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.