Answered in part above.
I did want to add that sanctions in the form of excluding the offending party's evidence are, of course, possible. However, I think HHJP will not exclude any of the defense experts, because he has shown a clear desire not to let KC's attorneys' antics affect her substantive rights.
No one is going to get thrown off the case.
Hi!
Question: Would an attorney conspire against his own partner in a case? To change the outcome from a trial to a plea?
My Theory: I believe Mason is doing this on two fronts. First, he appears to not be helping JB with the expert information that has been repeatedly requested of them and now compelled from them. Sanctions will likely happen against the Defense. It is my contention that Mason wants JB to be embarrassed in front of his client. Possibly removed from the situation to allow him to work a bit on KC in private.
On the second front, we have the slew of motions from the Defense. HHJP will rule on this on January 3rd as noted in the press. Likely, HHJP will also take on the sanctions on this day as well. We all agree that HHJP is likely to exclude or preclude some information about KC's lays and lies and other things. But obviously not all. Some of the information the Proscecution may not want to even use at trial and so they may not object. Other pieces of information that they believe is critical they will fight for. ICA will be sitting in the courtroom the entire time her "lovely" past is brought up. All 6 motions will be heard in the same day. This lass will get another taste of what a TRIAL is going to be like. I think Mason is hoping that KC might see JB being sanctioned and the bringing out of a lot of her dirty laundry as embarrassing and possibly not worth the risk of losing. Maybe Mason thinks that ICA will be primed for him to deal with?
I know that the Defense is always going to try and do all it can. But by all accounts, Mason and HHJP are good friends outside of work. They supposedly hang out and play golf with one another. Mason would have no benefit in getting chastized and delaying in getting documents out...because HHJP knows Mason is capable of creating and filing legible motions in a timely manner and complying with the Orders of the court...I can only surmise that this is all a strategy on Mason's part to get JB out of the picture so that he can work on KC without too many distractions and get a plea...
Otherwise, Mason is not very involved in the case at all...and doesn't care, is senile or a substance abuser...because I don't think any of those are true...or that he is a bad irresponsible attorney incapable of complying with an Order of the Court, it has to be that he is trying to kick JB to the curb, albeit with his good friend, HHJP's help. JMO. Is this logical? Make sense at all?
First, I should say that I haven't seen anything confirming the supposed friendship between Mason and HHJP. Quite honestly they don't seem to have compatible personalities lol. But I haven't looked for a link or anything.
It would not be an automatic conflict of interest in any event. If HHJP felt that he would be affected by the friendship to the point that he couldn't be fair, I assume he would have recused himself. IMO even if he felt he could be fair, he should have disclosed the friendship (if it exists) in case the SA wanted to object. The fact that I don't recall him making any such disclosure is one reason I question whether there is any close friendship between him and Mason.
In a small town, standards would be different. There are outlying counties in AZ where relationships between judges and counsel that would certainly be disclosed and probably lead to recusal in Phoenix would be accepted without question, because there just aren't enough judges to allow them to recuse themselves every time their buddies have a case.
I expect the State to argue the same as they did at the death penalty hearing i.e. that Caylee was smothered by the duct tape which is a prolonged, cruel, cold, calculated and painful death justifying imposition of the death penalty against Casey.
I agree that Tim can't testify about what other people knew or were about to do. However, Tim can testify about what he actually observed i.e. Geoge put a map in front of Casey, George handed Casey a pen, George told Casey to mark an x on the map where Casey thought they should start searching, Casey said OK, Casey leaned towards the map, Casey reached towards the map with her hand containing the pen, Cindy entered the room shouting and took the pen away from Casey, and so forth. The defense can dispute Tim's description of what happened by presenting their own witnesses like George and Cindy who will say that never happened, but IMO everything Tim saw Casey say/do (plus hearsay statements admitted for their effect on the listener rather than the truthfulness of the hearsay statements) is fair game.
I believe you have the deadline correct, but IIRC the motion was to introduce Kronk's "prior bad acts" into evidence, not to suggest that he was a suspect. In any event, the defense can attempt to do one or both of those things at trial without filing a motion first, if they want. I imagine there will be objections, of course.
AZlawyer said:
