Defense Motion to Seal Penalty Phase Discovery Documents

New Posts

T

truckengirl

New Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2009
Messages
399
Reaction score
0
I find it funny that the Defense holds a press conference on several occassions to discuss documents that the SA has released yet when they have to give their discovery up to SA they want it sealed. I see GA and CA going under the bus and they dont want their discovery released to the public because then her parents might not stand behind her once they realize what all she as said about her life growing up and them as parents.
 
What are the chances their motion will be successful?
 
Methinks it is merely an example of the following classic defense maneuver:

a) a nanny-nanny-boo-boo at the State's latest motion,
b) an attempt to get MORE attention than the state at the hearing,
c) an attempt to create a diversion, or
d) all of the above

:waitasec:
 
QB. said:
What are the chances their motion will be successful?
Click to expand...
Well, considering this motion was already denied by Judge Perry, I would think their chances are slim to none, and slim's outta town!

Can't believe their wasting the courts valuable resources to hear a motion that has already been denied.

What a Huge Waste!!!
 
The actual title of the motion according to the docket is:
Motion
Defendant's; to Seal Penalty Phase Discovery Response

and AZLawyer answered a question about its possible meaning in the legal thread.
 
The World According said:
The tried this once already, it was denied in May, View attachment 12506
This is one of the various and sundry matters they want reconsidered.

Here is the hearing!

http://www.wftv.com/video/23516373/index.html

http://www.wftv.com/video/23516985/index.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-ovAGn8Krw
watch Casey'd demeanor http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nE_qFo9YbU
We're not on Hope Springs Drive anymore.
Click to expand...

Thanks as always, TWA, for your lightening fast delivery of pertinent videos and filings! I can't wait to see how HHJP is going to react to one of his very own decisions being the subject of a request for review! Lol! Me thinks he won't be too happy! :dance:
 
QB. said:
The actual title of the motion according to the docket is:
Motion
Defendant's; to Seal Penalty Phase Discovery Response

and AZLawyer answered a question about its possible meaning in the legal thread.
Click to expand...

:waitasec:
Am I reading or understanding correctly.
This Motion is a Response???
What are they responding too?
Can they file a response motion to the Order Denied by the Judge?

Hopefully we will get to read the Motion soon to clear this up.
 
http://www.wftv.com/video/23518001/index.html
sorry folks in my earlier post I left out Part four.

We need to see the actual document, right now we are just guessing. At least I am.I think that the defense may have done what my high school girlfriends would have called.... got all happy over nothing.
When the judge suggested to the defense that regarding the investigation for the penalty phase that they may want to submit requests for funds to him under seal as to not divulge their trial strategy, they may have misunderstood the scope of what he would seal.
We learned in that hearing that Mason had a poor understanding of what has went on in the case so far. Again. He had no knowledge of the filing by Mark regarding the additional documents that were in possession of TES, many, many months ago, and that those documents have been sitting waiting to be reviewed by the defense. Also, Mason stood up and argued that the defense learned of mom and pop filling out the questionnaire for the FBI agents for the very very first time, only the day before the hearing. . Mrs. Drane-Burdick informed the judge and Mason that indeed Baez knew all about it, even commented on it during the depo!!

Likewise, it could very well be that the defense has NOT informed Mrs. Finnell, which imo seems to be a theme, that this matter has already been argued and ruled on. SO , possibly she may want to expand that idea out further to not have to divuldge documents they plan to use in the penalty phase, or exhibits, possibly even names of witnesses; because, that would effectuate the same thing and one could easily infer the trial strategy. I need to read the actual new document to see what the extent of their request is. If they are asking for anything along the lines of what they did and the judge ruled on in May, I do not see him reversing his own well thought out, researched and specific cases he relied upon sited in his decision. View attachment Motion for POR.pdf

I do know one thing, Mrs. Finnell did not seem happy to have to turn around and look at Cheney and Jose like don't have me up here making a fool of myself. So, unless they want the revolving door to click again, they would do well to try to start bringing her up to speed. It is bad enough when Cheney makes it obvious he has a very poor understanding of what has went on in the case.
 
