Motion to Take Deposition to Perpetuate Testimony of Jill Kerley

Discussion in 'Caylee Anthony 2 years old' started by The World According, Jan 23, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. The World According

    The World According Inactive

    Messages:
    3,722
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  2. Loading...


  3. Spookydancer

    Spookydancer New Member

    Messages:
    58
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sounds like a pretty cheap shot to me. Are they afraid the Prosecution will expose this witness for what she really is...
     
  4. Sun

    Sun Member

    Messages:
    783
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    18
    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?
     
  5. logicalgirl

    logicalgirl Peace Hawk

    Messages:
    16,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  6. kiki the parrot

    kiki the parrot Former Member

    Messages:
    4,481
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
  7. Curious Me

    Curious Me Long-Time Member

    Messages:
    11,554
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    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.
     
  8. joypath

    joypath Active Member

    Messages:
    1,605
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    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!
     
  9. sleutherontheside

    sleutherontheside Retired WS Staff

    Messages:
    9,875
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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??????
     
  10. autumnlover

    autumnlover New Member

    Messages:
    410
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  11. panthera

    panthera Retired WS Staff

    Messages:
    26,409
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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
     
  12. panthera

    panthera Retired WS Staff

    Messages:
    26,409
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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
     
  13. LambChop

    LambChop Former Member

    Messages:
    21,160
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  14. capps

    capps New Member

    Messages:
    2,970
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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!
     
  15. noonie

    noonie New Member

    Messages:
    558
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sorry off topic. Trying to get on the WFTV Exclusive thread but it goes to a Fatal Error page. Anybody???
     
  16. The World According

    The World According Inactive

    Messages:
    3,722
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  17. cloud9

    cloud9 New Member

    Messages:
    1,873
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  18. denjet

    denjet New Member

    Messages:
    919
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
  19. Nore

    Nore New Member

    Messages:
    6,586
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ------------
    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:
     
  20. Schmerty_Jones

    Schmerty_Jones ________________ Even if you're on the right

    Messages:
    2,793
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Right Nore! They have nothing towards her inner sense or her innocence!
    Can't wait to hear her plead "GUILTY, your honor!"
     
  21. cyberborg

    cyberborg Seeking Justice for Victims

    Messages:
    5,256
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice