Hark the Judge Reserves a Ruling
Tuesday, December 21, 2010 at 4:58PM Yesterday, a hearing was held in courtroom 19D, four flights down from the main attraction on the 23rd floor. That courtroom is undergoing renovations at the moment. 19D is familiar because that’s where Judge Strickland held many of the hearings while bench pressing Casey Anthony and her many motions, too many to repeat here. What’s interesting to note is that he did the bulk of the work, meaning that he heard and ruled on the majority of motions filed in this case so far, # 2008-CF-015606-A-O.
I generally leave about an hour-and-a-half before the hearings are slated to start. That affords me plenty of time to arrive and relax or mingle with others for awhile, where we can discuss what we expect to hear in the courtroom. I’m certainly glad I left early yesterday because I usually drive down 17-92, Orlando Avenue, and hang a right onto Orange in Winter Park that takes me right in front of the courthouse. As bad as the economy is right now, you never would have known it by the heavy amount of traffic I had to deal with. Either people are wasting $3.00 gallons of gas driving around, or they are doing some serious Christmas shopping, which tells me it’s not as bad out there as we are led to believe. My less than half-hour trek took forty-five minutes, but I did arrive early enough to talk to a couple of deputies and to go to the 23rd floor to take a look around and sneak a picture in. Please don’t tell the court I did that.
Click to HERE enlarge
I ran into Attorney Ann Finnell before going down the elevator, and let me tell you, she is one fine lady. We had a nice chat about traffic and her drive from Jacksonville, which was very similar to my story. Lots of cars everywhere. That leads me to a wonderful person who traveled from the frigid north to spend Christmas on the west coast of Florida. I’m reminded of the old saying that caught me off guard when I first moved here in ‘81 - SOLD COAST-TO-COAST, only it really meant from Cocoa Beach to Tampa, or something like that. Growing up in New Jersey, coast-to-coast meant NY to LA. I was very pleasantly surprised when she walked up to me. I’d tell you who she was, but there are nasty, nasty trolls out there. Needless to say, it was a wonderful experience and I’m extremely happy to have met her.
On the 19th floor, a gentleman called me over to introduce himself. I’d like to share his name, too, but he doesn’t need the riff raff, either. Although he doesn’t always agree with me, he said I’m an excellent writer and to keep it up. He said that he’s more of a Hinky-Blinky guy and I said that’s great. Everyone is entitled to an opinion and who they like to read. The mere fact that he enjoys my writing is plenty enough for me. He then called his wife over and introduced me. It was a nice encounter.
We entered the courtroom and Chief Judge Belvin Perry made an entrance right around 1:30. Before the hearing started, my friend, who drove to the courthouse from the west coast, mentioned that the judge was late at the last hearing. I told her it was because Casey was late. A judge never starts without the defendant. After Judge Perry took his seat on the bench, he asked to hear the first motion dealing with sealing the penalty phase witnesses. As Ann Finnell walked up to the podium, I took a quick head count. Absent from the courtroom were Cheney Mason, Linda Drane Burdick, and Frank George. She opened by asking the court to temporarily stay access to the list of penalty phase witnesses. “Judge? We are simply asking, in this case, that penalty phase discovery… that the public be temporarily denied access until the issue of the penalty phase becomes a right, which would be after a jury has determined Miss Anthony’s guilt… or not guilty of first-degree murder.”
She said that there’s no constitutional right to pretrial publicity, especially if it would deny the defendant’s right to an impartial jury. She noted that the court had already agreed to a jury coming from a different county due to the immense publicity. To back up her motion, she emphasized that only the witnesses expected at trial were mentioned in public, and to “out” potential penalty phase witnesses would prejudice the jury. It is the trial judge’s duty to minimize publicity. The bottom line is, she asked the court to deny penalty phase discovery until after the jury decides whether Casey is guilty or not. Plain and simple.
I understand the request because it could be legally argued that it’s like putting the cart before the horse. In the 1966 case that overturned Dr. Samuel H. Sheppard’s 1954 murder conviction, the U.S. Supreme Court noted that his trial generated so much publicity, it was a veritable media circus. Set in Cleveland, the jurors were exposed to intense coverage until they began deliberations. Found guilty, he spent ten years in prison before the court ruled that the publicity deprived him of his right to a fair trial. Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 86 S. Ct. 1507, 16 L. Ed. 2d 600 (1966). He was acquitted at his second trial.
Ms. Finnell brought up a 1988 ruling. Finally, a case study! In that case, Florida Freedom Newspapers, Inc. v. McCrary, was ruled in favor of the defense by the Florida Supreme Court. The separation of powers within the legislature and the judiciary’s responsibility of providing a fair trial allow the court to, on occasion, step around the laws of the legislature in order to ensure a defendant’s constitutional rights and freedoms. Florida Statute 119.07(4) grants the court the right to close a part of a court file. She told the judge that this case was a fly speck compared to the national exposure the Anthony case has garnered.
