02-22-2011, 08:33 PM #1Registered User
- Join Date
- May 2004
2011.02.22 Levi Page Show @ 9 PM ET
Tonight @ 9 PM ET / 8 CT Defense Attorney and Former Prosecutor Holly Hughes, discusses the latest in the Casey Anthony case.
To listen to the show, click here: http://tobtr.com/s/1553775
02-22-2011, 09:02 PM #2
02-23-2011, 02:34 AM #3
Great show!! Thanks, Levi! You and Holly held nothing back!
02-23-2011, 09:21 AM #4
Is there a transcript somewhere? Usually we get a play by play...
02-23-2011, 09:25 AM #5
I don't have the transcript, but to save time, here is the exact link and the KC discussion starts at 19:50 time mark.
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/levipag...levi-page-showIt's the journey, not the destination.
02-23-2011, 10:36 AM #6
LP: Everybody: We’re going to switch gears and discuss the Casey Anthony case. In that case, the prosecutors are asking Judge Perry to hold Jose Baez in contempt for missing deadlines, specifically missing the deadline detailing why he thinks the chloroform evidence found in the trunk of his client, Casey Anthony’s car, should not be admissible at trial.
LP: Holly, what do you think about this? You know, Baez and his team have to turn over the notes and what their witnesses are saying about why certain evidence, specifically the chloroform evidence that was found in the trunk of Anthony’s car should not be admissible into trial. An argument would be, you know, this is junk science—it’s not really chloroform and this and that. In other words, they are laying out their reasons and he is missing his deadlines for that. And the prosecution says Baez should be held in contempt. What do you think?
Holly: Absolutely. They are beyond right. You know, I read where Baez is saying: “Well, I’m confused. And, my co-counsel is confused.” And you know what, Levi? That is the first honest thing that has come out of that man’s mouth since he took this case. He is confused, alright. You know, when the Judge sets a deadline it is for a reason. If they do what they call a scheduling order and they say to you, alright, here is the deal—by such and such a date, this has to be done, that has to be done. You know, there are deadlines for discovery. You can’t just show up the morning of trial like Perry Mason and go, poof, guess what, new witness. No, I don’t think so. The Judge is going to exclude that.
Levi: (laughing) Yes, I think Baez wishes he were Perry Mason.
HH: Oh, please, not in his wildest dreams. He’s confused alright.
LP: Yes, Maybe a wannabe Perry Mason.
HH: Right. And here is the thing—when you hire an expert to testify at trial, they are supposed to review the evidence and produce a report. Now, if they don’t produce a report, then there is nothing to turn over, and, you know, you can just, as the prosecution; or, you know, it goes both ways—as the opposite side, let’s say, you have the right to call that witness up and say to them: “Hey, what are you going to testify about? What are your conclusions? What are you basing it on?” They don’t have to talk to you but; if they produce a report, it has to be turned over because the opposite side has to be given the opportunity to hire their own experts to negate what you’re saying. So, when the Judge puts together a scheduling order, and says by such and such a date, you need to particularize your motion. Basically what they are saying is: “Judge, we want this evidence excluded. We want you to suppress it at trial—not allow it at trial. Well, okay, but you have to say with particularity—why. You have to give the Judge case law; you have to give him statutes; you have to explain to him and there has to be pre trial hearings on it. (At about 22:25 minutes in.) If you don’t disclose to the other side what you are doing; they have no way to prepare. So, what he is doing at this point is trying to cripple the prosecution’s case, because he is so scared of it. He forgot to say he was scared, too, as well as confused. But that is what’s going on here. And let me tell you something, this Judge—Chief Judge Belvin Perry—is not playing. And I would not be surprised if we don’t see contempt citations and personal fines. Because this is absolutely unconscionable...
LP: Yes. He has already been fined about $600.00.
HH: It’s unconscionable, Levi. How long has he had this evidence? How long has he known about this? He has had all the time...
Levi: Yes, we have know about it for two years now.
Holly: That’s exactly right.
Levi: I remember reading about it when it first came out over a year ago.
