 |
|
01-11-2011, 12:18 PM
|
 |
Verified Attorney
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: AZ
Posts: 5,738
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by LolaMoon08
If you were JA and LDB would you ask that all witnesses be gagged during the trial? Do you think, in a case like this, that a gag order during trial would make sure things run smoother?
|
Since the jury will be sequestered, I'm not sure I would care very much. But I'm a big free speech person. 
__________________
"It would seem to me that June 16, 2008 was the last time that the victim was viewed by her grandparents. It became quite evident that from the OS of the Defense that the 16th was a date of great importance and that a so called time line of activities dealing with CA, LA, GA and ICA on the 16th and what, if any, activities took place on the 15th, 16th and 17th of June on 24 hour cycles would have been, at least, of a minimal requirement of review. I take it at some point you had a computer expert look at that data?" HHJP, 6/21/11
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...139910&page=94
|
|
The Following 19 Users Say Thank You to AZlawyer For This Useful Post:
|
Aedrys, A_News_Junkie, beach, countzero, denjet, Jomo, JSV, LiveLaughLuv, LolaMoon08, merker, MissJames, mitzi, Muzikman, Mystic, Numbers, Snaz, Sooner Fan#1, SWEETSPYRIT, ynotdivein |
01-12-2011, 08:38 AM
|
 |
Our Royal Himalayan Gopher Hounds
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Orlando, FL area
Posts: 2,433
|
|
|
Skipping ahead to post trial (and conviction). If KC gets someone willing to appeal on the basis of ineffective counsel, would that term cover the whole defense team? Can one attorney (Baez) be singled out or does the whole defense team come under fire in that kind of appeal?
__________________
Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.
Euripides
|
|
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Macushla For This Useful Post:
|
|
01-12-2011, 11:47 AM
|
|
Verified Attorney
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: AZ
Posts: 5,738
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macushla
Skipping ahead to post trial (and conviction). If KC gets someone willing to appeal on the basis of ineffective counsel, would that term cover the whole defense team? Can one attorney (Baez) be singled out or does the whole defense team come under fire in that kind of appeal?
|
Even if one person is alleged to have been the main "ineffective counsel," the others are accused of ineffectiveness in not doing something about it. 
__________________
"It would seem to me that June 16, 2008 was the last time that the victim was viewed by her grandparents. It became quite evident that from the OS of the Defense that the 16th was a date of great importance and that a so called time line of activities dealing with CA, LA, GA and ICA on the 16th and what, if any, activities took place on the 15th, 16th and 17th of June on 24 hour cycles would have been, at least, of a minimal requirement of review. I take it at some point you had a computer expert look at that data?" HHJP, 6/21/11
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...139910&page=94
|
|
The Following 32 Users Say Thank You to AZlawyer For This Useful Post:
|
Aedrys, A_News_Junkie, beach, bogeygal, cleo612, countzero, denjet, DEPUTYDAWG, ExpectingUnicorns, Frigga, Itsy, Jomo, JSV, LiveLaughLuv, logicalgirl, LoisDenominator, Macushla, merker, MissJames, mitzi, Mystic, Numbers, nyvictoria, ohiogirl, Snaz, spqr, sumbunny, Sun, Tiki, Trapshooter, watergirl, ZsaZsa |
01-12-2011, 11:55 AM
|
 |
Admin
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: the Plains & Jordan-Hare stadium
Posts: 12,565
|
|
|
As much as I am askeered to even type this out, here goes -
Suppose the defense never turns over the expert discovery as ordered and HHJP is pretty much forced (per the FRCP) to exclude them...
Would Casey have a decent appellate issue then for ineffective counsel? (on the grounds that her attorneys refused to comply with a court order)
__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. - Daniel Patrick Moynihan, 1944
|
|
The Following 14 Users Say Thank You to beach For This Useful Post:
|
bogeygal, Frigga, Itsy, JSV, LiveLaughLuv, Macushla, marspiter, MissJames, Mystic, P1569, sjs323, Snaz, sumbunny, ynotdivein |
01-12-2011, 12:06 PM
|
|
Verified Attorney
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: AZ
Posts: 5,738
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'Beach
As much as I am askeered to even type this out, here goes -
Suppose the defense never turns over the expert discovery as ordered and HHJP is pretty much forced (per the FRCP) to exclude them...