Nine minutes into the hearing, she was finished and the judge asked if there was a response from the state. Assistant State Attorney Jeff Ashton said no, so Rachel Fugate arose and walked to the podium. Ms. Fugate, who represents the Orlando Sentinel and, by default, all of media, acknowledged that there could be prejudice, but the defense must demonstrate it to the court first. She cited the McCrary case as the standard which gives the court the right to temporarily seal the penalty phase witnesses, but she emphasized that a prejudice must be shown to the court.
While explaining her side, defense attorney Jose Baez stood and apologized to counsel (Fugate) for breaking in. “I would ask that the court instruct the photographer in the room to not photograph my client as she’s passing notes…”
The judge was right there and on the spot. “Mr. Baez, one counsel has the floor… She needs to object and not you…”
Ann Finnell then stood and objected.
“Well,” the judge added, “unfortunately, the objection will be noted and overruled.” Rachel Fugate continued. She felt that the release of the names of the penalty phase witnesses would not jeopardize Casey’s fair trial rights or taint jurors coming in from another county. It would not frighten potential witnesses from testifying because of all the public exposure.
Ann was allowed to counter, and she said when the media chases after counsel, down the sidewalk, for 3 minutes worth of sound bites, imagine what they will do to potential witnesses. She said the press doesn’t have the same interests as the SAO. She made a valid point.
Ultimately, the judge decided that he was going to take his time before making a decision. “The court will reserve a ruling on the motion.”
At the tail end of the hearing, Jose, Ann and Jeff approached the bench for a sidebar at the judge’s request. A gentleman sitting behind me tried to take a picture with his cell phone. That’s a no no and a deputy told him so. As the attorneys went back to their seats, the judge said he was changing the next status hearing from January 10th to the 14th since he has an out-of-town Innocence Commission meeting. He asked Jose if he had abandoned addressing the situation with Roy Kronk and the admission of prior bad acts. Jose said he had until December 31 and the judge reminded him that he will not be near the courthouse next week. It could be heard on the 23rd. He also said he will be presiding over a murder trial the week of the third, so any issues would have to be worked out after 5:00 PM.
Jeff Ashton brought up issues over depositions of defense experts in January, particularly Dr. Henry Lee.
“Maybe Dr. Lee is not planning on testifying. There was some suggestion in his email that he might not, depending on the resolution of this issue,” Ashton said.
Apparently, costs of travel are what’s holding up Dr. Lee. The prosecutor said that he might not be testifying depending on the resolution of this issue. The defense attorney said that he would settle it by the end of the day.
“Mr. Baez, if you get me that, and whatever you need to do to get that cleared up, let’s get it to me. OK, we’ll be in recess.”
I left the courthouse with my newfound friend; new only because we had never met. We said our good byes and as I walked away, I ran into the gentleman with the cell phone. I told him that other than the video cameras, only Red Huber from the Sentinel has exclusive rights to still photography in the courtroom. Me? I can take pictures and I took some as I walked out. Plus the one inside.
§
Before the hearing began, I was discussing how the judge might rule with Mike DeForest from WKMG. He felt the judge would probably compromise and I agreed with his assessment. To me, one of the underlying factors in the case, and it reaches its claws all over the United States and in other parts of the world, is the insurmountable prejudice that does already exist. For example, I talked to Jim Lichtenstein after the hearing. On the elevator up to the 19th floor, someone (who shall remain nameless) asked him if he intended to continue making money off a dead child. This is what we face out there in the real world. Jim is a consummate gentleman and I know for a fact that he befriended George and Cindy from Day 1. He’s been there ever since. Regardless of what anyone thinks of George and Cindy, should outsiders make decisions for him over who he can associate with or not? His interest is not about money, but there’s no denying the media must be able to cover this case or you, the public, would have no access to any information whatsoever. You can’t have it both ways. He works in the media industry. The media people pay for information from the court, including TV rights in the courtroom. They, in turn, make tons of money off advertising revenues. ALL OF THE MEDIA, I might add, including the ones who ask the tough questions. That’s the nature of the business - ALL BUSINESSES. So what if one reporter is more aggressive than another? The bottom line is ratings because that’s what pays the bills.
He also mentioned something about where he sits. The person who accosted him in the elevator addressed the issue over where he sits in the courtroom. I went through the same thing. You sit where you want and it has no bearing whatsoever over which side we agree with. I told him I sit on the side of the cameras because it ticks off the password stealing trolls who broke into my e-mail accounts and a password protected page on my old WordPress blog, where up until then, it was a secure place to comment . Since they continue to try to make my life a living hell, they are going to have to put up with my face in the courtroom. I will try to be as up close and personal as I possibly can; absolutely more so from now on and its got nothing to do with fame. It’s all about the trolls who broke the law. Fa law law law law law law law law.
