2009.12.16 Motions denied!

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
manatee said:
illegally taped conversations between the defense guy Mort and one of the equisearch guys
Click to expand...

I think this issue will resurface, especially if the defense wants to use JJ as a witness, though I'm not exactly sure what the court could do.
 
amethyst221 said:
It isn't unusual for a prepared lawyer who is seeking relief from the court by motion to submit a proposed order granting the relief sought, so the judge doesn't have to. Maybe the state offered that up on the day of the hearing with that day's date.
Click to expand...

This was the one Linda Burdick didn't read because she said it would be a felony and then JB made that stupid crack that he wouldn't have her charged with a felony. But it was definitely the Jordan one where he said the defense wanted him to agree to a lie and he wasn't willing to do it so he went to the OCSD with the recording to turn it in with a statement. It was Jordan who made the recording and that was the illegal part.
 
logicalgirl said:
was it Mort? I thought it was Baez but I could be wrong.
Click to expand...

that's what I understood. I searched and this is what i found from wftv:
http://www.wftv.com/news/21972593/detail.html
"DEFENSE CAN'T USE STATEMENT

A statement that could have helped the defense won't be allowed in court.

Texas Equusearch member Joe Jordan looked for Caylee before her remains were found last December. The defense team filed a motion saying that Jordan searched the same area off Suburban Drive, but saw nothing.

Jordan made the statement over the phone to Mortimer Smith, a private investigator for Casey's defense team, but Jordan illegally-recorded the conversation, so the defense can't use it."
 
I was just answering as to the date on the order. It was probably drafted by LDB, dated the day of the hearing, and given to the judge, so all he had to do if he granted the state's motion was to sign it and change the date.
 
Yes, but wftv also is saying this was a defense motion not a state motion. Thanks for the info - he recorded it with his cell phone - can you do that while you are having a conversation on it?
 
logicalgirl said:
Yes, but wftv also is saying this was a defense motion not a state motion. Thanks for the info - he recorded it with his cell phone - can you do that while you are having a conversation on it?
Click to expand...

but if you read the judges ruling it clearly states that is the state's motion...that's all i'm saying
 
The reporting is also a little confusing about what is sealed and can't be used. The illegal recording is not going to be released by LDB, because for her to do so would be a felony. But I don't think that precludes JJ from being called as a witness and asked the same things on the stand, which the defense would do if they thought his testimony was favorable to them.
 
manatee said:
but if you read the judges ruling it clearly states that is the state's motion...that's all i'm saying
Click to expand...

Yup, it was the state's motion for a protective order. We saw LDB argue it and so did all the reporters, who should be a little more careful.
 
Not arguing with you Manatee, really! Willing to be wrong - just want to clarify. As long as the conversation is sealed - and JJ goes bye bye. Is the Judge going to rule on cameras on lawyer client meetings or was that a motion at all. There was so much going on at the last hearing with Casey, Lyons and then Ashton's incredible presentation some of the details have fallen out of my brain.:waitasec: And yes, I knew it was the State's motion.
 
FYI: I guess some of these questions we all have should be asked in Rhornsby Legal Q&A #3 Relevant to the Anthony Case thread & he is on-line with us all right now!

Rhornsby Legal Q&A #3 Relevant to the Anthony Case
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=92655"]Rhornsby Legal Q&A #3 Relevant to the Anthony Case - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]


I'm positive he can help clear up all of the confusion we/I'm are all having! :winko:

I'm heading there to see what he has to say right now! :yes:

:angel:
 
amethyst221 said:
Yup, it was the state's motion for a protective order. We saw LDB argue it and so did all the reporters, who should be a little more careful.
Click to expand...

I know! HLN keeps repeating it over and over..."the defense WAS granted the motion"
 
logicalgirl said:
Not arguing with you Manatee, really! Willing to be wrong - just want to clarify. As long as the conversation is sealed - and JJ goes bye bye. Is the Judge going to rule on cameras on lawyer client meetings or was that a motion at all. There was so much going on at the last hearing with Casey, Lyons and then Ashton's incredible presentation some of the details have fallen out of my brain.:waitasec: And yes, I knew it was the State's motion.
Click to expand...
  • The Judge denied the Motion to Dismiss on Double Jeopardy Grounds and the Motion for a Protective Order to Destroy Video of Family Visits.
  • The Judge Granted the State's Motion for a Protective Order as it relates to the recorded statement of Joe Jordan - considering Baez did not object, nor did anyone else, this should not be a real shocker one way or the other.
  • The Judge has not ruled on the Motion to Remove Death Penalty or the Motion for Protective Order as it Relates to Videotaping Baez's visits. Considering he denied the other two motions with one sentence rulings, it is safe to assume he is issuing longer orders on the other two. This makes sense as they are more substantive and involve areas of law that are not clearly defined. I still think he will deny the Death Penalty motion and would not be surprised if he granted Baez some relief as it relates to attorney-client interviews being videotaped.
 