Would Casey have a decent appellate issue then for ineffective counsel? (on the grounds that her attorneys refused to comply with a court order)
|
Yes. But HHJP would not be forced to exclude the experts. He could impose stricter sanctions and even delay the trial if necessary to make sure that the state got the information it needs.
__________________
"It would seem to me that June 16, 2008 was the last time that the victim was viewed by her grandparents. It became quite evident that from the OS of the Defense that the 16th was a date of great importance and that a so called time line of activities dealing with CA, LA, GA and ICA on the 16th and what, if any, activities took place on the 15th, 16th and 17th of June on 24 hour cycles would have been, at least, of a minimal requirement of review. I take it at some point you had a computer expert look at that data?" HHJP, 6/21/11
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...139910&page=94
|
|
The Following 44 Users Say Thank You to AZlawyer For This Useful Post:
|
Aedrys, A_News_Junkie, beach, bogeygal, CarolinaMoon, countzero, denjet, DEPUTYDAWG, ExpectingUnicorns, Frigga, Itsy, Jomo, JSV, krisskross, LaLaw2000, LittleBitty35, LiveLaughLuv, logicalgirl, Macushla, Marina2, marspiter, merker, MissJames, mitzi, Mystic, nachomama, Nore, nyvictoria, Oakley, ohiogirl, P1569, RR0004, sjs323, Snaz, spqr, sumbunny, SWEETSPYRIT, TiaM, Tiki, tragco, Trapshooter, ynotdivein, zoey, ZsaZsa |
01-12-2011, 12:10 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 8,342
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'Beach
As much as I am askeered to even type this out, here goes -
Suppose the defense never turns over the expert discovery as ordered and HHJP is pretty much forced (per the FRCP) to exclude them...
Would Casey have a decent appellate issue then for ineffective counsel? (on the grounds that her attorneys refused to comply with a court order)
|
Sorry, I have to say this. I hope they have good malpractice insurance... 
Last edited by ZsaZsa; 01-12-2011 at 12:12 PM.
Reason: typo
|
|
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to ZsaZsa For This Useful Post:
|
|
01-12-2011, 12:29 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 4,807
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZlawyer
Yes. But HHJP would not be forced to exclude the experts. He could impose stricter sanctions and even delay the trial if necessary to make sure that the state got the information it needs.
|
Also, just fyi, someone posted, yesterday I believe, an interview with Hornsby where he says he believes the Universal Interview would be included, he believes, because KC was not under arrest. Doesn't mean he is right, just posting.
Also, was reading Lee's prosecution interview and they ask when KC was in the garage "was she free to move around" and Lee responds "yes". So I don't think she was handcuffed. I think her e-mail to Tony saying she was, was probably another lie.
Thanks.
|
|
The Following 19 Users Say Thank You to Solace For This Useful Post:
|
FaerieB, Frigga, Itsy, Jomo, JSV, LittleBitty35, LiveLaughLuv, logicalgirl, MissJames, mitzi, Mystic, my_tee_mouse, nyvictoria, P1569, Snaz, spqr, texaslb218, ynotdivein, ZsaZsa |
01-12-2011, 02:18 PM
|
|
Our Royal Himalayan Gopher Hounds
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Orlando, FL area
Posts: 2,433
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZlawyer
Even if one person is alleged to have been the main "ineffective counsel," the others are accused of ineffectiveness in not doing something about it. |
I have to say, your answer gave me a warm fuzzy feeling inside just imagining CM's reaction if someone does file an appeal based on ineffective counsel.
__________________
Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.
Euripides
|
|
The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to Macushla For This Useful Post:
|
AZlawyer, DEPUTYDAWG, Frigga, Itsy, JSV, LiveLaughLuv, MissJames, Mystic, my_tee_mouse, Paintr, spqr, ynotdivein |
01-12-2011, 05:42 PM
|
 |
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 6,021
|
|
|
|
|
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to TotallyObsessed For This Useful Post:
|
|
01-12-2011, 07:26 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 369
|
|
|
Does this 'Mafia-like' behavior ( sending in a recently retired Judge...as an intimidating factor) and the ensuing Case law mentioned in Cheneys motion, happen often? These veiled threats to our Judges, are they noticed by the Bar? I know they are not direct, but clearly if the fine sleuthers here can figure it out, wouldn't the Bar as well?
|
|
The Following 16 Users Say Thank You to shotgun09 For This Useful Post:
|
BChand, Frigga, Itsy, JSV, LancelotLink, ldh, LiveLaughLuv, Macushla, Mystic, my_tee_mouse, nssherlock, P1569, Snaz, spqr, ynotdivein, ZsaZsa |
01-12-2011, 08:52 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 442
|
|
|
Speaking of the case law referenced in the motion,(line 2 of the motion) what in the world does it have to do with the sanctions?