Dave Knechel | tagged Florida Freedom Newspapers, Inc. v. McCrary, Sheppard v. Maxwell | in Ann E. Finnell, Ann Finnell, Casey Anthony, Caylee Anthony, Chief Judge Belvin Perry, Cindy Anthony, Dave Knechel, David B. Knechel, David Knechel, Death Penalty, Dr. Henry Lee, Florida’s Government in the Sunshine, Human Interest, Jeff Ashton, Jim Lichtenstein, Judge Stan Strickland, Marinade Dave, Marinade Dave Knechel, Marinade Dave’s Caylee Anthony Posts, Mark Lippman, Mike DeForest, Ninth Circuit Court, Rachel Fugate, WKMG, marinadedave | Share Article 
LEGAL NOTICE
©David B. Knechel. All Rights Reserved. No portion of this site can be reproduced in it's entirety or in part without expressed written permission by the owner/administrator of this site in accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Section 512(c)(3) of the U.S. Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §512(c)(3). The charges against defendants are mere accusations and the subjects are presumed innocent until found guilty in a court of law.
Reader Comments (75)
Hello Dave,
Excellent article as usual! I love it when my RSS monitor has a "Marinade Dave" header in it :)
I especially liked the description of the interaction between the Judge and the attorneys - a nice insight into the workings of the Court.
One little thing though - the last couple of paragraphs seem to be repeated (leftover from a re-write, maybe?)
I look forward to all of your articles, so I'll be back! Meanwhile, take care!
Hi, Kay. Yes, I moved some text around and fixed some typos. When I moved two paragraphs down, I forgot to remove the other ones. That is corrected now. Thanks for pointing that out, and a big thank you for loving your RSS monitor when a message comes in.
You take care, too, and Merry Christmas.
Thanks *Dave
Did Casey acknowledge Cindy at all?
Another impressive article, I feel like I know a celebrity. Beautiful picture of the courthouse. What was up with Caysee? She was all smiles, even waving at one point. Did she actually wave at her mother or was it someone else? The shirt she was wearing looked like she had slept in it the night before. Her new lawyer must have told herto lay off make-up, she hasn't worn any since Mrs. Lyons left. Baez is getting so jumpy I don't know if he can keep it together. He looks like he is wound so tight, he's just looking to explode on Ashton. Caysee looked like she was the belle of the ball, and Baez looked like a caged animal. I have a feeling ugly has only just begun. Thank you Dave
Hi, Diana, thank you very much.
I never saw Casey look at her mother once, but I didn't see her all that much. I saw her coming in and sitting down and briefly as she left.
Hi Dave, Fa law law law law to you too....
Ann Finnell and Barrett, the mitigating specalists travelled to Ohio etc and interviewed alot of Casey's relatives. I expect they also interviewed Casey's uncles, one being the very outspoken, Rick Plesea. Finnell and Barrett would have spoken to the grandmother, Shirley Plesea and the grandparents, if still living, on Casey's parental side as well.
Now, I am wondering if Ann Finnell filed the motion to keep the witness list for the penalty phase under seal until the verdict is read, to avoid a family feud. Can you imagine the conflict that may occur within the family, if they got wind of who was on that witness list? I do not think that it has anything to do with the potential witnesses being harassed by the public. I think they may be hounded by their own family members, one side, maternal, pitting against the parental side of Casey's heritage. JMO
Great post, Dave. I am not finished with my opinions... I will let you try and digest what I have written so far. bbl
quote: "I told him I sit on the side of the cameras because it ticks off the password stealing trolls who broke into my e-mail accounts and a password protected page on my old WordPress blog, where up until then, it was a secure place to comment . Since they continue to make my life a living hell, they are going to have to put up with my face in the courtroom. I will try to be as up close and personal as I possibly can; absolutely more so from now on and its got nothing to do with fame. It’s all about the trolls who broke the law.
Faw law law law law law law law law." end quote
Oh my gosh! I haven't smiled much today but this just about put me on the floor laughing Dave!
Great article and once again it's the next best thing to being right there. Thank you.
Dave, great post! I wasn't able to hear very clearly what Baez said when he stood up while Ms. Fugate was talking. When they aren't up at the podium speaking, it is hard to hear what they say. I am looking forward to how JP will rule on this motion. I think he will be as fair as he can be. It is nice that Ann Finnell is nice to have a conversation with. I am glad that we got to see her address the court without having to have Baez or Mason interrupt or not look they knew what they were doing. I am glad you got to meet someone from out of state who was more than happy to come up to you to introduce herself. I wouldn't post her name either, as I am sure she doesn't want to be harrassed. I was waiting for Ms. Fugate to say something about how the defense team are the ones that are out doing the media shows and talking to the media so why are they trying to keep the witness names private, but she didn't. As far as I am concerned, I think that you and anyone else can sit on whatever side of the court room that you want. Whoever that person was that said that to Mr. Lichtenstein was rude. Were you able to see if Casey acknowledged CIndy when she came in or out of court? Thanks for attending this hearing and giving us a great post! It is appreciated.
