789 users online (130 members and 659 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 24 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 346
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    399

    Defense Motion to Seal Penalty Phase Discovery Documents

    I find it funny that the Defense holds a press conference on several occassions to discuss documents that the SA has released yet when they have to give their discovery up to SA they want it sealed. I see GA and CA going under the bus and they dont want their discovery released to the public because then her parents might not stand behind her once they realize what all she as said about her life growing up and them as parents.

  2. #2

    Yes, this is the second time

    The tried this once already, it was denied in May, Motion for POR.pdf
    This is one of the various and sundry matters they want reconsidered.

    Here is the hearing!

    http://www.wftv.com/video/23516373/index.html

    http://www.wftv.com/video/23516985/index.html

    http://www.wftv.com/video/23517144/




    [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-ovAGn8Krw[/ame]
    watch Casey'd demeanor [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nE_qFo9YbU[/ame]
    We're not on Hope Springs Drive anymore.
    Last edited by The World According; 11-24-2010 at 02:44 PM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    1,959
    What are the chances their motion will be successful?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Central Texas
    Posts
    957
    Methinks it is merely an example of the following classic defense maneuver:

    a) a nanny-nanny-boo-boo at the State's latest motion,
    b) an attempt to get MORE attention than the state at the hearing,
    c) an attempt to create a diversion, or
    d) all of the above


  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    ChIllinois..........brrrrrrrr
    Posts
    1,405
    Quote Originally Posted by QB. View Post
    What are the chances their motion will be successful?
    Well, considering this motion was already denied by Judge Perry, I would think their chances are slim to none, and slim's outta town!

    Can't believe their wasting the courts valuable resources to hear a motion that has already been denied.

    What a Huge Waste!!!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    1,959
    Quote Originally Posted by The World According View Post
    The tried this once already, it was denied in May, Motion for POR.pdf
    This is one of the various and sundry matters they want reconsidered.


    Thanks World! That is just what I wanted to see.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    1,959
    The actual title of the motion according to the docket is:
    Motion
    Defendant's; to Seal Penalty Phase Discovery Response

    and AZLawyer answered a question about its possible meaning in the legal thread.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Waiting
    Posts
    4,523
    Quote Originally Posted by The World According View Post
    The tried this once already, it was denied in May, Motion for POR.pdf
    This is one of the various and sundry matters they want reconsidered.

    Here is the hearing!

    http://www.wftv.com/video/23516373/index.html

    http://www.wftv.com/video/23516985/index.html

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-ovAGn8Krw
    watch Casey'd demeanor http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nE_qFo9YbU
    We're not on Hope Springs Drive anymore.
    Thanks as always, TWA, for your lightening fast delivery of pertinent videos and filings! I can't wait to see how HHJP is going to react to one of his very own decisions being the subject of a request for review! Lol! Me thinks he won't be too happy!




    It Was Ancient Aliens!

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Bytown
    Posts
    10,180
    Quote Originally Posted by QB. View Post
    The actual title of the motion according to the docket is:
    Motion
    Defendant's; to Seal Penalty Phase Discovery Response

    and AZLawyer answered a question about its possible meaning in the legal thread.

    Am I reading or understanding correctly.
    This Motion is a Response???
    What are they responding too?
    Can they file a response motion to the Order Denied by the Judge?

    Hopefully we will get to read the Motion soon to clear this up.
    ----------------------------------------------------



    --------------------------------------------------
    "There are three kinds of intelligence: one kind understands things for itself, the other appreciates what others can understand, the third understands neither for itself nor through others. This first is excellent, the second good, and the third useless.

    --Niccolo Machiavelli"

  10. #10
    http://www.wftv.com/video/23518001/index.html
    sorry folks in my earlier post I left out Part four.

    We need to see the actual document, right now we are just guessing. At least I am.I think that the defense may have done what my high school girlfriends would have called.... got all happy over nothing.
    When the judge suggested to the defense that regarding the investigation for the penalty phase that they may want to submit requests for funds to him under seal as to not divulge their trial strategy, they may have misunderstood the scope of what he would seal.
    We learned in that hearing that Mason had a poor understanding of what has went on in the case so far. Again. He had no knowledge of the filing by Mark regarding the additional documents that were in possession of TES, many, many months ago, and that those documents have been sitting waiting to be reviewed by the defense. Also, Mason stood up and argued that the defense learned of mom and pop filling out the questionnaire for the FBI agents for the very very first time, only the day before the hearing. . Mrs. Drane-Burdick informed the judge and Mason that indeed Baez knew all about it, even commented on it during the depo!!

