2011.01.06 Baez Slapped with Formal Sanction

[LiveLaughLuv]

IIRC, Dr. Lee did not find "17" hairs in the pontiac...I do believe it was only 1...but CSI person Bloise went back into the garbage bag found some more upon futher inspection...but Lee did not find 17!

I don't get how defense attorney's can lie as they do. Aren't they under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

Justice for Caylee

 

[knt]

I have heard from many reliable sources that CM has an outstanding reputation. I was lead to believe that he is a formidable opponent in court.

Is what we are seeing, now, typical of his past history? Does he always handle his cases this way? Or are we witnessing a drastic decline in his abilities to function ~ even at an acceptable level? I'm really worried that he might be very ill; I can't reconcile his current performance on this case with the prominence he seemed to hold when he first entered this case.

So, to those of you who are familiar with him and his past cases, do you believe what we are seeing now is just his typical bluff and bluster or are you, too, wondering if he's going through a serious, possibly mental, descent?

I've been wondering the same thing. I'm also really curious about the previous case(s) CM tried in front of Judge Perry. Wasn't there a DP case? What was the outcome?? I can't find anything on it.

 

[strawberry]

Ummm, why didn't they file this argument as a response to the State's motion for sanctions instead of waiting to actually be sanctioned? Not that it would have made a whit of difference since it is baseless (and base), but it would have been better than CM mumbling that he didn't know why JB didn't comply.

 

[watergirl]

I'm sorry, they must be down for maintenance. The whole Florida Bar site is down right now. Please check back.

These things happen when all the animals escape from the circus train...

Monkeys playing with the traffic signals, lions running down the produce aisle, elephants THWARTING traffic...

:crazy:

 

[Omachka]

1st paragraph BBM

ITA. Mason is playing with fire here. From what I could tell last hearing, he is threatening to challenge FRCP Rule 3.220 at the federal level. That rule of discovery is pretty darn clear to me. Quite the long shot, imo.

Mason is very PO'd that HHJP is holding their feet to the fire and forcing them to play fair. Mason doesn't take too kindly to any sort of authority. He likes to be in charge of the courtroom. Do whatever it takes - patronize 'em with flattery, intimidate 'em til they doubt themselves or baffle 'em with BS. I do believe he has met his match with Judge Perry and I think he knows it.

Mason is doing everything he can to keep this from going to trial in May.

I hope HHJP makes short order of this by slamming CM right along with JB with civil contempt and imposes the $500 per day fine.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but isn't a Motion to Reconsider most any ruling a required precursor to an appeal?... on the second bold, yes, I believe Mason has met his match. Judge Perry has been appealed before but never reversed. Perhaps Mason sees this as a sort of challenge??

 

[Intermezzo]

HHJP specifically asked Baez when he was one hour past the deadline did it occur to him to pick up the phone and ask for an extension and
Baez said he didn't think it would be an issue. So, IMO, I don't think it matters at this point if the 'courier' left at 8am that day and was in a terrible accident where he lost his arm and they included the arm on this motion as an attachment. IMO, Baez showed his contempt for the court when he stated he didn't think it mattered to obey a court order, and that's why he got slapped with sanctions.

BINGO! Lanie!!!
I believe Judge Perry would have given the Defense an extension, IF Baez had asked and gave a reasonable excuse....

Also, only some Discovery was due at Noon on the 14th of Dec the rest was due on Dec 23...
Baez had ONLY to file the ones for Dec 14th by Noon and the rest he had up until 3pm on Dec 23 to File....

The Defense is using the excuse that "in good faith" they were trying to compile EVERYTHING but they did not have to IF only they had followed the Order....Obviously Organization and Prioritizing Tasks is not their strong suit...

:twocents:

 

[Intermezzo]

I was just talking to a friend about him saying this! I think many took it that JB was only an hour late, but I knew and you can bet JP knew what he meant was when you were just even one hour late, what did you do. Answer - nothing! Much less when you were about 24 hours late!

I hope JP doesn't rule on this 'request' till Friday and does slap additional $500.00 on him and $500.00 per day to CM too. Plus, contempt would be nice - but I can almost guarantee he will with all his legal finesse rip them a new one.

Baez knew on the morning of Dec 14 2010, well before the Noon deadline, that He would not be able to get the file to the Clerk on time....