Diana, When she entered the courtroom, it looked like Casey smiled in the direction of her mother. When Casey left, she gave a sad smile in Cindy's direction and I would bet that Casey burst into tears once that door, of the courttoom, closed behind her. If you watch the video, you may notice it too. This will be Casey's third Christmas behind bars.
Dave, I forgot to add that I loved the Faw law law law law, too and that the picture was great also.
Thank you, Margaret. You may feel like you know a celebrity, but it isn't me. On the other hand... just kidding. Every time I go to the top floor of the courthouse, I like to look out the window that overlooks Orange Avenue. You can see the media trucks below. If I can sneak my camera in there again, I will try to take some shots looking west, at sky level. I'll try to take some pictures of the waiting area outside the courtroom.
I didn't notice Casey waving, so I can't help you on that one. I'm pretty certain her mother brings her something to wear every time there's a hearing because I've seen Jose hand over hangers. As for makeup, I don't think I've seen her wear all that much, especially over the last few hearings, whether Andrea Lyon put her stamp on that or not.
As for Baez, I think he gets frustrated because he never seems to win much. At least the judge withheld judgment. Today, he filed 6 more motions I'll have to study, but they're about withholding testimony from the trial.
Margaret, I'm happy to accommodate you. I try to be as fair as I can and I pay attention to everything while I'm in that courtroom. To me, what transpires there is very crucial to how I think the trial may play out.
I looked at what Cindy was wearing and she looked really nice. I thought she brought in Casey's clothes, but this week her blouse looked bad. You Know her mother was more open this time, due to the side of courtroom she was sitting on. She would have been easier for Casey to see than before.,maybe that has been the problem. I agree she looks like she was beginning to cry. she looked like she was fully in charge with her notewriting and smiling. Do you think they will be able to have Henry Lee? guess he doesn't like oranges any more.
I went back and looked Dave and Cindy must have forgotten to bring Caysee a fresh shirt. She wore the same one to the last two hearings. I'll bet she didn't like that. No big deal but at least she could look forward to a nice clean outfit. Oh well I guess now is as good a time as any to start letting go of things that make life more pleasant.
Dave~~I have been searching all over for some info on these six new motions that Baez filed today. Where did you read that?
Dave, As always, I enjoy reading your thoughts on this case. I was receiveing your posts by e-mail, but have not received the last three posts. Keep up the good work, and have a Merry Christmas and a Happy and Healthy New Year.
Snoopy, I found the information for those new motions on the Orlando Sentinel site.
Generally, in a murder trial, once the verdict comes in as guilty and it then goes to the penalty phase, we hear the mitigating circumstances re the accused in hopes of sparing her/him from the death penalty. We then hear from the victims family. In this case, it seems the victim's family will be testifying on behalf of and for the accused.
Mary Jo, did you link to the motions anywhere? If you did, I missed it.
Defense wants Casey Anthony's sexual history excluded from trial
Attorneys file series of motions to block testimony
Mary Jo~~I found it and was ready to post it...LOL Okay, here is a bit of info from the link Mary Jo posted... you can read more by clicking on her link...
Here goes...
Casey Anthony defense attorneys filed a series of motions late today designed to keep statements and evidence they claim may prejudice their client out of the upcoming first-degree murder trial.
Among the statements they want blocked from entering the trial: Casey Anthony's sexual relations with Anthony Lazzaro and Anthony Rusciano.
One motion filed today complains about detectives who interviewed Rusciano "regarding his alleged sexual relationship" with Casey Anthony.
Defense attorneys Cheney Mason and Jose Baez call the questioning improper and "not relevant or material to any issue in this case." It goes on to say the questions and responses are "scandalous and incompetent and should not be allowed in any aspects of this case."
The defense particularly takes issue with detective Yuri Melich asking, "How was she when she had sex? Was she one of those people that would be real clingy, or was it just matter of factly (sic), or was it just okay, we're done, I'm going home?"
The defense motion states "any prior sexual relationship between Mr. Rusciano and Ms. Anthony is irrelevant to the charges in the present case."
The motion regarding Lazzaro includes similar language and arguments. Including testimony about their sexual relationship "would create a danger of unfair prejudice" and failing to exclude it "would seriously and irreparably undermine Ms. Anthony's right to a fair trial."
The defense team filed six motions late today, seeking to block certain testimony from several witnesses, including her father.
The defense wants to block statements from George Anthony, asserting that Casey Anthony has "a history of lying and/or has a history of stealing."
