2009.03.10 - Hand Written Note From Tot Mom in Response to Pros. Motion

[Marina2]

Does anyone know where I can read the entire motion Baez filed?

"OBJECTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE THE STATE'S MOTION TO DETERMINE POTENIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST"

I've read the sworn affidavit that was attached but can't find the motion in it's entirety.
TIA

 

[cyberborg]

Found it!
(snipped from full article)

The State Attorney's Office has no record of a formal plea offer in Casey Anthony's case, Tavernier said.



http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/caylee-anthony/orl-loccasey11031109mar11,0,4353127.story

This is good but, I would imagine that there are always off and on 'verbal' communications on a plea deal. I would think that both sides would always keep that door open, keep all doors open whether they publicly admit to it or not. The negotiations game.

There did seem to be a sense of a plea deal in process in Nov. when DC was sent to search and verify in Suburban -- to seek the recovery of Caylee's remains.

 

[cyberborg]

Does anyone know where I can read the entire motion Baez filed?

"OBJECTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE THE STATE'S MOTION TO DETERMINE POTENIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST"

I've read the sworn affidavit that was attached but can't find the motion in it's entirety.
TIA

http://www.wftv.com/blank/18908568/detail.html

 

[SoCalSleuth]

SoCal,

What do you think about provisions that have nothing per se to do with the legal representation, but are more in the nature of business dealings on behalf of or through the client? Not sure what I just said makes sense, but anyway . . . I'm not so sure those would be privileged A/C communications. But I'm not sure. I don't have any sense of what the court will do with this motion/issue, I have to say.

A business contract in which one of the contracting parties is a lawyer isn't privileged. A retainer agreement which sets forth the parameters of a lawyer's representation of a client is privileged (in most jurisdictions)-even if it also contains provisions that concern business dealings as opposed to legal representation. Significantly, a lawyer's engaging in business dealings with a client is a dicey proposition for the lawyer. As potential conflicts exist in all such situations the lawyer is required to comply with the rules of professional conduct regarding avoiding conflicts and interests adverse to a client. The Florida rules in this regard are pretty strict.

 

[jerchers]

Found it!
(snipped from full article)

The State Attorney's Office has no record of a formal plea offer in Casey Anthony's case, Tavernier said.



http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/caylee-anthony/orl-loccasey11031109mar11,0,4353127.story

Thank you

 

[RR0004]

it allowed her to take the stand, state her not guily verdict without the ability for the state to x-amine ....for now.

Please explain how she can take the stand without being cross examined. Are you talking about her trial? Not sure what you're alluding to.

 

[amethyst221]

A business contract in which one of the contracting parties is a lawyer isn't privileged. A retainer agreement which sets forth the parameters of a lawyer's representation of a client is privileged (in most jurisdictions)-even if it also contains provisions that concern business dealings as opposed to legal representation. Significantly, a lawyer's engaging in business dealings with a client is a dicey proposition for the lawyer. As potential conflicts exist in all such situations the lawyer is required to comply with the rules of professional conduct regarding avoiding conflicts and interests adverse to a client. The Florida rules in this regard are pretty strict.

Okay, moving on to the conflict issue. Surely someone, the State bar or a court, in camera, has to be able to determine if there is any conflict of interest. I know there have been cases dealing with the issue of payment for legal services for a client by a third party -- what can be discussed or disclosed to the payer, what explanation must the client get, what kind of consent must be given by the client. Is there really just some detached Connecticutt do-gooder in this case, paying for the defense, no questions asked? Or do they want a story, or a book or photos in exchange. Something unusual must be going on in the arrangements if defense counsel needs his own ethics adviser. In a way I don't care. I think Casey has the lawyer she deserves. But I imagine the taxpayers in Florida would not like to pay for two trials in this case. I'll be interested to see what the court does.

 

[Talison]

It's so weird. It's like she's signing herself as "Cay." What is that? I had the wild thought that she is trying to get a retrial later by saying she didn't sign those documents or that they were not properly signed so she can't be held to them. That's probably not possible - I hope not.

Her signature is notarized, though.

 

[DotsEyes]

I mentioned this earlier in the thread and didn't get much of a response. I'm curious why JB submitted this affidavit from Casey saying what isn't in the retainer agreement rather than submitting the actual contract itself. Are billing/payment contracts between a lawyer and client considered privileged information, not available even for the court to see?

Yes. The employment contract is privileged.

 

[Bluebelle]

haven't read the whole thread yet to see if this has been mentioned, but Casey's signature is on some of the checks she forged on Amy's account. I’m 99.9% sure I saw her whole name spelled out when she signed - I remember being stunned at how brazen she was to sign her own name to someone else's checks. Her signature is also on her initial statement to detectives and her name is clearly spelled out. I am wondering why she is changing her regular signature now, how very interesting. It isn’t as though she’s a busy executive who signs a lot of paperwork & needs a shorter sig! The notary wouldn't necessarily care that her sig is different from before, he/she merely needs to verify her identity... which leads me to also wonder if we have proof the notary was present with Casey when she signed this paper or did Baez have someone notarize it after the fact. Big no-no if that was done, plus it gives Casey an out that she did not sign this paper.