Help, Please
I am having trouble locating the Defense Motion for Protective Order with Respect to Penalty Phase Discovery filed April 28, 2010,..(The Defense filed a few motions that day)
I know the Motion was Denied on May 11 2010 by Judge Perry..http://www.ninthcircuit.org/news/Hi...pect To Penalty Phase Discovery 5-11-2010.pdf

I have found Motions with that in the title but when I bring it up the Motion is about the States Request for the Death Penalty..
 
Intermezzo said:
:waitasec:
Am I reading or understanding correctly.
This Motion is a Response???
What are they responding too?
Can they file a response motion to the Order Denied by the Judge?

Hopefully we will get to read the Motion soon to clear this up.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's a response--I think it's a motion to seal a "discovery response," which probably means a response to a subpoena sent by the defense to a third party.
 
AZlawyer said:
I don't think it's a response--I think it's a motion to seal a "discovery response," which probably means a response to a subpoena sent by the defense to a third party.
Click to expand...

Thank you so very very much. This makes a lot more sense. I was concerned we were going to get another "Bear in mind....." raised eyebrow, what part of no don't you understand talk from the judge.

I did notice something the new lawyer mentioned that I have been meaning to ask you about. Mrs. Finnell said something to the effect of
well, your honor, you bring a new guy on the team, and he has his own ideas
how to maybe go at it in a different way
(paraphrased). She was explaining why on earth Mrs. Barrett's work wasn't comprehensive as the judge had been led to believe.

It is interesting how the judge told them they could submit the requests for payment regarding what the PI was looking into under seal; however, in his ruling he is pretty clear that once something is discovery there will be no sealing of that. That would mean that the withholding of the name would be quite temporary indeed, if they must turn over the tape of the interview, any notes they took, etc. and then the State would be entitled to depose them? I am sure it is not gray to the judge, just to me.

Thank you for all you do here!
Do you expect her to be asking for matters to be reconsidered if she has different arguments than , say, Andrea argued already?
 
View attachment Motion for POR.pdfFor all we know it could simply be a letter in response to a subpoena that says

I have nothing, literally nothing to opine on this matter, why in the world am I being brought into this, please leave me alone.

At the recent hearing Mrs. Finnell did let the judge know that indeed the defense staff had tried to talk to these relatives in Ohio, but were met with,
"Resistance".

Judge Perry set the defense straight that no one is going to be flying to Ohio on the taxpayers dime to show up at someone's home, univited and unannounced, not even knowing their schedule, if they are even home or on holiday, etc.
He told them to get an appointment first, then come to him. If that is who they subpoenaed, perhaps AZ Lawyer can help us one more time, that may indicate the defense is not indeed finding them willing to talk and that explains the need for the subpoena.

This was the recent hearing when the judge took the defense to school on fishing expeditions. This was my favorite hearing!
Here the judge tells Ms. Finnell ( part four ) that "I don't know if they have shared this with you, but all mitigation witnesses have to be listed by November 30th, 2010. If you don't have any by the 30th of November, then you don't have any!"
Happy Thanksgiving!!!

http://www.wftv.com/news/25561067/detail.html

http://www.wftv.com/video/25567059/
http://www.wftv.com/video/25567604/
http://www.wftv.com/video/25568340/

heh
 
Intermezzo said:
Help, Please
I am having trouble locating the Defense Motion for Protective Order with Respect to Penalty Phase Discovery filed April 28, 2010,..(The Defense filed a few motions that day)
I know the Motion was Denied on May 11 2010 by Judge Perry..http://www.ninthcircuit.org/news/Hi...pect To Penalty Phase Discovery 5-11-2010.pdf

I have found Motions with that in the title but when I bring it up the Motion is about the States Request for the Death Penalty..
Click to expand...

I found it!

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/35304530/Casey-Anthony-protective-order-to-death-penalty
 
The World According said:
Thank you so very very much. This makes a lot more sense. I was concerned we were going to get another "Bear in mind....." raised eyebrow, what part of no don't you understand talk from the judge.