I can't understand, for the life of me, why the defense wants Casey's sexual relationships not admitted into evidence. Her behavior with Anthony Rusiciano portrayed her as being manipulative and narcissistic. Rusciano did say that he felt like the girl in their brief encounters. He portrayed her as someone doing her civic duty. That evidence may even soften certain members of a jury, in Casey's favor. It seems to have made an impression on a couple of people in the blogosphere who are sympathetic towards Casey and strive to prove her innocent when all the evidence points towards her being the murderer. For the above reasons, I doubt if the prosecution plans to bring up her sexual relationships at trial. I think it may backfire, if they do, and beside I do not see any relevance in it.
Dave~~it appears that time has run out for the defense to have Roy Kronk's past bad acts admitted into evidence. Judge Perry said that even if Baez made the deadline, Ashton would object and the motion would not be ruled on pretrial. I believe the deadline is Dec 31st. That will mean that Roy's exes, Jill Kerley and Ms Sparks, along with Roy's son, Brandon Sparks will all come off the witness list for the defense.
Now this brings us back to score one. Who will the defense try to implicate in this murder? We have Jesse and Richard Grund or the phantom Nannie. It almost looks like the defense is going to have to play the 'mental' card and hope for the best, LWOP. I cannot see them using an 'insanity' because Casey knew what she was doing when she hid the body. They may go for 'temporary insanity' and that is where the defense may bring in Cindy's dominance or try and prove Lee or George's sexual abuse.
Dave, your job is.... I need you to tell me what options you think the defense has now. TIA
PS, I am glad you sit in front of the camera in the courtroom so I can check to see if you are busy writing. At least you DO look very busy making notes etc and you don't come across looking like a stiff old Statue. LOL I love reading your recaps of the hearings. They are descriptive and I love it when you describe the jourey to the courthouse. It is just like I was in the passenger seat telling you to make that right turn. Most of all, I am glad you don't put alot of those funny little dashes - - -'s in your articles.
Goodnight, friend and thank you. Numero Uno!!!
Good morning, all. I haven't had a chance to watch the hearing, so thanks for the update, Dave, and merry Christmas, everyone!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHrVG06U5MA&feature=related
I'm sorry. I'll be back later to respond to comments. I've got a lunch engagement with another writer.
Thanks,
Dave
So, they want to exclude, ummm, like ALL possible Pro witnesses then- anyone who was ever been lied to or slept with Casey! That's rich. Her behavior has NOTHING to do with anything.
They still don't have a defense!
Just a note to thank you for breaking down the hearing...I watched it and couldn't understand it...All I knew was there was a sidebar to which we had no privy...I can understand delaying the revelation of the witness list until it is absolutely necessary...I feel that putting the cart before the horse is not needed in this instance...Boy, oh boy, what a piece of work...all those motions being filed...I've got an idea...why don't we just forget about this nutty case...Drop it...say it never happened...Caylee didn't exist and was just a product of Casey's overactive imagination...Nah..that would be too easy and just what the defense would want...Justice is coming, just like Christmas...Bring it on Baez...We're waiting...
Hey, Dave! Interesting post, as always. I have several questions/observations.
First, even if the defense misses the deadline for deposing Kronk's son and exes in the pre-trial stage, there is the possibility that his alleged prior bad acts will get in during the trial phase because, even if Ashton objects to it, Perry can overrule him and allow it. I don't know if Perry will or not, but there is that possibility. Have you any indication of whether or not Baez is going to try to have a hearing on the bad acts tomorrow? In my mind, even if they do not meet the deadline to introduce the prior bad acts in pre-trial, they will absolutely try to get it admitted in the trial phase because it might at some future date give them grounds in an appeal. Most of the motions that seem frivolous to the layman or woman are actually made in order to have grounds for appeal later if laws change or new evidence comes to light. I'm not sure that Perry will allow the prior bad acts testimony on Kronk because very little of it can be substantiated with material evidence and the witnesses, who will testify against Kronk, all seem to have some major grudge against him (of course, if he did what they allege he has done, then I think I would have a major grudge against him, too. The difference is that I would have reported those things to the police, so there would be a record of the prior bad act way before something like this trial, which is part of the credibility gap that the defense's bad act witnesses all suffer from, imho).
I find it extremely fascinating that there is this wrangling going on over Lee's testimony and that Perry observed that Lee may not be testifying in the case. Lee wants travel fees paid and Florida law won't allow for that. My understanding is that the JAC cannot pay experts for travel expenses, if they are outside the state of Florida (which was part of the problem that the defense ran into with wanting to use a lab outside of the country). If Lee will not (as Cheney Mason suggested) work for his crate of oranges and insists on being reimbursed for travel, what will that do to the case? The defense will be without a forensics expert. Honestly, has Lee really done that much work on this case (until this summer, it looked like very little had been done by the defense just in general)? If he has to be replaced (I know speculating like this is a little like spitting into the wind, but I can't help myself...), does that mean that Perry would be willing to give the defense more time? I don't think so because Perry wants to get this show on the road. Does it mean that there will be a plea deal (I think there will be a plea regardless of whether they work out Lee's crate of oranges or not)?
