1021 users online (224 members and 797 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 30 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 437
  1. #1

    Motion to Take Deposition to Perpetuate Testimony of Jill Kerley

    Motion to Take Deposition to Perpetuate Testimony of Jill Kerley
    http://www.wftv.com/pdf/22313192/detail.html

    What do you think of this? They are saying that Ms. Kerley is ill and can not or will not travel to testify at the trial, so they want to take her deposition now and have that introduced at trial.

    The defense admits they have no evidence against Mr. Kronk, only a theory that he should have been investigated. They could say the same about Joy, or mom or pop or anyone and then bring in someone from their distant past to find similarities somehow to the crime. I hope the judge does not even entertain this motion.

    .
    When the defense argued their motion to dismiss, Mrs. Drane Burdick argued that the defense counsel stating facts in a motion does not meet the legal requirement in Florida, so why are they doing the same thing here? I am not a lawyer but it seems to defy common sense that they keep repeating the same errors. Do they think that by simply alleging that a witness is unavailable the trial court must grant the motion to perpetuate testimony? Even without a law library , one can google the rule they cite and see that prior to perpetuating the testimony of a witness, the moving party must demonstrate that the witness is unavailable:

    Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(j)(6) requires more than a perfunctory attempt. While the question of how far a party must go to satisfy the requirements of the rule will be susceptible to different answers depending on the circumstances of each case, the party offering the deposition must show it has exercised due diligence.

    I am thinking, at a minimum they should attach sworn statements from her doctors setting out that to travel to Florida would endanger her health, or she is terminal and not expected to live until the trial date....something...., anything rather than just the lawyer stating it. Help me out guys...what am I not getting? Are there parts of the document missing? If anyone has them could you please post them for me? Did the judge rule on the defense motion in limine? Thanks in advance!

    reference:
    Pope v. State, 441 So. 2d 1073, 1076 (Fla. 1983).
    See McMillon v. State, 552 So. 2d 1183 (4th DCA 1989)
    Hernandeez v. State, 608 So. 2d 916 (3dr DCA 1992)
    the Uniform Act To Secure the Attendance of Witnesses From Without a State in Criminal Proceedings
    Arizona v. Ratzlaff, 552 P.2d 461 (1976)
    blog.richardhornsby.com/.../in-defense-of-the-casey-anthony-defense/
    www.wesh.com/download/2009/1120/21678734.pdf


    I am not asking to be a smart Alec. I honestly do not understand. If Kronk had been convicted for any crimes she alleges, that would be one thing, but just to go on the word of ex wife...I do not see it. If she were allowed to testify, wouldn't the state insist they had the right to cross examine her and if so..... could they ask her if she had ever been convicted of a felony and was it for a crime of dishonesty?[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ae5J_ObjkTw[/ame]

    I love when Mrs. Drane Burdick argues in her calm manner, "This doesn't even come close.....it is a farce!"

    You just can't make this stuff up!! I think the state is going to mop the floor with this nonsense.
    Last edited by The World According; 01-23-2010 at 10:50 PM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Portland...The orginal Portland
    Posts
    58
    Sounds like a pretty cheap shot to me. Are they afraid the Prosecution will expose this witness for what she really is...
    The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits
    ~Albert Einstein~

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    778
    Why do I get the feeling that Kerley has just told the defense that she'll give them a statement, but she won't go to Florida to testify in the trial. And, that the defense is trying to somehow trying to figure out how they can work this? I've not seen any official documents that indicate an illness or health concern that would prevent Kerley from traveling (and she looked quite nice in her video). I've not seen any official document to corroborate the statements (like a conviction record) that she made in that highly edited video that is on YouTube. And how long ago has this bitter ex last had any contact with Kronk? And, if Kerley really thought that Kronk was a murderer, why didn't she contact LE in Florida? Why did she wait for someone to contact her?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Vancouver
    Posts
    16,024

    Claiming Dying of Cancer?

    Am I really losing it? I thought the reason they were asking for her testimony now is because she has cancer and might die before the trial?
    She looked pretty robust in her video so I'd like to see some medical backup if the defense is claiming this is actually true.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Vancouver WA
    Posts
    4,481

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    11,515
    The World According, I agree with this statement of yours:

    "The defense admits they have no evidence against Mr. Kronk, only a theory that he should have been investigated. They could say the same about Joy, or mom or pop or anyone and then bring in someone from their distant past to find similarities somehow to the crime. I hope the judge does not even entertain this motion."

    BBM It would be outrageous to allow this as any kind of evidence against RK. This is, afterall, a court of law. IMHO, what Jill Kerley has to say is just mean gossip about an ex. I can't believe defense is allowed to use such tactics.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    new england
    Posts
    1,605
    This probably is NOT the correct thread but: it is a VERY GOOD thing that academic institutions do not have a routine mechanism to invoke a "recall" of diplomas or degrees based on oh, shall we say, SHEER STUPIDITY!

    This case ALONE would cause a flood of paper, all the way down to Baez's pre-k certificate!