rhornsby said:
  • The Judge denied the Motion to Dismiss on Double Jeopardy Grounds and the Motion for a Protective Order to Destroy Video of Family Visits.
  • The Judge Granted the State's Motion for a Protective Order as it relates to the recorded statement of Joe Jordan - considering Baez did not object, nor did anyone else, this should not be a real shocker one way or the other.
  • The Judge has not ruled on the Motion to Remove Death Penalty or the Motion for Protective Order as it Relates to Videotaping Baez's visits. Considering he denied the other two motions with one sentence rulings, it is safe to assume he is issuing longer orders on the other two. This makes sense as they are more substantive and involve areas of law that are not clearly defined. I still think he will deny the Death Penalty motion and would not be surprised if he granted Baez some relief as it relates to attorney-client interviews being videotaped.
Click to expand...

wonderful! thank you! Can you let the medial know? lol!
 
UPDATED: Judge Denies 2 Casey Anthony Defense Motions
Posted: 2:13 pm EST December 16, 2009
Updated: 4:52 pm EST December 16, 2009
<snipped>
This time, Judge Stan Strickland denied defense motions without any kind of explanation. He refused to drop nine of the charges Casey faces for stealing and cashing her best friend's checks and refused to order the destruction of jail videos, which are public records.

“The less merit a judge finds in a motion, the more likely a judge is just going to deny it without explanation,” WFTV legal expert Bill Sheaffer said.

“It's not his job as a trial judge and he's not gonna do it,” Sheaffer said.

The judge has yet to rule on the death penalty and whether the Anthonys can visit without jail cameras.

Article:
http://www.wftv.com/news/21984104/detail.html

:angel:
 
rhornsby said:
  • The Judge denied the Motion to Dismiss on Double Jeopardy Grounds and the Motion for a Protective Order to Destroy Video of Family Visits.
  • The Judge Granted the State's Motion for a Protective Order as it relates to the recorded statement of Joe Jordan - considering Baez did not object, nor did anyone else, this should not be a real shocker one way or the other.
  • The Judge has not ruled on the Motion to Remove Death Penalty or the Motion for Protective Order as it Relates to Videotaping Baez's visits. Considering he denied the other two motions with one sentence rulings, it is safe to assume he is issuing longer orders on the other two. This makes sense as they are more substantive and involve areas of law that are not clearly defined. I still think he will deny the Death Penalty motion and would not be surprised if he granted Baez some relief as it relates to attorney-client interviews being videotaped.
Click to expand...

Is that (bolded) different than this:

http://www.wftv.com/news/21984353/detail.html
 
rhornsby said:
  • The Judge denied the Motion to Dismiss on Double Jeopardy Grounds and the Motion for a Protective Order to Destroy Video of Family Visits.
  • The Judge Granted the State's Motion for a Protective Order as it relates to the recorded statement of Joe Jordan - considering Baez did not object, nor did anyone else, this should not be a real shocker one way or the other.
  • The Judge has not ruled on the Motion to Remove Death Penalty or the Motion for Protective Order as it Relates to Videotaping Baez's visits. Considering he denied the other two motions with one sentence rulings, it is safe to assume he is issuing longer orders on the other two. This makes sense as they are more substantive and involve areas of law that are not clearly defined. I still think he will deny the Death Penalty motion and would not be surprised if he granted Baez some relief as it relates to attorney-client interviews being videotaped.
Click to expand...

Does that mean that the Anthony's can visit Casey and not have it released or is that a separate motion?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 247 more.
Total: 3,181 (members: 248, guests: 2,933)

Online statistics

Members online
248
Guests online
2,933
Total visitors
3,181
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,666
Messages
17,972,724
Members
228,855
Latest member
Shaunie
Back
Top