If they lose Lee, do they almost have to plea? I think possibly, especially when you couple that with the marked exit from this case of Linda Kenney-Baden. The defense loses its lawyer with the expertise in forensics and its scientific specialist in the field, what does that mean for the case? I think it means that the forensics they do have can't be manipulated to make Casey look innocent, bottom line.
Even if they can somehow manipulate the date (and we all know that there are lies, damned lies, and statistics), there is no overcoming the human evidence -- the 30 days Caylee is missing, the fact that Casey never reported her missing (Cindy did), the smell in the car (even if the body farm ev isn't admitted, there's the cadaver dogs hitting on the smell of death in the car and then there's everyone else, who went near that car from the tow company on), Casey's obstructing the search for Caylee with her lies about working at Universal, Zanny the Nanny, the wild goose chase she took detectives on before she was arrested, where the body was found blocks away from the house on Hope Springs in an area that Casey was known to frequent in high school, the duct tape on the skull, the items found with Caylee that only someone with intimate knowledge of the toys she liked and played with along with the items from the Anthony house...you put all of that together, and I'm not sure that you need much more to get a conviction. Scott Peterson was convicted with much less evidence in California, where it is much more difficult to get a conviction than it is in Florida, which is overly biased toward the prosecution in most cases (the one thing I do agree with Andrea Lyons on).
The first time that I have seen any sort of glimmer of sanity in this case is when Ann Finnell stepped up to the podium in the courtroom on Monday. I have been underwhelmed by all of Casey's "dream" team until now. She seemed to make the most sense and be the most solid courtroom lawyer of all of the lawyers on the case to date. Many lawyers make their bread and butter off of not having to go to court. Finnell seemed poised and well versed in the law (this to me seems one of Lyons' big problems in this case. The nuances of IL law and courts are vastly different from the nuances of a FL court because of state laws and courtroom etiquette. The rules of court can be vastly different from state to state. Cheney Mason sounds like he should have retired 10 years ago every time he opens his mouth. He bumbles. Baez is the king of the bunglers...He is arrogant and is so green and inexperienced that he doesn't know how green and inexperienced he is. He may grow into a fine lawyer some day, but I doubt it. His great hubris is his Achille's heel. But I thought Finnell was really impressive. I didn't agree with her, but she sounded reasonable and actually used the law to back up her argument in court. I have been amazed at how seldom the defense actually cites case law and precedence in their motions. Motions are supposed to be all case law and precedence.
It seemed to me that Finnell may be attempting to look to an appeal (which is the only reason it may not plea out) based on pre-trial publicity. I would think that despite the proliferation of blogs and media attention this will be extremely difficult. Yes, there is more publicity in this case than there could have ever been imagined in the Sheppard case because of the proliferation of the media in our lives, but if they can empanel a jury in the case, there is a good chance that this case won't rise to the level of the Sheppard case, especially if the jury is sequestered. I'm interested in what happens with this because I recall very early in the case that there was a request by the prosecution to have a gag order put in place. This was when Baez and Kenney-Baden were all over the talk shows and before Caylee was found (I believe). My recollection is that the defense objected to the gag order in the case. Can they then turn around, especially given their own roles in fanning the flames very early on, and claim pre-trial publicity got their client convicted. This to me is far more interesting in terms of potential case law potentially created by this case. I definitely think the Florida Bar (and maybe the ABA) needs to look at the ethics behind lawyers appearing on talk shows where there are ongoing investigations and court cases.
Joy
Maybe Judge Perry should have lied to the defense a month or so ago and told them he was going on vacation so he could have decided on these 6 motions before leaving for vacation next week. Just like the defense, they wait til the last minute then file motions that will have to wait. It's like they want to give JP homework or file so late that nothing can be done about it because he's on vacation then they will have the right to bring it up at trial agian. It just seems fishy to me.
I agree with Snoopy about the list not getting out. If past history is any reference Cindy for one would drive the witnesses nuts before they even got to Florida to testify in the death penalty phase. I can hear it all now "you think Casey is guilty or you wouldn't have agreed to testify" etc. Yep it would cause a family feud for real. This family is so good at keeping secrets that I imagine they've lined up people Cindy thinks are solidly behind Casey.
Bringing up how she was "in bed" with her boyfriends is relative if it was during the time her daughter was missing. If she were "clingy" it would mean she was sad, if nothing was different she wasn't affected much by her daughter's disappearance. So I'd think it'd be very relevent.
The Sam Shepherd case doesn't even compare to this one. In that one the judge was so prejudiced that he didn't allow anyone BUT press into the courtroom. It went further than that, but simply put he used the media to convict Sam Shepherd. All his life, his son has worked to get his conviction not only set aside but expunged from the record. I would equate Casey's case with the Jeffrey MacDonald case in NC. There was so much publicity that eventually good ole Jeff's mouth did him in. The lawyers didn't put a muzzle on him like Baez and co. are doing for Casey. I'll give them that much when I don't have much liking for anything else they've come up with. That was the smartest thing they did.