:twocents:

 

[beach]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but isn't a Motion to Reconsider most any ruling a required precursor to an appeal?... on the second bold, yes, I believe Mason has met his match. Judge Perry has been appealed before but never reversed. Perhaps Mason sees this as a sort of challenge??

BBM

I'm not sure if it is "required", but yes, it is a precursor. This isn't the first time CM has threatened to challenge a FL Rule at the federal level. Just another way of preserving the record for appeal.

It is kinda crazy to blatantly threaten a judge in open court though. "you can catch more flies with honey" and all that...

 

[Intermezzo]

Me either. All that blundering on about forty years and no sanctions, and now he hands HHJP a motion that basically says, "Please, I'm begging you, give me sanctions!" I don't get it at ALL.

40 years without sanctions...but there is always a FIRST TIME!

 

[Lanie]

Whoa, Mr. Mason went into some chapter here and it appears he is trying to set up another recusal from the bench...This is in rebuttal to the sanctions which Mr. Baez was shown to be in willful defiance. JB was asked in court if he thought of filing an extension, Baez replied sort of matter of factly (IMO) NO...end of story (but now the person delivering this was stuck in traffic :innocent. He missed his deadline by one day, had no real reason why and then this 23 pages of whinning, things aren't going their way, and again, IMO, His Honor appears very fair, he's given lots to the defense even without proper paperwork. This is the Chief Justice residing over that court and IIRC reading, he takes on troublesome cases and has never had a sentence he's handed out overturned on appeals. I have faith in our judicial system...

This trial is appearing to take on the appearnce of being a "personal" one, not one that is about a young woman who broke the law and is sitting accused of murder, IYKWIM! It also appears Mr. Mason might not know this is not against him, it's against the lead counsel...

All along he and his team on the ones who have gone on TV, media interviews, radio, when he should have said "no comment"..

I haven't read the entire document but just by scanning it, it's a doozie and if they can put that all in here (about experts being discussed in this doc) they should have done it right the first time for the SAs...again, just my most humble opinion.

To see a trial unfold first hand this way is very interesting, for me..I see what the state presents but I can't for the life of me figure out the other sides stance. It appears as if evidence of innocense is being created instead of refuting the evidence. History cannot be redone, it is what it is and I believe they should work with what they have, not put innocents in harms way or allow a guilty person free. That is NOT how our judicial system was structured......JMHO

I know wonder if this is the reason that retired Judge Eaton was in the courtroom...
Justice for Caylee

BBM

I agree, and though I don't remember when this was (but I'm sure one of my fab fellow WSers will be able to pull a clip of it out of thin air, how do you guys do this??) I clearly remember one of these hearings where Ashton was complaining about the defense's antics, and HHJP told him if he had a problem he should file a motion for sanctions. Seems to me HHJP may have been anticipating this, and wanted to make sure there was no doubt this disciplining of defense was done by the book.

 

[LiveLaughLuv]

Dr. Lee on Nancy Grace, November 17, 2008.

GRACE: I know. I`ve been missing you, Dr. Lee. It`s nice to hear your voice. So did the car still stink to high heaven when you examined it?

LEE: Yes, when I examine the car, it still have the odor.

GRACE: Now, Dr. Lee, your testimony has been extremely impressive in the past. No one will ever forget the various demonstrations that you have done in high-profile court cases. When you say it smelled, is it true the car smells of decomposition?

LEE: The smell -- actually, it`s a rotten smell. It`s caused by any type of decomposition. The definition of decomposition, anything. It can be any food material. Can be human body. Can be any type of thing, decomposition. So the terms decomposed, human body odor, I don`t think any scientist can qualify to say -- just smell the odor, say that`s a human body.

GRACE: Well, Dr. Henry Lee -- everyone, with us, he is on the Anthony defense team -- I know that you have the highest regard for the Oak Ridge Laboratories in Tennessee. I trained there myself for a period of time. According to them, and their -- their specialty unit, the "body farm," there was evidence of human decomposition. Would that be consistent with the smell that you smelled, Dr. Henry Lee?

LEE: Here, that`s -- you know, I`m a scientist. I only can address some scientific issue. I cannot speculate. Decomposition, because the trunk -- don`t forget, I looked at not only the car. Also looked at the liner, the carpet. Also looked at the content of the material. And I don`t know anybody informed me or not -- there are a lot of garbage was collected. A lot of material was collected from the trunk.

GRACE: Like what?