 

[SL_Zero]

maybe baez is a notary?
or the jail probably has one on site. it would make sense.

 

[cyberborg]

I haven't read the whole thread yet to see if this has been mentioned, but Casey's signature is on some of the checks she forged on Amy's account. I’m 99.9% sure I saw her whole name spelled out when she signed - I remember being stunned at how brazen she was to sign her own name to someone else's checks. Her signature is also on her initial statement to detectives and her name is clearly spelled out. I am wondering why she is changing her regular signature now, how very interesting. It isn’t as though she’s a busy executive who signs a lot of paperwork & needs a shorter sig! The notary wouldn't necessarily care that her sig is different from before, he/she merely needs to verify her identity... which leads me to also wonder if we have proof the notary was present with Casey when she signed this paper or did Baez have someone notarize it after the fact. Big no-no if that was done, plus it gives Casey an out that she did not sign this paper.
:deal:

Good point. KC's signature has changed and many have speculated that as a chameleon she is copying JB's signature style. I noted the notary and wondered if that was legit, given that this would have been done in a meeting at the jail.

Still seems bizarre that KC added a handwritten note and JB allowed it.

 

[Bluebelle]

maybe baez is a notary?
or the jail probably has one on site. it would make sense.

The notary on this document is Allison L. Cochran and perhaps she accompanied Baez to the jail... Casey's visitor log will verify this. And the jail may have a notary available for inmate use, but why would taxpayers have to pay for an inmate's notary service? I would think defense lawyers are responsible for such things.

Either way, I hope someone verified that the notary was actually present for Casey's "signature" because otherwise the notarized statement is invalid.

Here is a copy of the document:
http://www.wftv.com/blank/18901013/detail.html

 

[TruthSeeker]

Can you give me a link to where the SA's made that statement because I can't find it in their filing?

I do not see any kind of personal attack on either CA or JB in the SA's filing. The SA is being smart to look at this now so that in the event CA is convicted at trial, that it cannot be overturned on appeal in the future based on a possible conflict of interest with her attorney. To me it seems that the SA is dotting every i and crossing every t to ensure that CA gets a fair trial, with her choice of counsel, which will have no grounds for appeal further down the road. Have you read the SA filing on this?

http://www.wftv.com/blank/18900094/detail.html

To quote from the SA document:

"The State is not requesting that, based upon the findings of this inquiry, the court block counsel's representation of the Defendant. We have no interest in interfering with the Defendant's right to counsel of her choice. It is important at this juncture that the court establish on the record the nature of the financial agreements, the exact source of funds, the Defendant's knowledge of those facts, the existance of any potential conflict of interest, and the Defendant's knowing and intelligent waiver of any such conflict. To fail to make this inquiry at this time is to invite future claims, whether spurious or not, of conflict of interest. The resulting lengthy and costly hearing years down the line, when memories and loyalties have changed, is an unecessary risk that can be avoided by a prompt and through inquiry now."

The SA is not asking for JB to be removed from the case, they just want to be sure that CA is 100% aware of all financial dealings and any possible resulting conflict. IMO for JB to make say that it is a personal attack by the SA against him is highly unprofessional on his part.

MOO, JMO, IMO

I have NEVER seen or heard of this being done in any other case in my life! I would like to see a document filed in another case that is like this one. Can anybody provide a link to one?

Casey is being charged for first degree murder. Her number 7 inclusion states she did not commit the crime she is being accused of. How does that mean that she can not now claim as her defense that this was an accident? (IF that is what she will claim).

I see a SA office trying very, very hard to get her counsel discredited. Why? Could it possibly be that he is not playing the normal games that go on between the prosecutors and defense attorneys where they haggle back and forth for a "reduced charge" and talk about what each will do in the trial? I suspect that Baez has not released any info to the prosecutor about how the defense will present their case. The politics in the judicial world is the same as in any other government setting.

I am waiting to see if the SA office will come out and say that they have not offered a plea deal. If they don't, that will be very telling.

Whoops, just saw where SA said they did not offer any "formal" plea deal. Guess that answers my question. Uh huh. Interesting that they used the word "formal".

 

[SoSueMe]

With all due respect, I strongly disagree. Again, motions in the official court record do not automatically, upon their filing, become "evidence" a juror will see. Same thing applies to notarized affidavits and documents attached to a motion.
Someone has to attempt to introduce them into evidence at trial - which remains to be seen. Ergo, the filing of this affidavit in Casey's handwriting does not, by itself, "open the door for the prosecution to cross-examine her." (Not saying I'd advise a client to do it, but all the same...)

Thank you Chezhire. I agree that this affidavit would not compel KC to testify (IMO).

As far as what the affidavit says, KC has not signed over her rights to her story to JB, but I don't think that means that he can't bring her offers and contracts for her to review and sign. Once the check comes in, he can simply have KC endorse it over to him and put it in his Trust Account to disperse to the various lawyers (including himself).

