I noticed it is still Judge Strickland! That's a good sign.
in full disclosure, i haven't been able to catch up, so i dont know if this has been mentioned:
the case will remain with this judge unless they move for a change of venue.
keep in mind, this is just a motion - not an order. an order would be the directive from the court, after the judge has ruled.
i think the motion is interesting....baez and the anthony family have used the media as a tool, even more so than anyone else, including LE, the press, and the state of Florida (see: crazy vigil, 7/27/08; see also: 400 interviews with every talk show across america). they have now come to realize that their strategy is backfiring, in a major way, because the media is hurting their case more than helping. they should have expected this - they brought the case into full national media attention; thus, they opened the door for investigation and exploration into the issues (i.e., figuring out if the anthony's media tour is in fact honest/warranted or just to sway public opinion/cover-up the truth).
in a way, it's selfish - like saying, "we think its cool to have press conferences for our side of the story, but it is too prejudicial for the other side of the case to be presented." it says something about how this is going for them. it hints at the fact that they don't really want the truth to get out there. one of the best defenses in a case like this, especially hinging on a lack of definitive evidence (no body), is to muddle the facts and create reasonable doubt. this hasn't worked too well for them. baez screwed this up when he started talking to the media and bashing LE; in my opinion, from that point on, anything was fair game. i think that the gag is order is an act of desperation. if your client wasn't hiding anything or if there were truly just arguable facts at hand (rather than a greater set of facts that are hurting your case), you wouldn't apply for one.
one other thing: in this case, one of a missing child, i find it very VERY suspect that the family in question doesn't want to keep this as open and honest as they can. i mean, in reality, if your kid is missing, you want the media covering this 24/7, to turn up any leads possible. you want the public constantly reminded to be on the look-out. and you want to force this to be a public issue, to keep the case from turning cold. but here, they are quelling that. and in simplest terms, i think they want the case to go cold. then, when presented at trial, if questions (reasonable doubt) still remain, it makes casey that much harder to convict.
i am very interested to see how the judge rules....