JBaez requests Ex Parte Hearing with Judge Strickland

SNIPPED: "...Jose Baez, doesn't want the public to know about any defense theories that are being developed.

He filed a request for an ex-parte hearing before Orange Circuit Court Judge Stan Strickland. That means he wants to meet with the judge without prosecutors or the public present so "sensitive matters which are critical to the defense can be addressed," according to the document filed late Monday.

In the process of investigating the case, the defense claims they will need to obtain certain records, which could be used at trial. Baez doesn't want to prevent others from know ing about any theories.

And the items Baez is seeking cannot be obtained through normal discovery process, the legal process of prosecutors turning over investigative information about the case...."


See here: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...-casey-anthony-hearing-033109,0,7397632.story

I'm going to have to go look at whether or not FL allows such a thing, but it's not allowed here in LA, and with good reason!
Talk about prime setting for a defense attorney to "lobby" their theories and evidentiary issues with the judge!
Also appears he's seeking a potential primer on discovery from the judge...

And here we go again!

I am curious to hear how Judge S responds. Does anyone think he'll grant JB's request?

What is he up to? More whining about obtaining items from FBI? Or does he want pictures from the judge's server? Everyone wants to have private meetings suddenly...

[And the items Baez is seeking cannot be obtained through normal discovery process, the legal process of prosecutors turning over investigative information about the case...."


What does that mean? What could he possibly need to obtain that he couldn't get through discovery? What would be some examples of this?

Is this normal operating procedure? I never heard of this...then again, I haven't followed a case as closely as this one. Can someone please advise.

LancelotLink said:

What is he up to? More whining about obtaining items from FBI? Or does he want pictures from the judge's server? Everyone wants to have private meetings suddenly...

Click to expand...

Seems that way, doesn't it?

If the Judge refuses to grant this request, can JB claim that the refusal interfered with his ability to defend his client? Would that claim have merit?

Sounds like some discovery they absolutely do not want made public.

Well, here's what I've found so far in Westlaw:

2008 FL Supreme Court Case discussing whether or not an ex parte communication with a judge and prosecutor was violative of due process rights. Court's comments are contained in a footnote, meaning it's important, but not necessarily the holding of the case, and though not on point factually, helps me evaluate this.

SNIPPED: f.8 - "...We also reject Tompkins's claim that his due process rights were violated by an ex parte communication between the trial judge and the prosecutor concerning the need for an evidentiary hearing on Tompkins's lethal injection claim. The ex parte communication was not improper because it did not constitute a substantive discussion on the merits of Tompkins's case. See Jimenez v. State, 33 Fla. L. Weekly S805, S809, --- So.2d ----, ----, 2008 WL 2445461 (Fla. June 19, 2008) (finding ex parte communication between judge and prosecutor not improper where the record established that the judge engaged in the conversation for strictly administrative reasons and the communication did not constitute a substantive discussion concerning the merits of the case); see also Fla.Code of Jud. Conduct, Canon 3 B(7)."

Tompkins v. State, 994 So.2d 1072, Fla.,2008.

For those with Westlaw access, see here:
http://web2.westlaw.com/result/defa...me/53/default.wl&ifm=NotSet&cfid=1&rs=WLW9.03

I expect to see an Opposition Memorandum by the SA will discussing whether or not these "things" JBaez wishes to discuss in private with Judge Strickland could constitute a substantive discussion regarding the merits of the case, which is NOT allowable, or are for a "strictly administrative reason," which may be allowable.

LC446 said:

[And the items Baez is seeking cannot be obtained through normal discovery process, the legal process of prosecutors turning over investigative information about the case...."


What does that mean? What could he possibly need to obtain that he couldn't get through discovery? What would be some examples of this?

Click to expand...

I also thought that discovery worked both ways. Doesn't JB have to disclose all evidence he finds to the SA?

lovelabs said:

Is this normal operating procedure? I never heard of this...then again, I haven't followed a case as closely as this one. Can someone please advise.

Click to expand...

No, it's certainly not here in LA - but I'm still looking at case law in FL. I can't imagine it's going to be granted with what I'm seeing in Westlaw.

