Legal Questions for Our VERIFIED Lawyers #1

Status
Not open for further replies.
Regarding the "Oceans of Motions" hearing on Monday:

Can you please shed any light as to why Cheney Mason apparently invited Judge Eaton (?) to attend. It was not lost on me that HHJP interrupted CM to point out that the judge was leaving during CM's argument; nor was CM's incredulous reaction and response, "No. Well, he is not supposed to be leaving." (paraphrased) He seemed a bit flustered, iykwim. :innocent:

I have my suspicions, but surely he would not be doing what I suspect. Seriously.

Thoughts?

Sorry about the O/T (and in the legal thread yet!) but did you notice HHJP's eye twinkle? My bet - they are all golfing buddies and it was Judge Eaton's turn to buy lunch before their game. Cause HHJP sure thought it was amusing!
 
When I can I will find for us the many times in court Cheney mentions we are going to be having "Some federal issues here, real soon", and other threats like that. He does this very often. He has it in his mind, that he does NOT have to reveal what the experts will testify to, not by a long shot, he has said that plainly and clearly and he is going to try to raise it to appeal or have the judge set aside his order for the defenes to have to do so. He said in the last hearing, No where in the rules does it provide for us to have to give a script of what the experts will say. He was adamant. Unfortunately for him, he is not looking at it the right way, the judge was indeed well within his rights and had shown considerable leniency, imo. It is almost as if he is from another state and wholly unfamiliar with Florida rules of discovery. Odd.

What option does he have to pursue this?
 
At some point if the judge decides JB is not capable of handling this case properly, can he make KC get a new lawyer?
 
When I can I will find for us the many times in court Cheney mentions we are going to be having "Some federal issues here, real soon", and other threats like that. He does this very often. He has it in his mind, that he does NOT have to reveal what the experts will testify to, not by a long shot, he has said that plainly and clearly and he is going to try to raise it to appeal or have the judge set aside his order for the defenes to have to do so. He said in the last hearing, No where in the rules does it provide for us to have to give a script of what the experts will say. He was adamant. Unfortunately for him, he is not looking at it the right way, the judge was indeed well within his rights and had shown considerable leniency, imo. It is almost as if he is from another state and wholly unfamiliar with Florida rules of discovery. Odd.

What option does he have to pursue this?

I never have the opportunity to watch the hearings, so I would need some context. He might just be talking about a habeas corpus proceeding in federal court down the line (post-conviction)--complaining that the State of Florida didn't protect Casey's basic federal constitutional rights.
 
At some point if the judge decides JB is not capable of handling this case properly, can he make KC get a new lawyer?

I suppose if JB demonstrated an inability to, e.g., examine witnesses, HHJP could order that all witness examinations be prepared and handled by CM (god forbid) or another death-penalty qualified lawyer. JB always has to have death-penalty qualified people on the case with him, so calling him "lead counsel" is just a matter of ego really.
 
AZlawyer, according to the cases that you gave snippets of earlier, it seems entirely possible that the court will find that KC was not in custody until she turned around and admitted that she had lied and the detective confronted her about it all in the little room. If so, then the trip to Universal and the walk down the hall could come in, just not her statement. Is that right?
 
AZlawyer, according to the cases that you gave snippets of earlier, it seems entirely possible that the court will find that KC was not in custody until she turned around and admitted that she had lied and the detective confronted her about it all in the little room. If so, then the trip to Universal and the walk down the hall could come in, just not her statement. Is that right?

I hope so. I think that's a good argument for the State to make, and I would really like the jury to hear about Casey's confident walk toward her "office."
 
I never have the opportunity to watch the hearings, so I would need some context. He might just be talking about a habeas corpus proceeding in federal court down the line (post-conviction)--complaining that the State of Florida didn't protect Casey's basic federal constitutional rights.

And how, exactly, have they not protected her FCR?

Got any examples?
 
And how, exactly, have they not protected her FCR?

Got any examples?

Jeez, you want me to write all the defense briefs lol?

I personally think HHJP is doing an incredible bang-up job of protecting her constitutional rights, even to the point of forcing her lawyers to be better lawyers than they are naturally inclined to be.
 
Jeez, you want me to write all the defense briefs lol?

I personally think HHJP is doing an incredible bang-up job of protecting her constitutional rights, even to the point of forcing her lawyers to be better lawyers than they are naturally inclined to be.

BBM - He certainly is, which is why I questioned the "not protecting Casey's Federal Constitutional Rights" comment. He didn't become CHIEF JUDGE by happenstance, you know?

I didn't realize you had written any Defense briefs in this case?
 