LEE: Like what? Like food, like meat, like pizza box, like cheese, like ham, box (ph) of soda, and all different material in there. So basically, a lot of maggots and a lot of insects, all kind of material mixed together. So I cannot really elaborate too much on what I found because this is an active case. I cannot really reach a conclusion at this moment.

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0811/17/ng.01.html


Page 36...Dr. Lee's inspection of Sunfire..

ONE HAIR FOUND
article 4 #H66336

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/3715615/CASEY_ANTHONY_FORENSIC_FILES-PART_002_JANUARY_21_09

On same page. CSI Bloise found 3 more H-66337
1 Hair from sprite soda can...2 hairs from coca cola can

on next page, CSI Bloise found more...

So, Dr. Lee truthfully found 1 hair and CSI Bloise found the others...boy can they stretch the truth...JMHO

Justice for Caylee

 

[LambChop]

IIRC, Dr. Lee did not find "17" hairs in the pontiac...I do believe it was only 1...but CSI person Bloise went back into the garbage bag found some more upon futher inspection...but Lee did not find 17!

I don't get how defense attorney's can lie as they do. Aren't they under oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

Justice for Caylee

Even more important than that is the fact that LE had not completed examining the contents in the bag (probably because they were interested in the napkin which appeared to have grave wax on it) and it was placed in a box until they could go through it. Letting Dr. Lee look at the contents was a courtesy they did not have to extend because they had not finished with the contents. For JB to say Dr. Lee found 17 hairs when he only found one has discredited Dr. Lee's credibility. Appears he has trouble in those areas. Dr. Lee stating he did not find something (fingernail) when it was observed he did and then saying he did find something (hairs) when it was observed he did not. This could be why Dr. Lee has refused to answer the State's calls about his deposition. So what was written in the motion that was supposedly quoted from the experts, I find hard to believe. That is why the reports are necessary. I think defense has put their own spin on things. jmo

 

[Macushla]

I hate to say this, but CM may have a point here. I have re read the motion a couple of times now:

From the Motion:

f. the prosecution (Mr. Ashton) responded on that same date asserting "The Court's Order required you to reveal "the substance" of the testimony of the witness. Such representation is inaccurate. See Exhibit "B" which required the defense to "...include the subject matter as to what the experts will testify to and the area of expertise for each expert.

Ok I think I got that word for word. So the argument put forth here is that substance and subject matter are two different things altogether, and I think he has a point. Subject matter would be what the botanist would testify to - plants at the scene, substance would be what the expert would say about the plants at the scene. So on this point, he is correct, in my opinion.

However, this point is moot because the last ruling by HHJP spelled out exactly what the defense had to produce - in writing. This is where the willful violation occurred and I got the impression the willful violation was the fact that the defense ignored HHJP's ruling as to the time the material was to be filed by. What I don't know is IF CM is correct in his stance that subject matter and substance are two different things and that they did, indeed, comply with the order, would that negate everything that followed, including the sanctions?

 

[TotallyObsessed]

YOWSERS - I did not see this new motion JB filed yesterday. I would not want to be standing next to him in the courtroom when this will be heard.

My other observation: how much time and money did JB expend to think up, and file this motion. Waaaay more than the $500+ sanction he was slapped with.

It is so very clear that JB simply does not get (1) the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure regarding discovery and (2) the real issue here...his client is facing the death penalty. It's really not about you, JB.

 

[ZsaZsa]

Well, HHJP has LOTS of experience too. I can't remember specifics, but I think he's been a judge at least what, forty years? thirty years? I think Cheney Mason is going up to bat against the wrong judge here. I have faith that HHJP is not going to fall for these games, and he already hinted that he doesn't mind trying this twice. I think that was a hint that he doesn't care what games Mason plays, Mason is not going to win this time. If Mason is trying to go out on a bang, he's going to find out that bang is his illustrious career blowing up in his face.

Remember that HHJP presided over the Grand Jury though, so he does already know quite a bit about ICA and probably has already assessed CM's chances of succeeding with this one.... he's not going to let him BS his way along. He has already corrected him several times, interrupted him when he was wandering off subject, that tells me there is only going to be one person in charge of this Courtroom and that will be HHBP.

 

[ZsaZsa]

Dr. Lee on Nancy Grace, November 17, 2008.

GRACE: I know. I`ve been missing you, Dr. Lee. It`s nice to hear your voice. So did the car still stink to high heaven when you examined it?

LEE: Yes, when I examine the car, it still have the odor.