I also think there could have been verbal plea offers, just none of record. Isn't this done all the time? Sort of like, "what if we offered this....?"

As far as an appeal, get ready for it. I'm sure they already have an appellate attorney ready to sit in court with them or at the very least to read daily transcripts of the trial for that very reason.

JMO-Sue

 

[Tiki]

Thank you to all the posters here! :clap: :clap: :clap:

Having only one course in law under my belt - and that in legal issues in higher education - I am now able to watch the proceedings in this case with some knowledge.

This afternoon's hearing will be interesting, although, having taught Communication classes at the college level, it is extremely painful to listen to JB in action. :bang:

 

[faefrost]

With all due respect, I strongly disagree. Again, motions in the official court record do not automatically, upon their filing, become "evidence" a juror will see. Same thing applies to notarized affidavits and documents attached to a motion.
Someone has to attempt to introduce them into evidence at trial - which remains to be seen. Ergo, the filing of this affidavit in Casey's handwriting does not, by itself, "open the door for the prosecution to cross-examine her." (Not saying I'd advise a client to do it, but all the same...)

Granted as you say not all documents or filings would become evidence, or be used at trial. If her handwritten note had simply stated what her payment agreement with JB was it would not be a big deal. But in this handwritten, notarized, filing to the court, she personally spoke directly about the crime and her guilt or innocence (instead of talking about the actual question that was put forth concerning her lawyer). There is no way that is not being brought in to evidence. It's the whole "anything you say can and will be used against you". As others have said it is an attempt to testify without taking the stand. But I think in this case she probably really screwed herself.

 

[Lanie]

I have NEVER seen or heard of this being done in any other case in my life! I would like to see a document filed in another case that is like this one. Can anybody provide a link to one?

Casey is being charged for first degree murder. Her number 7 inclusion states she did not commit the crime she is being accused of. How does that mean that she can not now claim as her defense that this was an accident? (IF that is what she will claim).

I see a SA office trying very, very hard to get her counsel discredited. Why?

Snipped for space, bolded by me.
IMO, it is just what they say it is, they don't feel Baez is working in the best interest of his client. I feel the same way, and I don't have a law degree. I don't know if it is incompetence on his part, or ethical issues. My vote would be on the first, had he not gotten other attorneys involved. PI Hoover stated he witnessed Baez and Baden making out to the family it was uncustomary for the defense to not be allowed onto an active crime scene and to participate in the state's autopsy. Lawyers on here and also the little bit of research I did on this tells me this isn't true. If they are misleading the family, they could be misleading the client. It isn't a far stretch to suspect they are misleading the client for profit. ABC paid $200k for pics and videos, and also put George, Cindy, and posse up at the Ritz Hotel. A member of this site is writing a book on this case, and I doubt she is the only one. There is potentially a lot of money to be made. Had Baez convinced Casey to plead accident when this first came out, this would never have garnered the interest it currently has, so the question becomes, do they really think they can get her off, or are they just using her to make a small fortune. IMO, the woman killed her child, so she really doesn't deserve any better, however, our legal system says she does, and this could be grounds for a mistrial if it is true. IMO, it is disgustingly not fair for her to get to play this out twice, so I fully support whatever it takes for her to get a completely fair trial.
Lanie

 

[CPP]

The State Attorney claims that JB is not acting in KC's best interest because the SA believes that a confession is in her best interest and that she should not present her defense in court at trial. I guess every defense attorney who takes criminal cases to trial can be accused of the same as far as the State is concerned.

Well, too bad. Just because the State wants to convict KC the easy way doesnt' mean that she has to follow their strategy to put her in jail. She is entitled to force the SA to prove the State's case against her and to present a defense to the State's case. Because she refuses to let the SA determine her defense strategy, the SA is attacking her attorney. To me, this is beyond low. KC is right, they are making a mountain out of JB's payments or lack thereof because KC and JB won't succumb to pressure to plea.

She is not required to make it easy on the State.

Even if you hate her, she is still entitled to have the attorney of her choice represent her and it is not the State's duty to attack the attorney of choice. And if you ask me, the SA is responding this way because KC will not plea. So, the State is trying to take her attorney out of the picture. This goes against everything that is emodied in the right to counsel and a fair trial.

She is on trial, not JB.

The SA is as much entitled to express his opinion as anyone else connected to this case, including KC. That said, I think his point is that were he representing KC he would adviser her that sparing the community the cost of a trial might persuade the judge to sentence her anywhere from: 25 to life, or, life with possibility of parole.

A jury, upon hearing all the facts, may be less inclined, as may the judge at that point, whereupon KC's chances of ever leaving prison will disappear. Since there is no DP she may end up with Life.. without possibility of parole. She may spend much of that time appealing her sentence, but if the State's case is as strong as it appears to be, she hasn't a snowball's chance in Hell of winning. Her *advertiser censored* will be dragging on the floor behind her before she hits the bar scene again.

 

[cajun]

sigh, is this the hearing thread. the last 2 seemed to disappear