Motion to Take Deposition to Perpetuate Testimony of Jill Kerley

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Mar 17, 2009
Messages
3,720
Reaction score
-33
Motion to Take Deposition to Perpetuate Testimony of Jill Kerley
http://www.wftv.com/pdf/22313192/detail.html

What do you think of this? They are saying that Ms. Kerley is ill and can not or will not travel to testify at the trial, so they want to take her deposition now and have that introduced at trial.

The defense admits they have no evidence against Mr. Kronk, only a theory that he should have been investigated. They could say the same about Joy, or mom or pop or anyone and then bring in someone from their distant past to find similarities somehow to the crime. I hope the judge does not even entertain this motion.

.
When the defense argued their motion to dismiss, Mrs. Drane Burdick argued that the defense counsel stating facts in a motion does not meet the legal requirement in Florida, so why are they doing the same thing here? I am not a lawyer but it seems to defy common sense that they keep repeating the same errors. Do they think that by simply alleging that a witness is unavailable the trial court must grant the motion to perpetuate testimony? Even without a law library , one can google the rule they cite and see that prior to perpetuating the testimony of a witness, the moving party must demonstrate that the witness is unavailable:

Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(j)(6) requires more than a perfunctory attempt. While the question of how far a party must go to satisfy the requirements of the rule will be susceptible to different answers depending on the circumstances of each case, the party offering the deposition must show it has exercised due diligence.

I am thinking, at a minimum they should attach sworn statements from her doctors setting out that to travel to Florida would endanger her health, or she is terminal and not expected to live until the trial date....something...., anything rather than just the lawyer stating it. Help me out guys...what am I not getting? Are there parts of the document missing? If anyone has them could you please post them for me? Did the judge rule on the defense motion in limine? Thanks in advance!

reference:
Pope v. State, 441 So. 2d 1073, 1076 (Fla. 1983).
See McMillon v. State, 552 So. 2d 1183 (4th DCA 1989)
Hernandeez v. State, 608 So. 2d 916 (3dr DCA 1992)
the Uniform Act To Secure the Attendance of Witnesses From Without a State in Criminal Proceedings
Arizona v. Ratzlaff, 552 P.2d 461 (1976)
blog.richardhornsby.com/.../in-defense-of-the-casey-anthony-defense/
www.wesh.com/download/2009/1120/21678734.pdf


I am not asking to be a smart Alec. I honestly do not understand. If Kronk had been convicted for any crimes she alleges, that would be one thing, but just to go on the word of ex wife...I do not see it. If she were allowed to testify, wouldn't the state insist they had the right to cross examine her and if so..... could they ask her if she had ever been convicted of a felony and was it for a crime of dishonesty?[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ae5J_ObjkTw[/ame]

I love when Mrs. Drane Burdick argues in her calm manner, "This doesn't even come close.....it is a farce!"

You just can't make this stuff up!! I think the state is going to mop the floor with this nonsense.
 
Sounds like a pretty cheap shot to me. Are they afraid the Prosecution will expose this witness for what she really is...
 
Why do I get the feeling that Kerley has just told the defense that she'll give them a statement, but she won't go to Florida to testify in the trial. And, that the defense is trying to somehow trying to figure out how they can work this? I've not seen any official documents that indicate an illness or health concern that would prevent Kerley from traveling (and she looked quite nice in her video). I've not seen any official document to corroborate the statements (like a conviction record) that she made in that highly edited video that is on YouTube. And how long ago has this bitter ex last had any contact with Kronk? And, if Kerley really thought that Kronk was a murderer, why didn't she contact LE in Florida? Why did she wait for someone to contact her?
 
Am I really losing it? I thought the reason they were asking for her testimony now is because she has cancer and might die before the trial?
She looked pretty robust in her video so I'd like to see some medical backup if the defense is claiming this is actually true.
 
The World According, I agree with this statement of yours:

"The defense admits they have no evidence against Mr. Kronk, only a theory that he should have been investigated. They could say the same about Joy, or mom or pop or anyone and then bring in someone from their distant past to find similarities somehow to the crime. I hope the judge does not even entertain this motion."

BBM It would be outrageous to allow this as any kind of evidence against RK. This is, afterall, a court of law. IMHO, what Jill Kerley has to say is just mean gossip about an ex. I can't believe defense is allowed to use such tactics.
 
This probably is NOT the correct thread but: it is a VERY GOOD thing that academic institutions do not have a routine mechanism to invoke a "recall" of diplomas or degrees based on oh, shall we say, SHEER STUPIDITY!