GRACE: Now, Dr. Lee, your testimony has been extremely impressive in the past. No one will ever forget the various demonstrations that you have done in high-profile court cases. When you say it smelled, is it true the car smells of decomposition?

LEE: The smell -- actually, it`s a rotten smell. It`s caused by any type of decomposition. The definition of decomposition, anything. It can be any food material. Can be human body. Can be any type of thing, decomposition. So the terms decomposed, human body odor, I don`t think any scientist can qualify to say -- just smell the odor, say that`s a human body.

GRACE: Well, Dr. Henry Lee -- everyone, with us, he is on the Anthony defense team -- I know that you have the highest regard for the Oak Ridge Laboratories in Tennessee. I trained there myself for a period of time. According to them, and their -- their specialty unit, the "body farm," there was evidence of human decomposition. Would that be consistent with the smell that you smelled, Dr. Henry Lee?

LEE: Here, that`s -- you know, I`m a scientist. I only can address some scientific issue. I cannot speculate. Decomposition, because the trunk -- don`t forget, I looked at not only the car. Also looked at the liner, the carpet. Also looked at the content of the material. And I don`t know anybody informed me or not -- there are a lot of garbage was collected. A lot of material was collected from the trunk.

GRACE: Like what?

LEE: Like what? Like food, like meat, like pizza box, like cheese, like ham, box (ph) of soda, and all different material in there. So basically, a lot of maggots and a lot of insects, all kind of material mixed together. So I cannot really elaborate too much on what I found because this is an active case. I cannot really reach a conclusion at this moment.

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0811/17/ng.01.html


Page 36...Dr. Lee's inspection of Sunfire..

ONE HAIR FOUND
article 4 #H66336

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/3715615/CASEY_ANTHONY_FORENSIC_FILES-PART_002_JANUARY_21_09

On same page. CSI Bloise found 3 more H-66337
1 Hair from sprite soda can...2 hairs from coca cola can

on next page, CSI Bloise found more...

So, Dr. Lee truthfully found 1 hair and CSI Bloise found the others...boy can they stretch the truth...JMHO

Justice for Caylee

He was already on the defense 'payroll' when she was asking these questions, so he was not going to give straight answers. :innocent:

 

[TotallyObsessed]

Observation: If the defense had provided what is contained in this filing by CM and team in rebuttal to the sanctions, there would not have been sanctions. Day late, dollar short.....or $500+ dollars short.

 

[snowshuze]

:thud:

Is it Friday yet?

 

[beach]

It is going to be interesting to see if Casey is ordered to appear at what was supposed to be a status hearing Friday. I think HHJP would want her there if this motion is going to be argued. Not sure, just seems like a good idea to me....

 

[Lanie]

I hate to say this, but CM may have a point here. I have re read the motion a couple of times now:

From the Motion:

f. the prosecution (Mr. Ashton) responded on that same date asserting "The Court's Order required you to reveal "the substance" of the testimony of the witness. Such representation is inaccurate. See Exhibit "B" which required the defense to "...include the subject matter as to what the experts will testify to and the area of expertise for each expert.

Ok I think I got that word for word. So the argument put forth here is that substance and subject matter are two different things altogether, and I think he has a point. Subject matter would be what the botanist would testify to - plants at the scene, substance would be what the expert would say about the plants at the scene. So on this point, he is correct, in my opinion.

However, this point is moot because the last ruling by HHJP spelled out exactly what the defense had to produce - in writing. This is where the willful violation occurred and I got the impression the willful violation was the fact that the defense ignored HHJP's ruling as to the time the material was to be filed by. What I don't know is IF CM is correct in his stance that subject matter and substance are two different things and that they did, indeed, comply with the order, would that negate everything that followed, including the sanctions?

I just have to throw my non-legal opinion in here on this one.

IMO, this is what law school and having to pass a bar exam to be an attorney is all about.

If a trial can't take place without the attorneys involved being required to have a basic understanding of the rules and procedures that have to be followed, then our judicial system would shut down.

IIRC, it was all the way back to when Judge Strickland was presiding over this case when the rules of the court involving reciprocol discovery were discussed. Basically it was, the defense chose what kind of trial to have, they chose discovery based, so the State has to show what they have, AND so does the Defense.

As a layperson, I completely understood what was said, and I also understood what the state was asking for in their motion to compel, so I don't buy 2 people with law degrees didn't get it.