I did notice something the new lawyer mentioned that I have been meaning to ask you about. Mrs. Finnell said something to the effect of
well, your honor, you bring a new guy on the team, and he has his own ideas
how to maybe go at it in a different way
(paraphrased). She was explaining why on earth Mrs. Barrett's work wasn't comprehensive as the judge had been led to believe.

It is interesting how the judge told them they could submit the requests for payment regarding what the PI was looking into under seal; however, in his ruling he is pretty clear that once something is discovery there will be no sealing of that. That would mean that the withholding of the name would be quite temporary indeed, if they must turn over the tape of the interview, any notes they took, etc. and then the State would be entitled to depose them? I am sure it is not gray to the judge, just to me.

Thank you for all you do here!
Do you expect her to be asking for matters to be reconsidered if she has different arguments than , say, Andrea argued already?
Click to expand...

She (Finnell) might ask for matters to be reconsidered based on different arguments, but (1) I wouldn't expect any such requests to be granted, and (2) Andrea's arguments were already pretty, um, comprehensive (i.e., envelope-pushing :rolleyes: ) already.

I don't think this new motion will request that something be kept secret from the state, but only that it be sealed and thus not available to the public. I could be wrong, of course--I really want to see the actual document rather than speculating on what it might or might not say.

The World According said:
View attachment 12510For all we know it could simply be a letter in response to a subpoena that says

I have nothing, literally nothing to opine on this matter, why in the world am I being brought into this, please leave me alone.

At the recent hearing Mrs. Finnell did let the judge know that indeed the defense staff had tried to talk to these relatives in Ohio, but were met with,
"Resistance".

Judge Perry set the defense straight that no one is going to be flying to Ohio on the taxpayers dime to show up at someone's home, univited and unannounced, not even knowing their schedule, if they are even home or on holiday, etc.
He told them to get an appointment first, then come to him. If that is who they subpoenaed, perhaps AZ Lawyer can help us one more time, that may indicate the defense is not indeed finding them willing to talk and that explains the need for the subpoena.

This was the recent hearing when the judge took the defense to school on fishing expeditions. This was my favorite hearing!
Here the judge tells Ms. Finnell ( part four ) that "I don't know if they have shared this with you, but all mitigation witnesses have to be listed by November 30th, 2010. If you don't have any by the 30th of November, then you don't have any!"
Happy Thanksgiving!!!

http://www.wftv.com/news/25561067/detail.html

http://www.wftv.com/video/25567059/
http://www.wftv.com/video/25567604/
http://www.wftv.com/video/25568340/

heh
Click to expand...

I wonder if the defense got some documents from Ohio that they plan to use in the "Throw Momma From the Train" phase of the trial--oops I mean the penalty phase--and they don't want the Anthonys to figure out the plan and decide that maybe, just maybe, KC is not worthy of their unconditional loyalty?
 
AZlawyer said:
I don't think this new motion will request that something be kept secret from the state, but only that it be sealed and thus not available to the public. I could be wrong, of course--I really want to see the actual document rather than speculating on what it might or might not say.
Click to expand...

--respectfully snipped--
bbm

That would totally be in line with ICA's priorities re: privacy of mail, commissary, phone calls, etc etc.
I sense a theme...
I can just see her shaking her l'il fisties.

:hopping_mad:
 
AZlawyer said:
I wonder if the defense got some documents from Ohio that they plan to use in the "Throw Momma From the Train" phase of the trial--oops I mean the penalty phase--and they don't want the Anthonys to figure out the plan and decide that maybe, just maybe, KC is not worthy of their unconditional loyalty?
Click to expand...

-- snipped and BBM

Is that even possible??!? :D

Really though....anything THAT juicy just makes me salivate to see it! :rotfl:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 235 more.
Total: 4,726 (members: 236, guests: 4,490)

Online statistics

Members online
236
Guests online
4,490
Total visitors
4,726
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,327
Messages
17,967,461
Members
228,748
Latest member
renenoelle
Back
Top