Okay, so I'm commenting before my first comments are posted, but since so many of us seem fascinated with the recent defense motion, I wanted to make a few observations. I know that Sheaffer for WFTV thinks that the defense is going to have a difficult time getting Casey's sexual history, lying, and bad checks thrown out (along with the shovel and other things they've asked for in the 6 motions they filed yesterday, which I just saw around noon -- how did I miss those earlier!). I disagree, however. When looking at the motion, Perry is going to have to weigh the probative value of the evidence against Casey's right to a fair trial. Some evidence is so scandalous and inflammatory that it can be excluded by stipulation, which may be what happens in this case. The defense can stipulate to the fact that Ms. Anthony lied to investigators, wrote bad checks, etc. without the exact details of the extent of her lies coming into the case. The defense, if they are smart, will have to go this route on some things. You always try to have things thrown out knowing that it is a slim chance that it will be (you try in case it becomes ground for an appeal years later) thrown out. In a few cases, you get lucky. In most, you don't. If the defense objects to these things at trial, it makes it look to a jury like there's something to hide, or worse if it comes in without objection, it makes their client look so guilty that nothing else matters. Stipulating to her prior bad acts will save her a certain amount of embarrassment and let the defense control the narrative of who Casey is to a certain extent. Interesting how it suddenly seems that work is finally getting done in this case. This case should have plead out way before there was ever a body. If it had, with good behavior, Casey might be getting out of jail about now. It just proves what absolutely incompetent legal advice she has gotten from Baez. In the beginning, there was still some hope that she might take a plea deal. He botched it all up, and now, she is facing a death penalty case because he needed his 15 minutes of fame...or should I say infamy?
The defense tried to get the 911 call thrown out as evidence. They will file motion upon motion right up until the time of trial to try and get evidence not admitted. They will yell that alot of evidence is hearsay and inadmissable. Granted, alot of the interviews that we have been privy to is made up of alot of hearsay but some is quite relevant.
Casey was the last known person to see Caylee alive. I do not believe that the defense can prove otherwise. The prosecution should have no problem proving that Casey did not report her child missing. Casey's lack of remorse and her upbeat demeanor after June 16th will play a big part. The borrowing of the shovel. There is evidence found with the remains that can be connected to the Anthony home, including the rare Henkel duct tape, Winnie the Pooh blanket and the laundry and garbage bags. The one hair in the trunk with the death band and the decomposition of odor in the trunk of the Pontiac car. Then we have Cindy's 911 call and it was actually Cindy who finally reported Caylee missing. One other important bit of evidence will be Casey's lies to LE and not co-operating with LE in their investigation to find a 'then' missing Caylee.
The jury will see the picutures of the tiny skull witht he duct tape around the mouth and nose. They will also see the tiny bones. I am not sure if the video of Casey's reaction when the remains were found will be admissable as it does fall under medical and generally remains private.
I am hoping the jail phone call, the day Casey was incarcerated, will be admissable. This is the one where Casey is more concerned with getting Tony phone number than talking to Lee and Kristine Chester and helping them with providing info to locate Caylee.
By the time the experts from the body farm, Dr G and the bug and plant experts testify, the state should have a concrete case. I think the only hope the defense has is to look for any legal techicality to try for a mistrial.
Well, that the way I see it all unfolding but it is not over until that verdict is read and, of course, there is always a plea hanging in the balance. JMO
Have a Merry Christmas Everyone :)
May the New Year Bring Justice For All the Children that have been Abused or gone from this Earth to soon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oar123wgUH4&playnext=1&list=PL04084B2B48E60D3A&index=49
I think they may say that Caylee's death initially was accidental and Casey panicked, like a child that breaks mom's favorite vase and tries to cover up. You give us good coverage of the hearings Dave
as always. Thank you.
I want everyone to have a Merry Christmas, especially those of you living alone. Stay safe and stay warm if you're not in a warm climate.
I have a lot of catching up to do on comments - all excellent, by the way. I had an excellent day, too, with a very talented writer.
I agree with Snoopy, there is just so much against Casy without all the "experts"Caylee just vanishes, and the next you see is Casey and Tony arm and arm renting a movie. Casey is not upset, she tells no one, she is having the time of her life. she deliberately left her purse in car, hoping people would think it was an abduction, she could quietly leave town later on and dissappear. Her mother found her before she could pull that off. Casey is her own worst enemy. At what point is the deadline for an appeal? What kind of deal could she possibly get with everything stacked against her? Could she ever come back and say her lawyer would not let her plea. When this is over, if Casey lives up to expectation, this will all be Baez fault.