BBM - He certainly is, which is why I questioned the "not protecting Casey's Federal Constitutional Rights" comment. He didn't become CHIEF JUDGE by happenstance, you know?

I didn't realize you had written any Defense briefs in this case?

I'm joking. ;) There was one time I wrote this long explanation of my analysis of a legal issue while a suspected "spy" was "in the house," and a few hours later this hurried, faxed brief was filed saying the same thing lol. Probably a coincidence but made me :banghead:
 
Jeez, you want me to write all the defense briefs lol?

<snip>

No. Please. :angel:

If you insist, I am going to petition the admins for your own room downstairs and they are going to be forced to "register" ;) to get your work.

:crazy:
 
Two questions:

1. During the trial can the State show video of Cheney Mason and Jose Baez talking to the press saying things like, "This case will be fun", and "When you hear her story you will understand" etc? How can they get away with some of the things they say?

2. Since Cheney Mason takes every opportunity to tell the Court and media he is retiring, what is the likelihood he would give up his time, etc to represent ICA either on appeal or for Federal issues?
 
Two questions:

1. During the trial can the State show video of Cheney Mason and Jose Baez talking to the press saying things like, "This case will be fun", and "When you hear her story you will understand" etc? How can they get away with some of the things they say?

2. Since Cheney Mason takes every opportunity to tell the Court and media he is retiring, what is the likelihood he would give up his time, etc to represent ICA either on appeal or for Federal issues?

1. No. But that would be fun, I agree. :) They can get away with it because it is just bluster, in which criminal defense attorneys are allowed to engage. How does a used car salesman get away with telling you a car is a "real steal" lol? Same thing.

2. Who knows? He seems to think this is a fun retirement activity, sort of like shuffleboard.
 
Is it just bluster when Baez accuses the SA of creating and releasing the Jib Jab video in an effort to embarrass him? Doesn't he have to provide proof for statements of this kind? If they had really done that wouldn't there be some serious repercussions?
 
JB can depose JJ again right? Why didn't he just do that instead of claiming ignorance regarding pictures? Had he went this route wouldn't he of had a better chance of possibly having access to his computer files?
 
I'm joking. ;) There was one time I wrote this long explanation of my analysis of a legal issue while a suspected "spy" was "in the house," and a few hours later this hurried, faxed brief was filed saying the same thing lol. Probably a coincidence but made me :banghead:

:loveyou: I sure hope you sent an invoice to JAC for that! :whoosh:

thanks for everything you do here! :hug:
 
Is it just bluster when Baez accuses the SA of creating and releasing the Jib Jab video in an effort to embarrass him? Doesn't he have to provide proof for statements of this kind? If they had really done that wouldn't there be some serious repercussions?

That wasn't bluster, that was foolishness. He's reviewing the discovery releases with apparently no ability or inclination to figure out what any of it actually is. Yes, he would have had to provide proof if the State's attorneys hadn't decided to just roll their eyes and give JB that "win."

JB can depose JJ again right? Why didn't he just do that instead of claiming ignorance regarding pictures? Had he went this route wouldn't he of had a better chance of possibly having access to his computer files?

He would probably need to get a court order to depose JJ again, and "um, I forgot to ask any useful questions last time" might not be a good enough reason for HHJP.
 
Is it just bluster when Baez accuses the SA of creating and releasing the Jib Jab video in an effort to embarrass him? Doesn't he have to provide proof for statements of this kind? If they had really done that wouldn't there be some serious repercussions?

A follow up question in the same basic vein. That filed motion concerning the JibJab video, that claims the prosecutors made and distributed it to defame and ridicule the defense lawyers or some such. Is that something that can be brought back as a bar complaint? I mean accusing the oposing council of something like that in a public press conference is as you say all meaningless bluster... but when you file that as a motion, does that become something actionable?
 
That wasn't bluster, that was foolishness. He's reviewing the discovery releases with apparently no ability or inclination to figure out what any of it actually is. Yes, he would have had to provide proof if the State's attorneys hadn't decided to just roll their eyes and give JB that "win."



He would probably need to get a court order to depose JJ again, and "um, I forgot to ask any useful questions last time" might not be a good enough reason for HHJP.

JB is stating he was unaware any photos existed until after he took JJ's deposition. If true, he would have cause to have a "re-do", yes? I guess I'm amazed JB has no logical thinking skills. If information comes to light after a depo, I would think HHJP would let it slide. I think the next thing we are going to see is JB seeking a court order to depose JJ AGAIN. My call is we see something this week. JMO. UGH!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
239
Guests online
3,844
Total visitors
4,083

Forum statistics

Threads
591,560
Messages
17,955,100
Members
228,537
Latest member
cyberanalyst0303
Back
Top