Florida Rules of Judicial Administration
2.330. Disqualification of Trial Judges
(h) Prior Rulings. Prior factual or legal rulings by a disqualified judge may be reconsidered and vacated or amended by a successor judge based upon a motion for reconsideration, which must be filed within 20 days of the order of disqualification, unless good cause is shown for a delay in moving for reconsideration or other grounds for reconsideration exist.
Thank you.
|
|
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to BChand For This Useful Post:
|
|
01-13-2011, 12:06 AM
|
|
Verified Attorney
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: AZ
Posts: 5,738
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by shotgun09
Does this 'Mafia-like' behavior ( sending in a recently retired Judge...as an intimidating factor) and the ensuing Case law mentioned in Cheneys motion, happen often? These veiled threats to our Judges, are they noticed by the Bar? I know they are not direct, but clearly if the fine sleuthers here can figure it out, wouldn't the Bar as well?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by BChand
Speaking of the case law referenced in the motion,(line 2 of the motion) what in the world does it have to do with the sanctions?
Florida Rules of Judicial Administration
2.330. Disqualification of Trial Judges
(h) Prior Rulings. Prior factual or legal rulings by a disqualified judge may be reconsidered and vacated or amended by a successor judge based upon a motion for reconsideration, which must be filed within 20 days of the order of disqualification, unless good cause is shown for a delay in moving for reconsideration or other grounds for reconsideration exist.
Thank you.
|
I don't think either of these things were threats. My best guess regarding the presence of the retired judge was that he was being invited to join the pro bono dream team. (And how is a retired judge a threat to a sitting judge?  ) My best guess regarding the citation of the disqualification rule instead of the reconsideration rule at the beginning of the motion is that someone used the disqualification motion as a template.
__________________
"It would seem to me that June 16, 2008 was the last time that the victim was viewed by her grandparents. It became quite evident that from the OS of the Defense that the 16th was a date of great importance and that a so called time line of activities dealing with CA, LA, GA and ICA on the 16th and what, if any, activities took place on the 15th, 16th and 17th of June on 24 hour cycles would have been, at least, of a minimal requirement of review. I take it at some point you had a computer expert look at that data?" HHJP, 6/21/11
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...139910&page=94
|
|
The Following 21 Users Say Thank You to AZlawyer For This Useful Post:
|
A_News_Junkie, BChand, countzero, denjet, ExpectingUnicorns, Itsy, Jomo, joypath, JSV, LiveLaughLuv, logicalgirl, LoisDenominator, LolaMoon08, merker, mitzi, nums24, shotgun09, Snaz, TiaM, Trapshooter, ynotdivein |
01-13-2011, 12:33 AM
|
 |
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 579
|
|
|
As Baez took his check in Wednesday (wonder what time he did, lol), does this now make the motion moot? Or will HHJP still discuss it Friday - if he was going to in the first place?
__________________
Did you know that "Dammit, I'm mad" spelled backwards is "Dammit I'm mad" - well, I still am! 
|
|
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Itsy For This Useful Post:
|
|
01-13-2011, 12:50 AM
|
|
Verified Attorney
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: AZ
Posts: 5,738
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Itsy
As Baez took his check in Wednesday (wonder what time he did, lol), does this now make the motion moot? Or will HHJP still discuss it Friday - if he was going to in the first place?
|
No, it's not moot. He can always be paid back if the sanctions are reconsidered. 