    Likewise, it could very well be that the defense has NOT informed Mrs. Finnell, which imo seems to be a theme, that this matter has already been argued and ruled on. SO , possibly she may want to expand that idea out further to not have to divuldge documents they plan to use in the penalty phase, or exhibits, possibly even names of witnesses; because, that would effectuate the same thing and one could easily infer the trial strategy. I need to read the actual new document to see what the extent of their request is. If they are asking for anything along the lines of what they did and the judge ruled on in May, I do not see him reversing his own well thought out, researched and specific cases he relied upon sited in his decision. Motion for POR.pdf

    I do know one thing, Mrs. Finnell did not seem happy to have to turn around and look at Cheney and Jose like don't have me up here making a fool of myself. So, unless they want the revolving door to click again, they would do well to try to start bringing her up to speed. It is bad enough when Cheney makes it obvious he has a very poor understanding of what has went on in the case.
    Last edited by The World According; 11-24-2010 at 04:31 PM.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Bytown
    Posts
    10,180
    Help, Please
    I am having trouble locating the Defense Motion for Protective Order with Respect to Penalty Phase Discovery filed April 28, 2010,..(The Defense filed a few motions that day)
    I know the Motion was Denied on May 11 2010 by Judge Perry..http://www.ninthcircuit.org/news/Hig...05-11-2010.pdf

    I have found Motions with that in the title but when I bring it up the Motion is about the States Request for the Death Penalty..
    Last edited by Intermezzo; 11-24-2010 at 03:42 PM.
    ----------------------------------------------------



    --------------------------------------------------
    "There are three kinds of intelligence: one kind understands things for itself, the other appreciates what others can understand, the third understands neither for itself nor through others. This first is excellent, the second good, and the third useless.

    --Niccolo Machiavelli"

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    7,763
    Quote Originally Posted by Intermezzo View Post

    Am I reading or understanding correctly.
    This Motion is a Response???
    What are they responding too?
    Can they file a response motion to the Order Denied by the Judge?

    Hopefully we will get to read the Motion soon to clear this up.
    I don't think it's a response--I think it's a motion to seal a "discovery response," which probably means a response to a subpoena sent by the defense to a third party.

    "It would seem to me that June 16, 2008 was the last time that the victim was viewed by her grandparents. It became quite evident that from the OS of the Defense that the 16th was a date of great importance and that a so called time line of activities dealing with CA, LA, GA and ICA on the 16th and what, if any, activities took place on the 15th, 16th and 17th of June on 24 hour cycles would have been, at least, of a minimal requirement of review. I take it at some point you had a computer expert look at that data?" HHJP, 6/21/11
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...139910&page=94

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by AZlawyer View Post
    I don't think it's a response--I think it's a motion to seal a "discovery response," which probably means a response to a subpoena sent by the defense to a third party.
    Thank you so very very much. This makes a lot more sense. I was concerned we were going to get another "Bear in mind....." raised eyebrow, what part of no don't you understand talk from the judge.

    I did notice something the new lawyer mentioned that I have been meaning to ask you about. Mrs. Finnell said something to the effect of
    well, your honor, you bring a new guy on the team, and he has his own ideas
    how to maybe go at it in a different way
    (paraphrased). She was explaining why on earth Mrs. Barrett's work wasn't comprehensive as the judge had been led to believe.

    It is interesting how the judge told them they could submit the requests for payment regarding what the PI was looking into under seal; however, in his ruling he is pretty clear that once something is discovery there will be no sealing of that. That would mean that the withholding of the name would be quite temporary indeed, if they must turn over the tape of the interview, any notes they took, etc. and then the State would be entitled to depose them? I am sure it is not gray to the judge, just to me.

    Thank you for all you do here!
    Do you expect her to be asking for matters to be reconsidered if she has different arguments than , say, Andrea argued already?
    Last edited by The World According; 11-24-2010 at 03:50 PM.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    423
    Could that be someone in Ohio?

  15. #15
    TigerBalm's Avatar
    TigerBalm is offline Pray for all the missing and innocent people whose lives were taken too soon!
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    6,189
    Quote Originally Posted by krisskross View Post
    Could that be someone in Ohio?
    That is what I am thinking ....
    When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time. ~ Maya Angelou

Page 1 of 24 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Defense files motion to vacate/motion for clarification?
    By yeknomaras in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 03-22-2011, 08:17 PM
  2. 2010.11.29 Defense Initial Penalty Phase Witness List
    By Muzikman in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 218
    Last Post: 02-20-2011, 06:55 PM
  3. Motion to Compel Reciprocal Discovery - What is the Defense Trying to Hide??
    By hroark2112 in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 123
    Last Post: 06-09-2010, 11:11 PM
  4. Peterson's defense to oppose motion to seal discovery
    By Paintr in forum Kathleen Savio
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 07-20-2009, 01:09 PM