Holly: (At about 23:00 minutes in.) That’s exactly right. So, all this stuff that he is trying to get suppressed—unless he particularizes a motion so the other side gets a fair bite—it’s a level playing field--and, they can say: “Okay, we saw your argument. Now, we are going to prepare how to come back at, or how to negate it.” And, if he doesn’t do that then the Judge needs to just outright dismiss his motion. Just say: “I’m either dismissing them altogether—you cannot present them again because you’re past your motion filing deadline.” Or: “I flat out deny them because you’re not prepared to go forward; so, therefore, tough.” He needs to deny their motion; he needs to hold them in contempt; he needs to fine them out the wazoo—and, I mean, that’s all there is to it. But, you know, I will point this out for your listeners, Levi—the thing that frightens me about this? You know what he is doing? He is setting up an IAC. What we call ‘ineffective assistance of counsel’. That’s why he is doing all this nonsense. Number 1: I think he is in over his head—that is my personal opinion based on what I have seen of his performance thus far; or lack of performance. But this is what is going to happen—when she gets convicted down the line, they are going to try filing ineffective assistance of counsel; because, look at all the stuff that he messed up, and he missed deadlines, and he didn’t give her adequate representation, and his motions got denied, and he didn’t turn over the report. And, the only thing that is going to save the state from having to try that twice—is that IAC is a very, very high burden. And what the reviewing court, the appellate court, is going to look at is: would it have made a difference if he had done these things? Would there have been a different outcome? And I think there is so much evidence against her—not the least of which are her own lies—every time she opens her mouth, she steps in it. So, I think that there is so much evidence, that even if the chloroform didn’t come in—how do you explain that the sheets the baby is wrapped in came from your house? How do you explain that you don’t report her missing for 30 days? How do you explain that you said you met Zani the Nanny through a co-worker at Universal—you take the cops to Universal and they are like: “Who the hell are you?” I mean, come on, really? Really? No, she is going down; and, at this point in time, Mr. Confused Baez—is just trying to set up an effective assistance of counsel. He sees the writing on the wall. He is out matched.
Last edited by Truth Prevails; 02-23-2011 at 10:44 AM.
02-23-2011, 10:48 PM #7Registered User
- Join Date
- Aug 2008
So, what he is doing at this point is trying to cripple the prosecution’s case, because he is so scared of it. He forgot to say he was scared, too, as well as confused. But that is what’s going on here. And let me tell you something, this Judge—Chief Judge Belvin Perry—is not playing. And I would not be surprised if we don’t see contempt citations and personal fines. Because this is absolutely unconscionable...
Thanks so much for transcribing, TP.
02-23-2011, 11:23 PM #8
02-23-2011, 11:53 PM #9
02-24-2011, 12:17 AM #10
I found this a really interesting show. Thank you to Levi, also.
At about 25:25
LP: And Holly, you know, they also want to, they have also said that they want to call Kathi B., who is a local reporter for WFTV, there in Orlando. Ah, she has been very hard hitting on this case. She has questioned Jose B. a lot of times outside of the court house; and, they have, you know, her and Baez have gotten into it a little bit, because she is such a hard hitting reporter. Why do you think he wants to call a member of the media to the stand? Do you think that he is trying to get her thrown out of the court house so she can’t attend the hearing—the trial, because she is a witness?
HH: Well, you know, that is very likely. Although, what he is going to have to do is present what they call a ‘proffer’ to the Judge; and, say to the Judge the reason that she is a witness is XYZ—this is what I expect she is going to testify to. And, here is the problem—she doesn’t know anything that everybody else doesn’t know. She is reporting it; she is not out there doing her own investigation. I mean, I know, that being an investigative journalist—certainly they go out and they talk to people, and they try to locate people on their own. You know, I mean they are investigators of a sort; but, with respect to the actual murder and things of that nature—she doesn’t have anything she is going to be able to testify to. He is probably just, you know, sick of her telling the truth in the press. You know. I mean, what is she going to testify to—that he is confused? “Yeah, I agree with that. Yeah, that’s right, Judge.” I mean, shoot, I could testify to that—he can’t keep me out of the court room. So, I don’t know why he is thinking he needs to do that. But, you’re right. It is probably tactical. He probably is just sick and tired of her, you know, putting him out there like that—and so he is trying to do that. But the Judge isn’t going to fall for it; because, let’s face it; this case has been wide open to the media since day one. It is clear that the media is going to be able to continue to be in there, and it’s a public court room. He cannot keep her out of there; unless, she is a witness in that particular motion; or in that particular trial. And, I don’t see anything he can proffer to the Judge as being good enough to satisfy Judge Perry.
