2010.06.01 - Personal Experience at the Hearing

ThinkTank said:

I believe Cindy constantly violates the rules for Courtroom Decorum. (though Judge Perry said in his Order that the rules apply to counsel and anyone seated at counsel table). IMO it should apply to all audience spectators also.

Cindy chomps on "edibles" - either chewing gum or breath lozenges or whatever she wants.
Cindy vigorously shakes her head in disagreement, or yes in agreement and rolls her eyes. The jury should not be allowed to watch her doing this when the trial begins. It is a form of testifying without being cross examined.

It also annoys me (and Prosecutor Linda Drane Burdick) when Mason violates the rule about calling counsel by their surname ... not their first name. Mason loves doing this - it is his way of belittling or demeaning Ms Burdick's position as Prosecutor. Mason called Ms Burdick "Linda" at the last Hearing when he turned and asked "Linda" to confirm that she had not listened to the Joe Jordan illegally recorded tape. Ms. Burdick has corrected Mason in past Hearings and told him to call her by her last name. I believe the Judge needs to address this intentional violation of the rules of courtroom decorum.

Mason and Baez constantly sit at the Defense counsel table and snicker and giggle and make frat boy faces at the State Prosecutors. I wish Judge Perry would watch the videos of Hearings to see for himself the many violations of the rules for courtroom decorum. Judge Perry is too busy during the actual Hearings to catch the violations (the children are "playing" behind the teacher's back).

http://www.wftv.com/pdf/23234284/detail.html
Judge Perry's Order regarding courtroom decorum (7 page order)

Judge Perry ordered April 1, 2010
http://www.ninthcircuit.org/programs-services/court-resource-center/decorum-policy.shtml
Courtroom Decorum Policy

4. Refer to all persons, including witnesses, other counsel and the parties by their surnames and not by their first or given names unless the permission of the Court is sought in advance.

12. Counsel shall admonish all persons at counsel table that/who make gestures, facial expressions, audible comments, or the like, as manifestations of approval or disapproval during the testimony of witnesses, or at any other time, This behavior is/ are strictly/absolutely prohibited.

15. No tobacco use in any form is permitted. No bottles, beverage containers, paper cups or edibles are allowed in the courtroom, except as permitted by the Court. No gum chewing is permitted.

Click to expand...

I totally agree with you.

Some people are capable of chewing gum in an inconspicuous manner. Cindy is not one of those people.

I am one who also does not like CA's court hearing behavior. Bobbing her head this way and that, gum chomping, face in hand and now by RH's words emitting sounds, It also appears to me *MOO* that CA slumps in her seat. NO. Act like the lady you are supposed to be. Sit up, put your hands in your lap, be still and keep quite. If you feel the need to be doing the opposite, quitely leave the courtroom.
RH is a defense attorney who knows better then to "mumble" and act out. No pass.
JB I noticed his snarky glances to the states table several times.

All I can say is:
During the trial that each beginning day everyone will be reminded to act as ladies and gentlemen. NO MONKEY SHINES WHAT-SO-EVER.

summer4meplz said:

Was there an incident with cindy and gum?....she got caught on camera putting gum in her mouth..I was wondering if she got caught there....
tia

Click to expand...

I'm not sure, but in every hearing of Judge Perry's Cindy has been chewing gum and trying to hide her mouth from time to time !! Either that or she's been chewing and chomping on her tongue !! The rules just don't apply to Cindy Anthony ! :furious:

Amil said:

I realize the thread on the hearing is closed, but I was there and wanted to post!
When I entered the courthouse, there was Jim Lichtenstein getting his shoes shined. When I was in the lobby of Courtroom 23, CA arrived and gave ole Jim a 3 minute hug. I'd like to know what his interest in the case is, if not a made-for-tv drama in the future. He sat in the same row as CA and her best friend.
Holly Bristow (WESH) [correction - Fox Orlando] arrived a bit later and she sat next to Jim L. as always.

The judge was not late this afternoon. He peeked his head in and saw an empty defense table. He called the court reporter, LDB and the defense into a side door for a while which delayed the start of the hearing.
When CM began his argument regarding the Grand Jury testimony stating how the prosecutor got the transcript and "we want that transcript", JB smirked over and over again trying to get the attention of Ashton. It was childish. I swear, CM said "we want that transcript" about 5 times.
On the argument regarding the tips, the judge kept saying "I gave you the money, I'll give you more, get it moving, get it done, there comes a time when you know what needs done, get it done". Gotta love it!