__________________
"It would seem to me that June 16, 2008 was the last time that the victim was viewed by her grandparents. It became quite evident that from the OS of the Defense that the 16th was a date of great importance and that a so called time line of activities dealing with CA, LA, GA and ICA on the 16th and what, if any, activities took place on the 15th, 16th and 17th of June on 24 hour cycles would have been, at least, of a minimal requirement of review. I take it at some point you had a computer expert look at that data?" HHJP, 6/21/11
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...139910&page=94
|
|
The Following 21 Users Say Thank You to AZlawyer For This Useful Post:
|
A_News_Junkie, beach, countzero, denjet, ExpectingUnicorns, FaerieB, Itsy, Jomo, joypath, JSV, LiveLaughLuv, logicalgirl, merker, mitzi, Mystic, nums24, Snaz, Tiki, Trapshooter, ynotdivein, zoey |
01-13-2011, 12:53 AM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 579
|
|
Thanks - I was hoping that would be the answer
__________________
Did you know that "Dammit, I'm mad" spelled backwards is "Dammit I'm mad" - well, I still am!
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Itsy For This Useful Post:
|
|
01-13-2011, 09:21 AM
|
 |
"Heavens to Habeas Corpus" ~ Legal Eagle Lion
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Sunny Florida
Posts: 1,176
|
|
|
AZ, I have a question for you....
I thought I understood why the State was not allowed to bring up KC's sexual history. However, the case currently being shown on truTV's InSession is OH v. Essa. If I understand correctly, the State is attempting to prove motive for Mr. Essa to kill his wife by "parading his playboy past."
If the State of Ohio is able to bring in Mr. Essa's past with regard to these relationships, why isn't the State of Florida able to do the same in KC's case?
Is that rule different in every state?
TIA!!!
__________________
"Judge, Mr, Ashton is laughing at me..... " ~ Jose Baez, Closing Argument 7/3/11 (Paraphrased, of course!)
|
|
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Snaz For This Useful Post:
|
|
01-13-2011, 09:26 AM
|
|
Retired WS Staff
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,798
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaz
AZ, I have a question for you....
I thought I understood why the State was not allowed to bring up KC's sexual history. However, the case currently being shown on truTV's InSession is OH v. Essa. If I understand correctly, the State is attempting to prove motive for Mr. Essa to kill his wife by "parading his playboy past."
If the State of Ohio is able to bring in Mr. Essa's past with regard to these relationships, why isn't the State of Florida able to do the same in KC's case?
Is that rule different in every state?
TIA!!!
|
Has this motion been ruled on yet? (I am way behind.....)
|
|
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Kentjbkent For This Useful Post:
|
|
01-13-2011, 12:00 PM
|
|
Verified Attorney
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: AZ
Posts: 5,738
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaz
AZ, I have a question for you....
I thought I understood why the State was not allowed to bring up KC's sexual history. However, the case currently being shown on truTV's InSession is OH v. Essa. If I understand correctly, the State is attempting to prove motive for Mr. Essa to kill his wife by "parading his playboy past."
If the State of Ohio is able to bring in Mr. Essa's past with regard to these relationships, why isn't the State of Florida able to do the same in KC's case?
Is that rule different in every state?
TIA!!!
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kentjbkent
Has this motion been ruled on yet? (I am way behind.....)
|
I didn't think that motion had been ruled on yet, either. I think her sexual history immediately (maybe up to a couple of months?) before the "disappearance" is relevant to motive, and her sexual history while Caylee was "missing"--particularly within a few hours of the "kidnapping"--is relevant to show that her mental state was not that of a mother crazed with worry but that of a cold-hearted murderer who has been freed of a burden.
__________________
"It would seem to me that June 16, 2008 was the last time that the victim was viewed by her grandparents. It became quite evident that from the OS of the Defense that the 16th was a date of great importance and that a so called time line of activities dealing with CA, LA, GA and ICA on the 16th and what, if any, activities took place on the 15th, 16th and 17th of June on 24 hour cycles would have been, at least, of a minimal requirement of review. I take it at some point you had a computer expert look at that data?" HHJP, 6/21/11
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...139910&page=94
|
|
The Following 17 Users Say Thank You to AZlawyer For This Useful Post:
|
Aedrys, bogeygal, countzero, denjet, joypath, JSV, Kentjbkent, logicalgirl, merker, mitzi, Mystic, nums24, nyvictoria, Snaz, SWEETSPYRIT, ynotdivein, ZsaZsa |
01-13-2011, 12:02 PM
|
 |
Verified Health Professional - Registered Nurse
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 4,163
|
|
This has been on my mind for a while but the Jan 03 hearing really solidified the concern...
What happens if during the course of the months leading up to trial, one of the attorneys begins to show strong signs of early dementia and an inablity to focus on and comprehend written and spoken words? Is it the judge who must raise those concerns and have him/her removed from the case?