Margaret~~I forgot about the Blockbuster video. It certainly did not depict a mother who was worried about her missing daughter. It just so happened, Caylee was, no doubt, in the trunk of the Pontiac at the same time as that video...approx 8:pm or handy to it.
I picked up the following snippet at Websleuths...
The source told WESH 2 News that a recent deposition of meter reader Roy Kronk's son, Brandon Sparks, was not helpful to defense efforts to paint Kronk as a potential suspect.
Judge Strickland was on the bench when Baez filed the first motion to have Roy Kronk's prior bad acts admitted into evidence. Strickland was going to review the testimonies of Jill Kerley and the Sparks and decide if there was enough credible evidence to allow it in. Strickland reclused himself and I wonder what ever happened to that motion. Does anyone know if Baez was supposed to rewrite it? He did have alot of motions that were full of errors that had to be rewritten and filed.
New Puppy~~ I am not sure if the 'accidental death' of Caylee will make an impact. The defense is running out of options. As Joy stated above, the defense should have had Casey plead guilty when it was offered. An accidental death, at that time, may have carried some weight and got her a lesser charge. She also wasn't a felon back then as the check/fraud charges had not gone to trial. It was a huge mistake on the part of the defense.
Dave will tell me that Casey is the one who wanted to take the gamble and not plead but a good defense would have put the fear of hell into her. It is not pleasant to sit on death row contemplating a lethal injection. Then again, and I reiterate Joy in what she stated upthread, Baez may have been gambling with Casey's life for his own fame and fortune. (not in those exact word....I do tend to embellish a bit.)
Prosecutors call for sanctions against the Casey Anthony defense
Knechel~~are you lurking in the vicinity of this blog or up on the 27th floor, somewhere, taking pictures? BTW, that pic you have in your post is excellent.
While I am adlibbing, a Very Merry Christmas to all the great people who frequent this blog, whether you just lurk or contribute... The Very Best to all..
Hi Mary Jo, thanks! I will check that out...it sounds interesting. BTW, I was getting kind of lonely here talking to myself and trying to fill in for Dave by doing my best to sound intelligent.. a struggle for me...
Snoopy, you are welcome. You are doing a great job of knowing what is going on in this case. It is hard to keep track of everything that has happened up to date. I can't wait to find out if JP will sanction the defense in this case or not. I think that he probably won't, but I could be wrong. I think they deserve to be, though.
Hi Dave, you are just getting sooooooo popular these days. Great . Take care of yourself though in this wishy washy weather. Don't want you getting sick. Have a great time though. I am so jealous of your sister. Hawaii at Christmas. Almost heaven.
I just read this snippet at the link Mary Jo provided.... OMG, if this Ballard shows a picture of Caylee when she was alive and puts duct tape on the mouth and nose areas...some folks will have to be taken out of the courtroom on stretchers during the trial...
Ballard is a graduate student working for another expert in the case. Her expertise is forensic anthroplogy. She will testify about the creation of a "video superimposition involving a photograph of Caylee Anthony in life, a photograph of her skull and a photograph of the duct tape found with her skull," the document states.
Margaret~~Dave Knechel is getting too big for his Sony. You thought I was going to say britches didn't you?
Snoopy- Seeing as how you're around and all... I for one, think the video of her reaction at the jail might just come in- wouldn't it be in a way, an "excited utterance"? The "medical" part of it comes in soon after (the meds, etc.), but her first reaction and emotional response- yuh, I can see it being ruled in...
Margaret~~disregard my comment above re the Sony and britches. I got a phone call and had to take care of something right away and just clicked submit. I see it makes little sense... I was about to tease Dave about being a celebrity and all his ladies waiting... not in waiting, just waiting ...in vain, it seems.
Karen~~they took Casey to the medical facility of the jail to break the news about finding the remains of a small child. This is a precautionary rule that the jail administration has to abide by. The video remains under seal and I honestly do not believe it will be admitted into evidence. Any medical procedures are private and I think this falls under that category. I may be wrong. There was alot of controvery over the video ever being made. Since Casey had an attorney and was under attorney/client privilege, I think it was up to Baez to have informed Casey about the remains being found or for Baez to instruct the jail chaplain to tell Casey. I could be wrong on this too. It is just an uneducated guess on my part.
Dave~~I know that you will read all the comments that were made, in your absense, and provide these nice people with your intelligent responses, wont you?? Joy and Connie in fl comments were very well thought out and indepth.. New Puppy has a great question re the accidental death...Rob would like to know why he doesn't get an alert in his/her mail when you make a new post... that is just touching the surface.. oh, Mary put in a great link re sanctions... that needs attention... I am off to slumberland...
THANK you snoopy, Dave is very lucky to have you on his side. We all are too. I love reading your post too. You keep it real. Good-nite, me to.
many thanks Dave for this very excellent article as usual :-D
I wish you and to all this wonderful community a joyful Merry Christmas and all the best for the new year 2011
kinds regards