Click to expand...

Amil said: "Knowing what business Jim is in I would expect him to profit from his attendance. He doesn't keep a laptop or notebook with him. All the other reporters have their cell phones on (for recording?), their laptops clicking and their pens to paper - everyone but Jim.
Could he put money in the Caylee Foundation fund? Who's checking that account? Cindy has that written in large letters on the back of her SUV "CayleeMarieAnthonyFoundation.net.
CA doesn't realize it, but Jim is just as likely as PEOPLE magazine to slant the story in a way which makes a fool of her."
*********************
Who is paying Jim L. to be at EVERY Casey Anthony Hearing??? What financial payoff is in it for Jim L.???

The bald guy sitting next to CA in court all the time....
http://www.j2sc.com/jiml.htm - Jim Lichtenstein
He's her coach, too..."How to act in front of a camera..."

From Jim's site:
"One successful appearance on a talk show can change the lives and fortunes of these guests.
At J2SC, we have former Talk Show producers on staff who will teach you how to be a great guest. Someone who will get called back on shows again and again.
If you’ve been booked (or hope to be booked) on a Talk Show, you should contact us first for this specialized media training."
http://www.j2sc.com/p_talkshows.htm

"J2SC's staff are the "Media Trainers" to the Stars, Corporate Leaders, Athletes and News Makers. Our 12 trainers have a combined 350 years in TV."

"Simply put, Media Training is the process of teaching news makers how to speak to the TV, Radio and Print Media. Our clients learn the "art" of being interviewed while effectively getting their message across, AND staying in control of that interview." 'Whether you're a CEO facing the press, a Hollywood Star doing a publicity junket, or an expert invited on a Talk Show, J2SC teaches clients the skills to ace any interview situation."

"Founded by Jim Lichtenstein and Joan Esposito, J2's trainers include television veterans like Jon Kelley (Extra), Bob Goen (Entertainment Tonight), Terry Murphy (Hard Copy), Steve Kmetko (E!), Julie Engelman (Oprah - Producer), Steve Lange (Extra - Executive Producer), Mike Adamle (NBC Sports), Dick Kay (NBC5 Chicago), Dr. Michael Breen (CBS2 Chicago), and Peter Bordwell (ABC7 Chicago)."

"Jim's television career has spanned over 30 years, producing everything from local news to network prime-time entertainment. He has worked in network news at NBC, ABC, and CBS. As a producer for the “Today Show”, Jim traveled the country securing interviews for Katie Couric and Matt Lauer. His vast and varied experience is unique in the media world and unheard of in the Media Training world."

"Jim moved to network news working for CBS, MSNBC, NBC News, and then finally landing at the "Today Show". "

Dateline NBC: When Caylee Vanished
Episode 2 | Season 18 2008 - 2009 | First Aired: 12/12/2008
Jim Lichtenstein
Booking Producer

story in Chicago Sun-Times, December 2, 2009:
“Chicagoan Jim Lichtenstein is delighted he’s landed Glencoe native Clayton Frohman — who penned last year’s acclaimed “Definance” starring Daniel Craig and Liev Schreiber — to write the screen-play for Lichtenstein’s “Privileged Information” film, starring Jessica Biel. The actress will also produce the movie with Lichtenstein, Michelle Purple and Wendy Rhoads — a film about Chicago attorney Kathleen Zellner’s relationship with serial killer Larry Eyler, a client. Lichtenstein is still hoping to shoot in Chicago … ”

Just Jayla said:

....

just look at her behavior with John Morgan. Her expressions and utterances still reflect the fact that CA doesn't want anyone saying anything (even true, which it all was on Tuesday) if it's not CA approved.

She brought the scrutiny on herself, IMO.

Click to expand...

It is interesting that so many people are concerned about Cindy's chewing gum and following decorum, and then you fault the way she responded to John Morgan.

Well you should hold Mr. Morgan to the same standard, because he got what he deserved. It is common knowledge that only one lawyer for a party can question a witness and you cannot tag team a witness. What you had was Morgan violating common deposition decorum and cutting off the attorney who was conducting the deposition in to ask random questions. His conduct during that deposition was just as unbecoming as hers.

rhornsby said:

It is interesting that so many people are concerned about Cindy's chewing gum and following decorum, and then you fault the way she responded to John Morgan.