LP: Yes, and again, what do you think about the defense saying the smell of death that was in ICA’s trunk—what it really was—was a trash bag that had rotten food in it. That’s what the smell was. You buy that?
HH: Quite frankly, I think it’s laughable, Levi. I think it’s laughable. Okay, you know what, I have smelled decomp; I have been on murder scenes; I have been around dead bodies that have been laying around for a couple of days. I have been on crime scenes days after a decomp has been removed—and there is no way in he!!, Levi, that anyone is going to mistake rotting food for a rotting body. I’m sorry, but when you smell decomp—you will never, ever, ever, ever forget that smell. There is nothing like it in the world and I’ve smelled some rotten food. Okay, let me tell you something—and I’ve smelled decomp—and they are not even close.....
LP: Remember at first they said that CA gave the theory that it was a dead squirrel, and then we heard that it was a box of pizza, some pizza, that was left in the trunk. And one of the local news stations, Holly, actually tested pizza, they put it in the back of a trunk for a long period of time, in the hot Florida sun; and, then they took it out and it had no smell to it at all—it smelled like nothing. Nothing.
HH: Well, exactly. I mean, come on, Levi. What is it? It’s bread—okay, which doesn’t smell when it goes bad—it might mould, okay? And it’s tomatoes. Okay, what happens to tomatoes? They are out in the hot sun all day long—walk past a tomato patch—they don’t start to stink when they rot. They just rot and fade back into the dirt. But, here is the deal with this, legally speaking—this goes to the weight, not the admissibility. So, when you are arguing before the Judge and you are saying it shouldn’t be allowed—there has to be an evidentiary rule that you are basing that argument on—you have to say: “It is more prejudicial than probative, you know, Judge.” It’s a balancing test. There has to be some reason for excluding it. Cindy, herself, who is a nurse, said it smells like there has been a da** dead body....
LP: They want that excluded as well. Just throw out everything—nobody can testify. That is what they are saying.
HH: Right. That is exactly right. (unintelligible) Now, here is the deal, they can put that evidence up, they can put CA up and say: “Well it was a rotting pizza; well it was a dead squirrel.” ‘Cause, you know, I ride around with dead squirrels in my trunk all the time, I don’t know about you, but, you know. I mean, come on. Really
LP: Yeah. (Chuckles)
HH: Really. How did a squirrel get in there in the first place? I mean, let me tell you something—squirrels are nasty animals. You aren’t locking a squirrel in a trunk unless it attacks you, okay. You are going to be all torn up. So, put it up. It goes to weight, not admissibility. Let a jury hear it—and let a jury decide if it’s credible. If a jury believes CA that it was a rotten pizza or a dead squirrel—fine. But, you don’t exclude: number 1) the evidence of it, and number 2) the fact of what she said. She was not being interrogated. This was a voluntary statement—it’s been reported—the whole world has heard it by now. So, these motions that he is filing are not even legally substantiated. Which is...
LP: What do think, Holly, about all these nut jobs that, ah, they are saying that they searched the area where the body was found before ICA was in jail; and, it wasn’t there.
HH: Well, you know. Maybe they are just not very good at searching. But, bear in mind, Levi, there was all that water, and it had to recede, and it had to go down, so you know what—if that was under water—they are not out there trudging around in hip waders. I can tell you that. Anybody who is going: “Yeah, I helped search.” Well, good for you--but you didn’t find it, did you? It doesn’t mean it wasn’t there. It just means you didn’t do a very good job. You probably didn’t get out your hip waders and fish around in the bottom of that disgusting, swampy, cold, nasty, wintery water. You know? I, just, again...
02-24-2011, 12:25 AM #11
3rd and last part:
At About 31:00 minutes in:
LP: Yeah, well. It’s Florida. I don’t know how wintery the water is.
HH: Well, when it sits there and it is stagnate and it’s nasty—do you want to put your hands down in it?