I ask because the person with failing faculties usually doesn't have the situational or self awareness to step away themselves.
Thanks
__________________
Injustice for Caylee Marie Anthony.
Copyright that Cindy
Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot. Nothing is going to get better. It's not. Dr. Suess
|
|
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to kaRN For This Useful Post:
|
|
01-13-2011, 01:07 PM
|
 |
I made it through Law School!
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Northern Cal
Posts: 3,992
|
|
In this early video, Baez states how his client was cooperating with law enforecement (alluding to the interviews by police and Casey's statements now at issue in the motion to exclude them) and that she did not retain counsel until after she was arrested (inferring that she's just an innocent mom looking for her missing child and was aware that she COULD hire an attorney)
Can this be used to impeach Baez during his pre-trial motion when he is now arguing that she was "in custody" and the statements were illegally obtained w/ Fifth and Sixth Amendment issues?
Or will this just be considered a "defense lawyer doing his thing" and carry zero weight?
__________________
Graduating from Law School June 2!
|
|
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to ziggy For This Useful Post:
|
|
01-13-2011, 01:34 PM
|
|
Verified Attorney
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: AZ
Posts: 5,738
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaRN
This has been on my mind for a while but the Jan 03 hearing really solidified the concern...
What happens if during the course of the months leading up to trial, one of the attorneys begins to show strong signs of early dementia and an inablity to focus on and comprehend written and spoken words? Is it the judge who must raise those concerns and have him/her removed from the case?
I ask because the person with failing faculties usually doesn't have the situational or self awareness to step away themselves.
Thanks |
I have seen this happen only once. In that case, the judge ordered the other counsel on the team to take over primary responsibility for the case and to file a report with the Bar notifying the Bar that Mr. X appeared to be no longer able to competently practice law. Mr. X retired shortly thereafter.  Sad but necessary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggy
In this early video, Baez states how his client was cooperating with law enforecement (alluding to the interviews by police and Casey's statements now at issue in the motion to exclude them) and that she did not retain counsel until after she was arrested (inferring that she's just an innocent mom looking for her missing child and was aware that she COULD hire an attorney) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNQp_-iEJ5s
Can this be used to impeach Baez during his pre-trial motion when he is now arguing that she was "in custody" and the statements were illegally obtained w/ Fifth and Sixth Amendment issues?
Or will this just be considered a "defense lawyer doing his thing" and carry zero weight? |
Baez can't be impeached because he's not a witness. His "spin" or interpretation of the facts is irrelevant. In addition, it is not inconsistent for all these things to be true at once: Casey's statements were made voluntarily (you could call them "cooperating" if they had been truthful statements), Casey had not retained counsel at the time she made the statements but was aware she could have retained a lawyer, Casey was in custody at the time she made the statements, and Casey's statements cannot be used as evidence due to the failure to give Miranda warnings.
__________________
"It would seem to me that June 16, 2008 was the last time that the victim was viewed by her grandparents. It became quite evident that from the OS of the Defense that the 16th was a date of great importance and that a so called time line of activities dealing with CA, LA, GA and ICA on the 16th and what, if any, activities took place on the 15th, 16th and 17th of June on 24 hour cycles would have been, at least, of a minimal requirement of review. I take it at some point you had a computer expert look at that data?" HHJP, 6/21/11
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...139910&page=94
|
|
The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to AZlawyer For This Useful Post:
|
beach, countzero, FaerieB, joypath, JWG, LC446, logicalgirl, merker, mitzi, Mystic, nums24, ynotdivein, ziggy |
01-13-2011, 09:15 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 442
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZlawyer
I don't think either of these things were threats. My best guess regarding the presence of the retired judge was that he was being invited to join the pro bono dream team. (And how is a retired judge a threat to a sitting judge? ) My best guess regarding the citation of the disqualification rule instead of the reconsideration rule at the beginning of the motion is that someone used the disqualification motion as a template. |
BBM - Glad to hear you say that. I was wondering what magic powers he had also.
Thank you for your responses.
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to BChand For This Useful Post:
|
|
01-14-2011, 01:17 AM
|
|
Retired WS Staff
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 3,906
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
 Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
| © Copyright Websleuths 1999-2012 |
New To Site? |
Need Help? |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:59 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