Well you should hold Mr. Morgan to the same standard, because he got what he deserved. It is common knowledge that only one lawyer for a party can question a witness and you cannot tag team a witness. What you had was Morgan violating common deposition decorum and cutting off the attorney who was conducting the deposition in to ask random questions. His conduct during that deposition was just as unbecoming as hers.

Click to expand...

Just a reminder....this thread is in relation to what was seen at the CRIMINAL trial hearing in front of Judge Perry.....

rhornsby said:

It is interesting that so many people are concerned about Cindy's chewing gum and following decorum, and then you fault the way she responded to John Morgan.

Well you should hold Mr. Morgan to the same standard, because he got what he deserved. It is common knowledge that only one lawyer for a party can question a witness and you cannot tag team a witness. What you had was Morgan violating common deposition decorum and cutting off the attorney who was conducting the deposition in to ask random questions. His conduct during that deposition was just as unbecoming as hers.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your insight, Richard. IMHO, CA's deplorable behaviour in that deposition pretty much overshadowed any attorney decorum in the eyes of a lay observor. I think, IMO, that if she had not been so rude and oppositional, JM's errors would have been more evident to us "average joe's". Thank you for the reality check.

rhornsby said:

It is interesting that so many people are concerned about Cindy's chewing gum and following decorum, and then you fault the way she responded to John Morgan.

Well you should hold Mr. Morgan to the same standard, because he got what he deserved. It is common knowledge that only one lawyer for a party can question a witness and you cannot tag team a witness. What you had was Morgan violating common deposition decorum and cutting off the attorney who was conducting the deposition in to ask random questions. His conduct during that deposition was just as unbecoming as hers.

Click to expand...

Yep, Morgan got what he wanted. Cindy acting..aghm.. on record. That really hurt him. Not. So I don't understand why you brought all that out, this way.

That is like 1 thing compared to how many we have seen in the criminal case by the defense lawyers. I'm not listing all of them, it would take to long. And my point isn't to nick pick. But the fact that lawyers do these things and seem to get away with it. I always thought that they MUST go by the book. Yet I'm seeing that is so not factual. (I expect mistakes, since lawyers are human)

I thought Judges fine Lawyers for acting stupid. And/or make them spend the night in jail. I know, I know... too much tv. At least things have tightened up a little better. However, it still seems they are getting away with a few things.

:laugh:

Spangle said:

since lawyers are human

Click to expand...

*snipped*

BondJamesBond said:

:laugh:

Originally Posted by Spangle
since lawyers are human

Click to expand...

*snipped*

Click to expand...

Oh I see how it is when you think I'm not here, BJB. :snooty:

AZlawyer said:

Oh I see how it is when you think I'm not here, BJB. :snooty:

Click to expand...

Hehe. Same as it is when you're here, AZ. :hug: You know all those other lawyers don't mean a thing to me.

Besides...I saw you grin.

AZlawyer said:

Oh I see how it is when you think I'm not here, BJB. :snooty:

Click to expand...

We really don't think of you as human, AZ........We think of you as way beyond human - more of a Superwoman category! You are more than a mere mortal to all of us who are not versed in the ways of the law.

BondJamesBond said:

Hehe. Same as it is when you're here, AZ. :hug: You know all those other lawyers don't mean a thing to me.

Besides...I saw you grin.

Click to expand...

such the smooth talker... :shakehead:

Spangle said:

Yep, Morgan got what he wanted. Cindy acting..aghm.. on record. That really hurt him. Not. So I don't understand why you brought all that out, this way.

That is like 1 thing compared to how many we have seen in the criminal case by the defense lawyers. I'm not listing all of them, it would take to long. And my point isn't to nick pick. But the fact that lawyers do these things and seem to get away with it. I always thought that they MUST go by the book. Yet I'm seeing that is so not factual. (I expect mistakes, since lawyers are human)

I thought Judges fine Lawyers for acting stupid. And/or make them spend the night in jail. I know, I know... too much tv. At least things have tightened up a little better. However, it still seems they are getting away with a few things.

Click to expand...

You are missing the point, that deposition was a staged show. It is unheard of that the media can tape a deposition as it is being conducted and it is equally unheard of for the transcript to be released in real time. If Conway would have known what he was doing the deposition would have been cancelled.

Compare to Nancy Grace's deposition in the duckett case, no media, no camera's, no attorneys mugging for the camera.

rhornsby said:

It is interesting that so many people are concerned about Cindy's chewing gum and following decorum, and then you fault the way she responded to John Morgan.

