JBaez requests Ex Parte Hearing with Judge Strickland

[Starfish]

I think its totally unfair that the prosecution has to lay all their cards on the table while the defense hides theirs! All our laws are perfectly groomed for the bad guys! How in the heck did THAT happen?????

 

[Chezhire]

This reminds me that in an earlier hearing to compel documents from the SA, which the SA didn't "have" to produce at that time, specifically records from the FBI, and he kept complaining to Judge Strickland that he needed to SA to send a letter to the FBI saying that the SA had no objection to his request, but Judge Strickland said that without a letter from the FBI in response to JBaez's written request that said what JBaez was arguing, he wouldn't take any action. Judge Strickland has already told JBaez once, in open court, that he has to go through the hoops first and THEN come to him.

 

[JSR]

He probably doesn't want it made public that he is going to throw the Anthony family, in particular Cindy, under the bus. Casey would lose their support prior to the trial.

That's an interesting point. Although, I tend to disagree on one point you mentioned. I don't think Casey would lose the support of her family if she did indeed attempt to throw them all under the bus. I don't think Cindy would turn her back on her. Actually I think Cindy would relish becoming the ultimate martyr.

 

[JSR]

It would seem to me that if he needs to get records that can't be retrieved thru discovery, is it relevent to the case? And, doesn't he need to share the info with the prosecution...even his strategy??

The defense does not need to share their strategy with the SA, but they do need to hand over any discovery they have regarding the case. This includes any emails or communications with experts etc. Although that can be circumvented by just verbally communicating with experts. Many times we avoid written communication knowing full well that any such communication is discoverable.

 

[Chezhire]

A motion entitled "Ex Parte Motion For.....[insert yadda yadda here]" are routinely provided for from state to state. The whole point is that there are certain things that may be handled without a hearing of any kind, meaning that they're drafted up, and presented to the judge - and then you leave. There's absolutely NO discussion with the judge about them. This request by JBaez though is NOT for a simple ruling on a motion he's presenting to the judge on an ex parte basis - he's specifically asking to meet with the judge ex parte for the purpose of having a discussion out of the presence of the SA, et., etc.

 

[Chezhire]

The defense does not need to share their strategy with the SA, but they do need to hand over any discovery they have regarding the case. This includes any emails or communications with experts etc. Although that can be circumvented by just verbally communicating with experts. Many times we avoid written communication knowing full well that any such communication is discoverable.

Problem here is that if they want to discuss something with the judge that they don't want the SA to hear b/c it's their "strategy," then they shouldn't be discussing it with the judge either.

 

[Searchfortruth]

I doubt this is going to fly, whatever the discussion the prosecution should be there, and visa versa.

 

[amethyst221]

Can't he subpoena the information he seeks that LE/OSCO/SA does not have, or is he essentially trying to secretly subpoena information?

That was exactly my response. He can get things from the prosecution through discovery. He can independently build his own case by the use of subpoenas to compel witnesses to give depositions or to get documents. He seems to want to do so in private so the other side can't know his theory of the case. Why would the judge do this? Can he get an exception to reciprocal discovery?

 

[JSR]

Problem here is that if they want to discuss something with the judge that they don't want the SA to hear b/c it's their "strategy," then they shouldn't be discussing it with the judge either.

You are correct. I've scanned the case law you cited. Again, not factually similar, but still speaks volumes. I can't reasonably think this ex parte will be granted. In my humble opinion, pigs will fly before it's granted. So far Strickland has bended over backwards to keep the record squeaky clean and I can't imagine him taking a chance on this ex parte.

 

[MADJGNLAW]

:waitasec:I am ignorant when it comes to FL Law, but this just doesn't sound right. How would that even be fair? Strategy is one thing. But keeping information from the SA is underhanded IMO. Wouldn't that cause problems for the SA's case? What if it was the other way around? I just don't get. Maybe he wants to get DNA from Caylee's bio-father that is out of state and try and point the finger at him? So...confused.

 

[Starfish]

Do you think it'll happen Chezhire?

 

[tiredblondy]

Hi guys, I just got here...so you may have already discussed this but do you think it is the FBI files?

 

[tiredblondy]

Also surely they would record the meeting...by stenographer or something!!! if it were to occur????

 

[chefmom]

This is yet another ring added to the KC and Company Multi-Ring Circus. This seems totally unfair for him to request this meeting. If he is seeking files from the FBI or any other out of state agency, he has already been told by the judge that he must first send a request to these agencies for any docs he wants from them. Of course, he wanted the SA to do it for him. If he is seeking to view files that he is not entitled to at this point, then he is just way out of line. Any discussion about the case and the evidence shouldn't be had without the SA there. Don't know where he is going with this. Unbelievable.