This case ALONE would cause a flood of paper, all the way down to Baez's pre-k certificate!
 
I see this as nothing more than a motion to check off the list. In an appeals process they must prove that there was information that they felt would help the case....yet they were denied access to it. If they don't ask and get denied, then this argument can not be used later. They must request it and be told "no" in order to meet certain requirements for the appeals process. By doing so........they will have already set iup the argument that this info could have impacted the outcome of the case.

Please see the article published by AL here [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4719574&postcount=157"]http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4719574&postcount=157[/ame]

This is IMO a typical action taken to protect you in the appeals process.


Lawyers??????
 
Jill Kerley is a TERRIBLE witness according to what I've seen of her. She will be destroyed on cross and this is why the defense doesn't want her testifying in open court, IMO.
 
BBM It would be outrageous to allow this as any kind of evidence against RK. This is, afterall, a court of law. IMHO, what Jill Kerley has to say is just mean gossip about an ex. I can't believe defense is allowed to use such tactics.
I think this just proves what little they have for a defense. There is no evidence that ties RK to killing Caylee. I'd like the defense to explain just when he used Casey's car, and when he was inside the Anthony's house to take the Pooh blanket, the rare duct tape, the laundry bag, and so forth. Of course they can't do that, so now they're asking that the deposition from a scorned wife be allowed at trial to "prove" RK has a murderous mentality and a history of using duct tape on her. Good grief. :banghead: MOO
 
Jill Kerley is a TERRIBLE witness according to what I've seen of her. She will be destroyed on cross and this is why the defense doesn't want her testifying in open court, IMO.
Well unless she's actually on her deathbed, there's no reason why she couldn't be in the courtroom for cross-examination. That's how our system of justice works! MOO
 
If she felt she was on her deathbed and hates RK what would be the point of telling the truth. She certainly looks bitter considering all these years. She should have gotten over their marriage by now and gone on with her life. If I were SA I would want a lie detector test. If she refused she probably is not telling the truth.
 
This makes me laugh,it reminds me a bit of Rosa Lopez of the OJ Simpson trial. Shes was the former maid that the defense had to hurry up and put her on stand because she had a plane reservation for that day to go back to El Salvador. The airlines was called and there was no reservation to be found....BUSTED!! LOL!
 
Sorry off topic. Trying to get on the WFTV Exclusive thread but it goes to a Fatal Error page. Anybody???
 
I see this as nothing more than a motion to check off the list. In an appeals process they must prove that there was information that they felt would help the case....yet they were denied access to it. If they don't ask and get denied, then this argument can not be used later. They must request it and be told "no" in order to meet certain requirements for the appeals process. By doing so........they will have already set iup the argument that this info could have impacted the outcome of the case.

Please see the article published by AL here http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4719574&postcount=157

This is IMO a typical action taken to protect you in the appeals process.


Lawyers??????

Thank you for reminding us. In retrospect this motion is right on par with so many, many of the others. Even if, for an abundance of caution, the judge allows it, the good taxpayers of the jury are not fools....this wont pass the laugh test. In fact, they may get wholly offended that the defense is insulting their intelligence once they start trying to make them forget the colorful ZFG story, blame this on Kronk and disparage good, good people of TES, Jesse, Amy, Ricardo ,at al. Then the defense will have no credibility and even when their experts take the stand about the forensics...the jury will despise these folks so that they cannot believe anything coming from that side. Yes, now that I think it through...let 'em have at it. The juries here in Texas would be unanimous..."Get A Rope!" LOL!

Thank you again Sleuthontheside for the wonderful work you have done to bring us all of AL articles and tapes. It is very interesting to know why she does what she does. Indeed. I understand that she must file motions, what I do not understand is why they are so poorly prepared.
 
Motion to Take Deposition to Perpetuate Testimony of Jill Kerley
http://www.wftv.com/pdf/22313192/detail.html

What do you think of this? I was not familiar with this, so I looked up case law in Florida regarding this....and it does not seem the defense has met the requirements to even bring this motion. They are saying that Ms. Kerley is ill and can not or will not travel to testify at the trial, so they want to take her deposition now and have that introduced at trial.

The defense admits they have no evidence against Mr. Kronk, only a theory that he should have been investigated. They could say the same about Joy, or mom or pop or anyone and then bring in someone from their distant past to find similarities somehow to the crime. I hope the judge does not even entertain this motion.