Paintr said:

I also thought that discovery worked both ways. Doesn't JB have to disclose all evidence he finds to the SA?

Click to expand...

Yes. However, I read this motion as JB wanting to talk to the judge about his efforts to obtain certain items from other entities, not LE/OSCO/SA, without the SA present.

Chezhire said:

Yes. However, I read this motion as JB wanting to talk to the judge about his efforts to obtain certain items from other entities, not LE/OSCO/SA, without the SA present.

Click to expand...

Can't he subpoena the information he seeks that LE/OSCO/SA does not have, or is he essentially trying to secretly subpoena information?

JWG said:

Can't he subpoena the information he seeks that LE/OSCO/SA does not have, or is he essentially trying to secretly subpoena information?

Click to expand...

He probably wants the judge to do it for him since he never wants to do his own work.

Do you ever get the feeling that JB was one of those people in high school that never did their homework and always tried to copy someone else's?

Chezhire said:

Yes. However, I read this motion as JB wanting to talk to the judge about his efforts to obtain certain items from other entities, not LE/OSCO/SA, without the SA present.

Click to expand...

Chezhire,

Knowing what you know about the case do you have any clue where Baez might be going with this?

What certain items might he be trying to get?

JWG said:

Can't he subpoena the information he seeks that LE/OSCO/SA does not have, or is he essentially trying to secretly subpoena information?

Click to expand...

Yes, that's what he's supposed to be doing if he can't get it voluntarily (knowing him, he's annoyed everyone from the FBI to kingdom come with his attitude, so no one's likely to volunteer anything to him.)
It's a fairly easy thing to do, too. :waitasec: I've never had trouble getting subpoenas for out-of-state entities - but you do have to know HOW to go about it procedurally.

Jolynna said:

Chezhire,

Knowing what you know about the case do you have any clue where Baez might be going with this?

What certain items might he be trying to get that would assist Casey's defense?

Click to expand...

I'm betting he just doesn't know how to write an enforceable/executable subpoena to an out-of-state entity, such as the Body Farm, FBI, etc., and he's hoping that the judge will tell him how to do it. :doh:

Well, Now! Ain't he just the "SPECIAL" one.

He probably doesn't want it made public that he is going to throw the Anthony family, in particular Cindy, under the bus. Casey would lose their support prior to the trial.

It would seem to me that if he needs to get records that can't be retrieved thru discovery, is it relevent to the case? And, doesn't he need to share the info with the prosecution...even his strategy??

Here's another case 2008 I found from the FL Supreme Court:
Jimenez v. State, 997 So.2d 1056, Fla.,2008:
SNIPPED: "...Finally, Jimenez asserts that Judge Ward erroneously denied the motion to disqualify after she had allegedly engaged in an improper ex parte communication with the State. We disagree. The motion to disqualify was not legally sufficient because the ex parte communication with Judge Ward was not improper. See Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.330(d)(1) (establishing*1073 that a motion to disqualify is legally sufficient if the facts alleged, which are assumed to be true, would cause the movant to have a well-founded fear that he or she will not receive a fair trial from that judge). On September 9, 2005, Judge Ward engaged in a communication with the State. However, the record establishes that Judge Ward engaged in this communication for a strictly administrative reason-i.e., the purpose was to enter the order denying the successive rule 3.851 motion in open court. Contrary to Jimenez's assertion, the fact that the State informed Judge Ward that no evidentiary hearing occurred for this successive rule 3.851 motion does not constitute a substantive discussion concerning the merits of the case. Thus, the alleged ex parte communication was not improper, and the trial court did not erroneously deny the motion to disqualify...."

For those with Westlaw access, please see here: http://web2.westlaw.com/result/defa...me/53/default.wl&ifm=NotSet&cfid=1&rs=WLW9.03

Again, not factually on point, but it tells us a bit about what is considered an administrative reason, which as of yet does NOT include the defense attorney's "need" to discuss with the trial judge how to obtain information he claims he cannot obtain on his own. Looks more and more to me that this discussion JB wants to have with the judge in private will have to be heard with the SA present or not at all, just as it would were this case being tried in LA.