LP: No. But, we also know, Holly, that one of the witnesses that is said to have searched this area and didn’t find a body there—uhm, her name is LB—and she, along with a couple of others; are accused of forging documents, and lying to other people—ah, to try to help ICA., and her defense team, out. So, I think that they don’t have any creditability. That LB is a nut job. She is trying to get her 15 minutes of fame in this case, by getting her name out there—trying to screw this case up. I don’t believe a word she says. And, ah, what do you think about the fact that the defense also doesn’t want RC to testify. RC to testify—that is the alleged mistress of GA. And we know that there are text messages and photographs where they are together with each other. You know, I had an exclusive interview with her on this show a couple of months ago, and she told us the same thing that she told the Orange County Sheriff’s detectives in Florida. She said that she had a conversation with GA and GA basically said ICA did it; and that it was quote: “an accident that snowballed out of control”. And the defense doesn’t want that to be muttered at trial. What do you think about that? Do you think that they are going to be successful in getting that suppressed?
HH: Well, I have to tell you—that is the only one that has any merit, Levi. And here is what the prosecution is going to have to do—I think that is probably going to be suppressed. Number 1), it’s going to be double hearsay, okay? And, it is based on G’s speculation. Unless he was actually there and witnessed what ICA did or didn’t do to the child—he doesn’t have any personal knowledge, unless he said ICA told me XYZ. You know, then again, you’ve got double hearsay—but you also have a statement of a defendant against (unintelligible)and, you know, there may be a way to get around the double loop—but, this is the only one that has some merit; because, first of all, you know, the fact that she is his mistress, quite frankly, is just irrelevant to this trial. It doesn’t matter who she is. So, I can see them trying, you know—they are saying, well, you don’t want to muddy up the family, and it’s irrelevant, you know, who she is relation to the family is irrelevant—which is a good argument, and the fact that it is going to be double hearsay is a good argument. They may prevail. But, here is the thing—you know that GA and CA are going to be called to testify. There is something called impeachment. The Judge can suppress evidence and say it doesn’t come in the case in chief, it’s not relevant, it’s hearsay—it’s whatever, whatever. He can find a whole host of reasons to exclude things. But, if somebody—what we call opens the door, on the stand—if they testify to something that is in direct contradiction—and you know GA is going to say: “She didn’t do it. I don’t think she did it.” In which case, he opens the door for the state on rebuttal to call that woman in and...
LP: Good point.
HH: ..say: “Did he in fact tell you whether or not he thought his daughter killed that baby? “Yes.” “And what did he say, Miss RC?” And, that is when it comes in. Because there is no way that GA is going to be able to take the stand in that trial and not be asked the question: “Do you think your daughter did it?” You know,....
LP: Yes, that is a good point. And, you know what, Holly, I’ve interview that woman, RC, on this show. We’ve had her on for about an hour. And she talked to us about this case; and, I got to say, I found her very credible. I know that many people in the media, such as NG, were trying to poke holes in her story; but after listening to her, I think that there is (unintelligible) evidence to say that she was having an affair, and amply evidence to suggest that she is credible, and that she did hear GA say that. But, we are going to leave the Anthony case right there,
02-24-2011, 01:06 AM #12
Thanks Truth Prevails! You did a great job in transcribing the program!
A lot of good information was discussed. I think it's very easy to see through JB's antics and Holly really zeroed in on the "ineffective assistance of counsil" issue. That really explains why JB is just purposely defying court orders. He knows he has no defense, so the only thing he CAN do for his client is give her something that can be used for appeal. But, from what Holly said, an appellate court is going to look at the evidence and decide if a competent defense attorney could have made a difference. With the prosecution having so much compelling evidence it's likely they'll deny the appeal.
02-24-2011, 01:49 PM #13
Sweet thanks! Good explanation of the double hearsay problem and how, just maybe, those statements might come in anyway for impeaching GA.__________________
Disclaimer: I have a JD, but I am not licensed to practice. Therefore, do not interpret anything contained in my posts as legal advice - they are my personal opinion only.
02-24-2011, 01:51 PM #14
Last edited by Tulessa; 02-24-2011 at 02:14 PM.Unless I provide a link, every one of my posts are to be considered rumor, Speculation, or simply MY OWN OPINION.
“It is better to remain silent at the risk of being thought a fool, than to talk and remove all doubt of it.”
The missing and murdered cannot cry out for Justice. It is the duty for the living to do so for them.
By Levi in forum Zahra Clare BakerReplies: 23Last Post: 02-21-2011, 10:44 PM
By Levi in forum Zahra Clare BakerReplies: 7Last Post: 11-12-2010, 02:19 AM
By Levi in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years oldReplies: 26Last Post: 03-17-2010, 05:22 AM