What I am perplexed about is how in the world they are asking to obtain testimony in a depo that the state will not be able to cross examine in front of a jury, with nothing to back up their request.
When the defense argued their motion to dismiss, Mrs. Drane Burdick argued that the defense counsel stating facts in a motion does not meet the legal requirement in Florida, so why are they doing the same thing here? I am not a lawyer but it seems to defy common sense that they keep repeating the same errors. Do they think that by simply alleging that a witness is unavailable the trial court must grant the motion to perpetuate testimony? Even without a law library , one can google the rule they cite and see that prior to perpetuating the testimony of a witness, the moving party must demonstrate that the witness is unavailable:

Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.190(j)(6) requires more than a perfunctory attempt. While the question of how far a party must go to satisfy the requirements of the rule will be susceptible to different answers depending on the circumstances of each case, the party offering the deposition must show it has exercised due diligence.

I am thinking, at a minimum they should attach sworn statements from her doctors setting out that to travel to Florida would endanger her health, or she is terminal and not expected to live until the trial date....something, anything rather than just the lawyer stating it. Help me out guys...what am I not getting? Are there parts of the document missing? If anyone has them could you please post them for me? Did the judge rule on the defense motion in limine? Thanks in advance!

reference:
Pope v. State, 441 So. 2d 1073, 1076 (Fla. 1983).
See McMillon v. State, 552 So. 2d 1183 (4th DCA 1989)
Hernandeez v. State, 608 So. 2d 916 (3dr DCA 1992)
the Uniform Act To Secure the Attendance of Witnesses From Without a State in Criminal Proceedings
Arizona v. Ratzlaff, 552 P.2d 461 (1976)
blog.richardhornsby.com/.../in-defense-of-the-casey-anthony-defense/
www.wesh.com/download/2009/1120/21678734.pdf


I am not asking to be a smart Alec. I honestly do not understand. If Kronk had been convicted for any crimes she alleges, that would be one thing, but just to go on the word of ex wife...I do not see it. If she were allowed to testify, wouldn't the state insist they had the right to cross examine her and if so..... could they ask her if she had ever been convicted of a felony and was it for a crime of dishonesty?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ae5J_ObjkTw

I love when Mrs. Drane Burdick argues in her calm manner, "This doesn't even come close.....it is a farce!"

You just can't make this stuff up!! I think the state is going to mop the floor with this nonsense.

I am completely confused. Just yesterday WESH had a report that she is going to testify on Monday!:waitasec:

ETA Link:

http://www.wesh.com/news/22315979/detail.html

This article at link seems to contradict itself. Strange.
 
The World According, I agree with this statement of yours:

"The defense admits they have no evidence against Mr. Kronk, only a theory that he should have been investigated. They could say the same to find similarities somehow to the crime. I hope the judge does not even entertain this motion."

BBM It would be outrageous to allow this as any kind of evidence against RK. This is, afterall, a court of law. IMHO, what Jill Kerley has to say is just mean gossip about an ex. I can't believe defense is allowed to use such tactics.

------------
CuriousMe, this is exactlyhow I feel.If I were on a jury and this was presented to me I would put NO stock in it. It could well be a case of ex getting "even". I would love to know how they would explain Kronk having access to KC's car! This only proves they have nothing towards her innosence (sp)..:croc:
 
------------
CuriousMe, this is exactlyhow I feel.If I were on a jury and this was presented to me I would put NO stock in it. It could well be a case of ex getting "even". I would love to know how they would explain Kronk having access to KC's car! This only proves they have nothing towards her innosence (sp)..:croc:

Right Nore! They have nothing towards her inner sense or her innocence!
Can't wait to hear her plead "GUILTY, your honor!"
 
The World According, I agree with this statement of yours:

"The defense admits they have no evidence against Mr. Kronk, only a theory that he should have been investigated. They could say the same about Joy, or mom or pop or anyone and then bring in someone from their distant past to find similarities somehow to the crime. I hope the judge does not even entertain this motion."

BBM It would be outrageous to allow this as any kind of evidence against RK. This is, afterall, a court of law. IMHO, what Jill Kerley has to say is just mean gossip about an ex. I can't believe defense is allowed to use such tactics.

This is the point. It is fine to investigate RK as long as their is fair play across these other actors since the only basis they have against RK is just ex-Wife gossip and the fact he found Caylee -- for others, such as JW she went to that area 11+ times according to her AND had access to the A's. She has a LOT stronger connection and thus a higher potential than RK.

I think the Defense are just using RK as a scapegoat to malign and try to create reasonable doubt. Desperate when Kerley is about it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
70
Guests online
638
Total visitors
708

Forum statistics

Threads
589,921
Messages
17,927,686
Members
228,002
Latest member
zipperoni
Back
Top