civil matters beginning on April 9. Their reasoning was solid. The Duval court scheduled that trial date before Munyon set this trial date in September of 2011. Munyon chose to go with what court had precedence. Since Duval set the date first, Orange/Osceola would have to wait. (See: Florida Rules 2.550(a)(6) - The case in which the trial date has been first set generally should take precedence.)

There’s more to it than just that, though. Judge Munyon could have ignored the request had the costs of rescheduling been too much of a burden on Florida taxpayers. After consulting with court representatives and the sheriff’s office, the grand total for a continuance would come to a mere $157.00, and that includes additional summonses to prospective jurors, printing, sorting, and mailing fees. Lest you think that’s all there is, guess again. Judge Munyon wasn’t able to secure Courtroom 23 for the week of April 10, and what that translates into is that the cost to the sheriff’s office for additional security would exceed the costs expended for the summonses. That’s because there are three other courtrooms on that floor, meaning the potential for a lot of people milling around. Okay, fine, but why so long of a postponement? It’s because Courtroom 23, the only courtroom on that floor, is in use. January 2, 2013 is the earliest time it will be available for two consecutive weeks.

So, what we have ahead of us are deadline adjustments originally set on September 1, 2011. We’re talking about 8+ months in the future now. The judge did set a two-week deadline from the date of her order (March 13) to file any notices of conflict for the new trial date. There is a hearing scheduled for March 23. The judge ordered that it remain on the docket and limited the proceeding to motions for summary judgment and all matters related to discovery, such as Gonzalez’s request for Anthony’s residential address. A motion for summary judgment, in this case, means the motion the defense filed to have the case against Anthony thrown out.

As far as I’m concerned, we should be used to it. After three years, plus this mess, we should know by now not to hold our breath. If you think this will ever end, guess again. This time it was the plaintiff’s request that did the trick.

Leafy Things... with a Dash of Dirt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jeff Ashton to run for State Attorney?

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

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

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

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

Of Biblical Proportions

SOLOMON, PART I

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

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

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

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

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

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

MOSES, PART I

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

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

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

SOLOMON, PART II

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

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

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

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

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

Ahum.

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

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

MOSES, PART II

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

Have a Happy Heavenly Birthday!

Explanation for Casey's Sunday Release Date

This was e-mailed to me by Karen Levey, Chief of Due Process Services for the Orange County Courthouse. The county requested that she distribute it. This should explain why Casey will be released from jail on Sunday.

July 12, 2011

TO: Interested Media

FROM: Michael Tidwell, Chief, Orange County Corrections

RE: Release Date for Casey Marie Anthony

Inmate Casey Marie Anthony was found guilty of four (4) first degree misdemeanors on July 5, 2011. In anticipation of the announced sentencing on July 7, 2011, jail staff began to calculate possible outcomes in order to be responsive to the Court. One scenario that was evaluated was a sentence of four (4) consecutive one (1) year terms in the Orange County Jail.

Initial computations indicated, based on a sentence of four (4) one (1) year terms, inmate Anthony was eligible for 240 days of “statutory gain time”, awarded at the rate of 5 days per month for each of the 48 months. In addition, inmate Anthony was eligible for “constructive gain time”, as authorized by County Ordinance due to her Protective Custody status. Calculations yielded a projected release date of 8/25/11.

On July 7, 2011, Orange County Corrections advised the Court of the projected release date of 8/25/11. Shortly thereafter, the Court issued an order awarding Ms. Anthony to 1043 days time served.

In an effort to respond quickly to the Court, Corrections staff recomputed the projected release date. The amount of “statutory gain time” remained the same, but the amount of “constructive gain time” was reduced as the projected length of sentence was reduced. In the process of this rapid recalculation, inmate Anthony was inadvertently credited with “constructive gain time” for a complete month July‐August, rather than for a partial month.

This oversight resulted in the Court being advised that the projected release date was 7/13/11. As with all time served cases, staff conducted a routine secondary review of the sentence computation and discovered the oversight. Once the oversight was corrected, it was determined inmate Anthony had been erroneously awarded four (4) additional days due to the change in length of sentence. This changed the projected release date from 7/13/11 to 7/17/11. This change was immediately reported to the Court.