 

[JSR]

Hi guys, I just got here...so you may have already discussed this but do you think it is the FBI files?

No, I don't. I think it's some other entity. And JB DOES not what the SA to know what that entity is yet. If it were to get the FBI files there would be NO need to have a hearing w/o the SA present.

 

[Sunshine52]

I guess I'm trying to figure out what he wants that he would want to keep secret not just from the state but from being disclosed to anyone including the public and media???

My best guess is a subpoena for someone...a mystery witness
he wants to dispose???

A mystery person he wants to throw under the bus that could break the whole case???

Does he just want to whine again about not getting discovery or being able to obtain documents from outside entities???

Does he want Strickland to do his work for him again???

He reminds me of Bif in Back to the Future...LOL

 

[Chezhire]

Do you think it'll happen Chezhire?

I've been looking at www.myorangeclerk.com to see the filing, and it's not up on the website as of yet:

All I see are the following:
SNIPPED: http://www.myorangeclerk.com/mycler...b8-526e-4aac-b09d-a895c6578e17&CaseID=6079536
"...3/25/2009 A ORDER STATE'S MOTION TO DETERMINE POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND WAIVER - COURT FINDS NO CONFLICT EXISTS
3/26/2009 A NOTICE TAKING DEPO FILED
3/26/2009 A NOTICE TAKING DEPO FILED
3/26/2009 A NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION UPON ORAL EXAMINATION
3/26/2009 A ORDER REGARDING SECOND STATEMENT / TRANSCRIPT OF DOMINIC CASEY
3/27/2009 A AMENDED NOTICE TAKING DEPOSITION UPON ORAL EXAMINATION FILED
3/27/2009 A AMENDED NOTICE TAKING DEPO FILED
3/27/2009 A NOTICE TAKING DEPO FILED
3/31/2009 A AMENDED NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION UPON ORAL EXAMINATION
3/31/2009 A AMENDED NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION UPON ORAL EXAMINATION "

I'd really like to read the motion. Without the benefit of it, and with what's being reported, I'd guess that JBaez's motion will be denied.

 

[MAMABEAR]

HfWelcome%2f53%2fdefault.wl&ifm=NotSet&cfid=1&rs=WLW9.03[/url]

Again, not factually on point, but it tells us a bit about what is considered an administrative reason, which as of yet does NOT include the defense attorney's "need" to discuss with the trial judge how to obtain information he claims he cannot obtain on his own. Looks more and more to me that this discussion JB wants to have with the judge in private will have to be heard with the SA present or not at all, just as it would were this case being tried in LA.

Snipped:
First of all----------Thank You so much for puttin stuff here in a way those of us can understand the legal stuff. I love how "smart" you are. also all you other smart ones here. :blowkiss:

If I get this right (and I probably don't---but try) dude wants to talk "with" the Judge-----all by himself--------just him and the Judge. HMMMMMMMM

I am hoping and Praying raying: this Judge has smarts! OK. Is JB:
1. Bump the dude off?
2. Is this the diversion to break KC out of jail? The Press will be at the Court House.
3. Bribe the dude?
4. Put the "Make" on the Judge.
5. goin to later say--------that he had a deal with the Judge so they have to let KC go?

He has to get this Judge on his side somehow. LB probably told him he has to kISS :behind: big time because he doesn't know how to "work" a Judge and he has really ripped his britches. This is the same as CA puttin her hand on somebody's leg to control their words and thoughts---------only maybe JB really thinks he can C-H-A-R-M the Judge if he doesn't have e-body watching. Hey. I got his #

 

[cajun]

Hi guys, I just got here...so you may have already discussed this but do you think it is the FBI files?

Those and those from the 'body farm' in TN. the state already said they can't compel them to turn over info since they are a 3rd party and JB was told more than once that he needed to do his own work and subpoena those entities for what he needed..

Poor Judge Strickland, I bet his face all scrunches up every time a motion from JB crosses his desk.

 

[Chezhire]

So, I called the Orlando Sentinel and asked for Sarah Lundy, the author of the article I'd snipped from, and asked her how she got a copy of this motion, since it wasn't online as of yet. She said she had to physically go to the courthouse to get it, that she didn't realize it had been filed 'til she went looking. I asked her to put it on the Orlando Sentinel's website, and she said she'd try, but she said she wouldn't promise it. She says it's only one page total - JBaez lists 5 points (NO LAW - no surprise there, eh???) on why he should get this hearing: "...he's in search for the truth...he's needing to subpoena things...items cannot be obtained through normal discovery through Rule 3.220, FL rule..."