State of Florida's Motion to Strike Defense Witness List

jnTexas said:

I have not seen this discussed as of yet.

http://media.myfoxorlando.com/photogalleries/012309witnesslist/indexGallery.htm

Taken from the doc:

On November 20, 2008, the defendant filed a doc title Defense Witness List listing three witnessess under Category A and otherwise incorperating "the entire State's Witness List by refernece."

The defendant's 'incorporation by reference" is an even less conscientous effort to name only those witnesses she expects to call at trail as is makes no reference to any particular filing and makes no accounting for amended or supplemental witness lists filed by the state.

Looks like Beaz made another booboo!!
Can't wait till the trial tomorrow.:crazy:

Click to expand...

sweetmop said:

What's with Jose Baez?
Is he just plain lazy or just plain dumb?
He is always trying to get someone to do his work for him, isn't he?
Jose seems to have his own issues with "feelings of entitlement". It's most bizarre. I'm surprised that some of those high powered members of the defense team want to put their name on the line by associating with him frankly.

Click to expand...

RammerJammer said:

So does JB just want to say ditto to those as well? He really doesn't like to do his own legwork, does he---just as Judge Strickland recommended. He needs to get with the program here.

Click to expand...

Chilly Willy said:

I thought Baez had brought in more experienced attorneys to help with this case because he was not qualified. What happened to them? Did they disappear when the death penalty was taken off the table?

Click to expand...

Marina2 said:

From my reading, the real issue is this:

From the state's motion:

"As noted in Dufour v. State. 495 So.2d 154 (Fla. 1986), the listing of witnesses by the defendant limits the prosecution's plenary power to subpoena witnesses and take ex parte testimony as to any violation of the criminal law within its jurisdiction (citing AbleBuilders Sanitation Co. v. State. 368 So.2d 1340 (Fla. 3d DCA), dismissed 373 So.2d 461(1979) and Florida Statute 27.04.)"

Apparently, after the defense provides a witness list to the state the state can't interview anyone on it without giving the defense notice and allowing them to attend the interview and examine the witness. If the state does so without notifying the defense and allowing attendence, the witness testimony can be excluded from trial or the whole indictment thrown out.

By listing the entire state's witness list, the state can't talk to any of their own witnesses without Baez breathing down their neck and questioning them as well. And, as noted in the motion, there is no accounting for ammended or supplemental witness lists filed by the state. In effect, the state can't speak to anyone without Baez present.

The original intent of the rule of law "serves the protective purpose of preventing the state from driving an unfair wedge between defense counsel and its key witnesses, through ex parte examination, during sensitive pretrial stages." Baez is attempting to use this rule as a "sword" instead of the "shield" it was meant to be.

Link to case cited in the state's motion:
http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/flsupct/65694/op-65694.pdf
(bottom of page 10 to page 12 for relevant part)

The judge will approve the state's motion and strike that part of the state's witness list, imo. It's a dirty trick. Baez should have known the state wouldn't let that witness list go unchallenged. He really is stupid.

Click to expand...

Chilly Willy said:

I thought Baez had brought in more experienced attorneys to help with this case because he was not qualified. What happened to them? Did they disappear when the death penalty was taken off the table?

Click to expand...

Marina2 said:

From my reading, the real issue is this:

From the state's motion:

"As noted in Dufour v. State. 495 So.2d 154 (Fla. 1986), the listing of witnesses by the defendant limits the prosecution's plenary power to subpoena witnesses and take ex parte testimony as to any violation of the criminal law within its jurisdiction (citing AbleBuilders Sanitation Co. v. State. 368 So.2d 1340 (Fla. 3d DCA), dismissed 373 So.2d 461(1979) and Florida Statute 27.04.)"

Apparently, after the defense provides a witness list to the state the state can't interview anyone on it without giving the defense notice and allowing them to attend the interview and examine the witness. If the state does so without notifying the defense and allowing attendence, the witness testimony can be excluded from trial or the whole indictment thrown out.

By listing the entire state's witness list, the state can't talk to any of their own witnesses without Baez breathing down their neck and questioning them as well. And, as noted in the motion, there is no accounting for ammended or supplemental witness lists filed by the state. In effect, the state can't speak to anyone without Baez present.

The original intent of the rule of law "serves the protective purpose of preventing the state from driving an unfair wedge between defense counsel and its key witnesses, through ex parte examination, during sensitive pretrial stages." Baez is attempting to use this rule as a "sword" instead of the "shield" it was meant to be.

Link to case cited in the state's motion:
http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/flsupct/65694/op-65694.pdf
(bottom of page 10 to page 12 for relevant part)

The judge will approve the state's motion and strike that part of the state's witness list, imo. It's a dirty trick. Baez should have known the state wouldn't let that witness list go unchallenged. He really is stupid.

Click to expand...

Chilly Willy said:

I thought Baez had brought in more experienced attorneys to help with this case because he was not qualified. What happened to them? Did they disappear when the death penalty was taken off the table?

Click to expand...

Valrico Analyzer said:

If SA intended to do so, that was a brillant move, take DP off the table & watch the big names disappear...LWOP is better anyways, IMO.

I still cant help but think, is this a ruse for her to auto appeal on ineffective counsel?

Click to expand...

bunnyphoenix1 said:

Not all by itself...it is a pretty minor thing and the judge will certainly let him rectify it. If they try ineffective counsel on appeal, they may list it amongst many other mistakes they say he made. But getting a verdict overturned because of ineffective counsel is almost impossible, and as bad as JB is, I don't think he's anywhere near that point yet..if he makes major mistakes at trial, that will be a different story.

Frankly, I think the biggest mistake he has made was putting his client's story(s) out there in the press...a serious sign of inexperience....any defence lawyer who has been around the block knows their clients "story" may change many times before trial, and you would never ever put it out there!

Click to expand...

Marina2 said:

From my reading, the real issue is this:

From the state's motion: snipped


The original intent of the rule of law "serves the protective purpose of preventing the state from driving an unfair wedge between defense counsel and its key witnesses, through ex parte examination, during sensitive pretrial stages." Baez is attempting to use this rule as a "sword" instead of the "shield" it was meant to be.

Link to case cited in the state's motion:
http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/flsupct/65694/op-65694.pdf
(bottom of page 10 to page 12 for relevant part)

The judge will approve the state's motion and strike that part of the state's witness list, imo. It's a dirty trick. Baez should have known the state wouldn't let that witness list go unchallenged. He really is stupid.

Click to expand...