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    In the sunshine.
    Posts
    9,875
    I see this as nothing more than a motion to check off the list. In an appeals process they must prove that there was information that they felt would help the case....yet they were denied access to it. If they don't ask and get denied, then this argument can not be used later. They must request it and be told "no" in order to meet certain requirements for the appeals process. By doing so........they will have already set iup the argument that this info could have impacted the outcome of the case.

    Please see the article published by AL here [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4719574&postcount=157"]http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4719574&postcount=157[/ame]

    This is IMO a typical action taken to protect you in the appeals process.


    Lawyers??????

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    410
    Jill Kerley is a TERRIBLE witness according to what I've seen of her. She will be destroyed on cross and this is why the defense doesn't want her testifying in open court, IMO.
    One thing we do know this is this. If we have gotten to this stage, those same jurors have already decided that the face that Caylee Anthony saw in those final moments of her life was her mother`s face. - Assistant State's Attorney Jeffrey Ashton, December 11, 2009

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the prowl
    Posts
    26,409
    Quote Originally Posted by Curious Me View Post

    BBM It would be outrageous to allow this as any kind of evidence against RK. This is, afterall, a court of law. IMHO, what Jill Kerley has to say is just mean gossip about an ex. I can't believe defense is allowed to use such tactics.
    I think this just proves what little they have for a defense. There is no evidence that ties RK to killing Caylee. I'd like the defense to explain just when he used Casey's car, and when he was inside the Anthony's house to take the Pooh blanket, the rare duct tape, the laundry bag, and so forth. Of course they can't do that, so now they're asking that the deposition from a scorned wife be allowed at trial to "prove" RK has a murderous mentality and a history of using duct tape on her. Good grief. MOO
    Rest in Peace
    Joey, Summer, Gianni & Joseph Mateo



  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    on the prowl
    Posts
    26,409
    Quote Originally Posted by autumnlover View Post
    Jill Kerley is a TERRIBLE witness according to what I've seen of her. She will be destroyed on cross and this is why the defense doesn't want her testifying in open court, IMO.
    Well unless she's actually on her deathbed, there's no reason why she couldn't be in the courtroom for cross-examination. That's how our system of justice works! MOO
    Rest in Peace
    Joey, Summer, Gianni & Joseph Mateo


  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    CT/NC
    Posts
    21,160
    If she felt she was on her deathbed and hates RK what would be the point of telling the truth. She certainly looks bitter considering all these years. She should have gotten over their marriage by now and gone on with her life. If I were SA I would want a lie detector test. If she refused she probably is not telling the truth.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,970
    This makes me laugh,it reminds me a bit of Rosa Lopez of the OJ Simpson trial. Shes was the former maid that the defense had to hurry up and put her on stand because she had a plane reservation for that day to go back to El Salvador. The airlines was called and there was no reservation to be found....BUSTED!! LOL!

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    558
    Sorry off topic. Trying to get on the WFTV Exclusive thread but it goes to a Fatal Error page. Anybody???

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by sleutherontheside View Post
    I see this as nothing more than a motion to check off the list. In an appeals process they must prove that there was information that they felt would help the case....yet they were denied access to it. If they don't ask and get denied, then this argument can not be used later. They must request it and be told "no" in order to meet certain requirements for the appeals process. By doing so........they will have already set iup the argument that this info could have impacted the outcome of the case.

    Please see the article published by AL here http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...&postcount=157

    This is IMO a typical action taken to protect you in the appeals process.


    Lawyers??????
    Thank you for reminding us. In retrospect this motion is right on par with so many, many of the others. Even if, for an abundance of caution, the judge allows it, the good taxpayers of the jury are not fools....this wont pass the laugh test. In fact, they may get wholly offended that the defense is insulting their intelligence once they start trying to make them forget the colorful ZFG story, blame this on Kronk and disparage good, good people of TES, Jesse, Amy, Ricardo ,at al. Then the defense will have no credibility and even when their experts take the stand about the forensics...the jury will despise these folks so that they cannot believe anything coming from that side. Yes, now that I think it through...let 'em have at it. The juries here in Texas would be unanimous..."Get A Rope!" LOL!

    Thank you again Sleuthontheside for the wonderful work you have done to bring us all of AL articles and tapes. It is very interesting to know why she does what she does. Indeed. I understand that she must file motions, what I do not understand is why they are so poorly prepared.
    Last edited by The World According; 01-23-2010 at 09:36 PM.

Page 1 of 30 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Defense Motion to Release CWW's Grand Jury Testimony
    By beach in forum Dr. Teresa Sievers
    Replies: 108
    Last Post: 06-28-2016, 07:28 AM
  2. Dominic Casey: Motion to Strike Notice of Deposition & Motion for Protective Order#2
    By The World According in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 566
    Last Post: 07-10-2011, 07:49 PM
  3. Dominic Casey: Motion to Strike Notice of Deposition & Motion for Protective Order#1
    By The World According in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 557
    Last Post: 05-18-2010, 01:57 PM
  4. Cindy's Deposition #3 *UPDATED* MOTION FILED
    By headndownstream in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 493
    Last Post: 05-01-2009, 04:52 PM