Well you should hold Mr. Morgan to the same standard, because he got what he deserved. It is common knowledge that only one lawyer for a party can question a witness and you cannot tag team a witness. What you had was Morgan violating common deposition decorum and cutting off the attorney who was conducting the deposition in to ask random questions. His conduct during that deposition was just as unbecoming as hers.

Click to expand...

Perhaps it was, you would know that better than I-But bad behavior does not justify more bad behavior. CA had BC there to correct this and he did not do so. Doesn't give CA a pass to behave this way.

Very simply, either have the guts to say it out loud, or have the grace to keep it to yourself. I am certain the judge and the jury would demand the latter in a courtroom setting.

rhornsby said:

You are missing the point, that deposition was a staged show. It is unheard of that the media can tape a deposition as it is being conducted and it is equally unheard of for the transcript to be released in real time. If Conway would have known what he was doing the deposition would have been cancelled.

Compare to Nancy Grace's deposition in the duckett case, no media, no camera's, no attorneys mugging for the camera.

Click to expand...

BBM

I get your point and good analogy with NG's depo.

Make no mistake, I am NOT impressed with Brad Conway, however, I know from personal experience client control can be a nightmare, especially with strong-willed, stubborn clients like CA. In re. the bolded portion, exactly what grounds would BC have for cancelling the depo? Are you referring to the video taping w/o their knowledge?

eta: I'm not so sure the media taped it. I thought it was Morgan & co. taping and releasing it to the media pronto. I know it was posted on the Morgan website.

Kentjbkent said:

Just a reminder....this thread is in relation to what was seen at the CRIMINAL trial hearing in front of Judge Perry.....

Click to expand...

Sorry if we are straying-we were discussing/writing about RHornsby's experience Tuesday and I was wondering if Amil experienced the same thing. (hope it's not getting lost in minutiae)
Will try to get back on course!!

rhornsby said:

You are missing the point, that deposition was a staged show. It is unheard of that the media can tape a deposition as it is being conducted and it is equally unheard of for the transcript to be released in real time. If Conway would have known what he was doing the deposition would have been cancelled.

Compare to Nancy Grace's deposition in the duckett case, no media, no camera's, no attorneys mugging for the camera.

Click to expand...

JB's games are staged as well. What point am I missing. It's ok for JB and other lawyers, but not CM? That is the only point I am seeing here.

Alot of JB's games have also been unheard of. Again, the point? I have been totally blown away by the stuff he is getting away with pulling.

It was stated before the depos that the media would have it right away. That knowledge was a news item. Even wondered about HOW it would be done, as the info was being discussed on the hows, etc. Folks were on pins and needles and primed for it to happen.

Sorry, Conway did not walk into that room, clueless that it was going to be broadcasted right away. It was known the day before. If I was a guessing person (and I am) I would guess that he considered it the least of his worries. That the tape/transcription would be released at some point anyway. His worries, was his client's attitude. As all ready pointed out, Cindy's show pretty much puts everything else in the shade. Most likely that is what was on Brad's mind. All he could do was ride that storm.

Snort! No mugging for the camera's.. NG's lawyers don't need to mug for the camera's like these newbies involved in these cases down here. Part of their fee is the 'mugging for the camera's." LOL!

beach2yall said:

BBM

I get your point and good analogy with NG's depo.

Make no mistake, I am NOT impressed with Brad Conway, however, I know from personal experience client control can be a nightmare, especially with strong-willed, stubborn clients like CA. In re. the bolded portion, exactly what grounds would BC have for cancelling the depo? Are you referring to the video taping w/o their knowledge?

eta: I'm not so sure the media taped it. I thought it was Morgan & co. taping and releasing it to the media pronto. I know it was posted on the Morgan website.

Click to expand...

Bold red mine.

ITA agree with the above red bold.

Morgan releasing the depos to the media is no different from what the defense has done by releasing motions to the media before giving them to the clerk of the court...even in at least one case, releasing motions to the media without filing them at all!

mitzi said:

Bold red mine.

ITA agree with the above red bold.

Morgan releasing the depos to the media is no different from what the defense has done by releasing motions to the media before giving them to the clerk of the court...even in at least one case, releasing motions to the media without filing them at all!

Click to expand...

it was morgan and morgan....And totlaly agree Brad knew, ca knew, ga knew....everyone knew it would be released....ca even had her own camera iirc....so :twocents:


Do appreciate all the info from those at the trial! Thanks for letting us in on some of the little things we can only speculate on .....