Drowning in a Pool of Lies?

What do I think the defense will argue in it’s opening statement?

Read my article on Orlando Magazine. See if it will take you as long to read as what Jose will say tomorrow.

Click the image

Feel free to add your thoughts.

THANK YOU!

Fool's Mate

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

CHECK

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

§

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

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

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

CHECK

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

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?

The Teflon Judge

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

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

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

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

I finished the article with:

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

In his ruling, the judge wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Slowly, the wiles of justice churn

PLEASE READ THIS POST FIRST

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

- Jim Larson in 1999

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

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

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

Here is the twisted journey of John Huggins.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

♦

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

♦

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

♦

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Huh?

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

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

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

♦

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

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

See also: Commission on Capital Cases

More from "My bus runneth over"

ENTERING THROUGH THE BACK DOOR

Casey's tragic bus took another wrong turn when it recently handed her former and final boyfriend, Anthony Lazzaro, a copy of a subpoena duces tecum without deposition for phone records from January 2009 to present.

What's this all about? Casey has been locked up for how long? What would her legal team want to do with poor Tony's cell phone records for the past year-and-a-half plus? William Jay, his attorney, thinks that whatever it is, it's no good. He countered by filing a MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM. Should Baez & Mason be surprised?

What exactly is a subpoena duces tecum without deposition?  A subpoena duces tecum is a summons ordering a party to appear before the court and produce documents, in this case, cell phone records, that could be used at a hearing or at Casey's trial. The literal translation from Latin is to "bring with you under penalty of punishment." The without deposition part means that Lazzaro would not be compelled to appear in person to offer those documents. Whew, what a lucky break.

Here's the problem that the defense doesn't get. After a hearing last August, Judge Stan Strickland - yes, the fine, upstanding and highly revered judge the defense had removed from the case this past April - ordered that, "the time frame allowed to be subject to a subpoena duces tecum was from June 1, 2008 to December 18, 2008."

If you recall, the defense wanted Roy Kronk's cell phone records, too, for a similar period of time. They were denied that request. Poor Roy Kronk was one of the first ones the defense pointed incriminating fingers at while tossing him under a few speeding Van Hool tires.

What would Casey's attorneys do with Anthony Lazzaro's cell phone records from the past twenty months or so? Imagine looking into each and every person he ever made and received calls to and from. Why, if only half of them could be investigated for the next three years, give or take, two things may happen. One, the trial would surely be postponed, and two, there may be a Zenaida or two in that there briar patch. That's a thought, but Baez can't afford another three years pro bono and Mason will be retired by then. No, it's not that. What actually strikes me as funny is that this team recklessly pursues everyone law enforcement has cleared. This includes the Grunds, her former friends, Kronk, of course, and a number of others.

Do I think the defense is trying to pin the crime on Lazzaro? No, I do not. Once again, this is a feeble attempt to discredit the state's prime witnesses, and if he ever made a prank call to Pizza Hut and it's in those records, all of his credibility will fly out the window. "Your honor, this proves the state's witness is unreliable."

I expect this sort of treatment. It is the defense's job to tarnish everyone the state plans to call up to the stand, excluding experts who will go head-to-head with their own slate, but in this particular case, as in many others; just what does the defense really need 26+ months of phone records for? As soon as Lazzaro realized who and what he was possibly dating, he high-tailed it. Casey bit the dust and is, most likely, nothing more than a morbid thought in his mind today. Meanwhile, all this team seems to be going after is the stand-up crowd, with no Zenaida in the patch. Anthony Lazzaro's phone records aren't worth a rabbit's foot. He moved on with his life. Should his girlfriend of today be slapped around, too?

In his wisdom, Judge Strickland made the right and proper call. With Judge Belvin Perry now at the helm, did the defense realize it would lose another Motion for Reconsideration of Prior Rulings if it chose to go that route instead, so, let's choose another path? Enter through the back door. Hand little guy Tony an official order and hope he doesn't take it to his lawyer. Well, he did, and William Jay knew exactly what to do with it. So will Judge Perry.