Headline News from the Orlando Sentinel…

Jose Baez Bar complaints explained
Discovery violations and Casey Anthony’s probation prompted complaints

“”For the  FIRST time, the Florida Bar is confirming the general nature of the two ongoing complaints lodged against Casey Anthony defense attorney Jose Baez.””

==================The Matter in Question=================

COMES NOW the Defendant, Casey Marie Anthony, by and through her undersigned attorney, and, pursuant to Florida Judicial Administration Rules 2.330(h), moves this Court for Reconsideration of the Court’s Order Granting State’s Motion for Sanctions/Motion to Compel, and Requests this Court to Vacate Findings of Contempt, and shows…
read here
http://www.wftv.com/pdf/26455761/detail.html

The above link is no longer working. Below is what I saved on the matter in question.

In compliance with this Court’s order, counsel for the Defendant (Baez) and his office labored to provide all of the information requested. The documentation was approximately three hundred pages. Said defense wanted to fax the said documentation, but due to the fact that it was approximately three hundred pages in length, the Clerk’s office declined. As a result, Mr. William Slabaugh, Esq. of the Baez Law Firm drove from Kissimmee to Orlando in an effort to file the documentation before the deadline. He was thwarted by the Interstate 4 traffic, arriving at the Orange County Courthouse at two minutes after 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday evening the 14th of December of 2010. Mr Slabaugh was doing his best to substantially comply with the deadline, despite its volume. Please see Affidavit of William Slabaugh attached hereto as Exihibit “F”.

The traffic was heavy your Honor!!

See Section 6

Incidentally, Mr. Mason did hand deliver the entire package to both the State Attorney’s Office and the Clerk of Court the next morning December 15th. Most importantly, this good faith performance included all of the documentation that was not due for another 8 days, December 23, 2010.

Cheney Mason, author of this motion, further asserted that the defense did comply to the clarification of the 5 provisions set by Judge Perry in his courtroom.
See
http://thejbmission.wordpress.com/2010/12/17/defense-expert-probable-testimony/

Here’s what the Defense sent:

DR. JANE H. BOCK (Expert)
University of Colorado
Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Dept.
Boulder, Colorado 80309
1. Dr. Bock curriculum vitae is attached as exhibit 1.
2. Dr Bock’s field of expertise or medical specialty is Forensic Botany.
3. If Dr Bock were called to testify, her specific subject area will be Forensic Botany.
4. The substance of the facts which Dr Bock would be called to testify, would depend on the following:
• Whether the State calls Dr. Hall as an expert witness.
• Whether Dr Hall’s opinions are approved by this court as being based on scientific principles (Frye
challenge)
• Whether Dr Hall can effectively survive cross examination.
If this Court should allow Dr Hall to testify, Dr Bock would be called to rebut his findings dealing with the recovery site and his conclusions based on viewing photographs of the recovery site.
5. A summary of Dr Bock’s testimony can be obtained from viewing her affidavit as listed under exhibit 2. She would rebut Dr Hall’s where he claims that he can determine the growth rate of roots, when he doesn’t even know the type of plant and without having viewed the root and seeing them from un-scaled photographs.

DR. SCOTT FAIRGRIEVE (Expert)
Chair, Department of Forensic Science
Laurentian University
935 Ramsey Lake Road
F-323A, Third Floor, Science 2 Bldg.
Sudbury ON P3E 2C6
1. Dr Fairgrieve’s curriculum vitae is attached as exhibit 3.
2. Dr Fairgrieve’s field of expertise or medical specialty is forensic anthropology.
3. If Dr Fairgrieve were called to testify his specific subject area will be that involving cadaver dogs.
4. If Dr Fairgrieve were called to testify would depend on the following:
• Will this Court for the first time in the history of this state admit testimony concerning cadaver dog “alerts” as substantive testimony.
• Will this Court allow a canine to testify, via a dog handler, given Miss Anthony’s 6th amendment rights to confront her accusers and despite the fact that all “alerts” in this case are unrecorded, and resulted in negative results for human remains?
The substance of Dr Fairgrieve’s testimony would depend on the above and to rebut the testimony of the cadaver dog handlers in this case.
5. Of course a dog cannot testify. In the event that the State attempts this unusual tactic, a summary of Dr Fairgrieve’s testimony is that cadaver dogs are a tool and nothing more, absent the finding of human remains in their searchers, very little can be ascertained from such alerts.

DR. HENRY LEE (Expert)
University of New Haven
Forensic Science Program
300 Orange Avenue
West Haven, Ct 05616
1. Dr Lee’s curriculum vitae is attached as exhibit 4.
2. Dr Lee’s field of expertise is Criminalistics.
3. If Dr Lee were called to testify, the subjects that he will render opinions on are crime scene analysis, collection and preservation as well as recovery.
4. Dr Lee inspected the Pontiac Sunfire driven by Miss Anthony. Dr Lee also inspected the recovery site photographs and also inspected the recovery site.
5. If Dr Lee were called to testify, the substance of the facts that he would be expected to testify would be to rebut any false claims raised by CSI investigators in this case. Until that occurs it is difficult to give a complete summary of his opinions and the grounds for those opinions.

DR. WERNER SPITZ (Expert)
23001 Greater Mack
St. Clair Shores, Michigan 48080-1996
1. Dr Spitz’s curriculum vitae is attached as exhibit 5.
2. Dr Spitz’s field of expertise is forensic pathology.
3. If Dr Spitz were called to testify, the subject that he would render opinions on are his autopsy findings and those of Dr Garavaglia.
4. The substance of the facts that Dr Spitz will testify is that on December 24, 2008, he conducted a second autopsy on the decedent and found no signs of trauma and could not find a cause of death.
5. The summary of Dr Spitz’s testimony would relate to the condition of Caylee Marie Anthony’s remains and her cause of death.

DR. KATHY REICHS
1818 Craigmore Drive
Charlotte, NC 28226
1. Dr Reichs’ curriculum vitae is attached as exhibit 6.
2. Dr Reichs’ field of expertise is forensic anthropology.
3. If Dr Reichs were called to testify, the subjects that she will render opinions on are forensic anthropology.
4. Dr. Reichs completed a full anthropological exam on Caylee Marie Anthony, she found no signs of antemortem trauma to Caylee Marie Anthony’s remains.
5. If Dr Reichs would be called to testify, the substance of the facts that she would be expected to testify to would be to rebut any false claims raised by the State’s forensic anthropologists. Until that occurs it is difficult to give a complete summary of her opinions and the grounds for those opinions.

DR. TIM HUNTINGTON (Expert)
Asst. Prof. of Biology
Concordia University, Nebraska
800 N. Columbia Ave.
Seward, NE 68434
1. Dr Huntington’s curriculum vitae is attached as exhibit 7.
2. Dr Huntington’s field of expertise is forensic entomology.
3. If Dr Huntington were called to testify, the subject matter that he would render opinions to testify, the subject matter that he would render opinions on are forensic entomology.
4. The substance of the facts that Huntington would testify to are to rebut the claims made by Dr Haskill in his report and any testimony that he may provide in that regard. The only exceptions that Dr Huntington does agree with are the insect identification (including coffin flies) and he agrees with Dr Haskill that Caylee Marie Anthony’s body decomposed at another location and NOT the recovery site.
5. Dr Huntington’s opinions will agree with Dr Haskill that there were NO coffin flies found in the trunk of the Pontiac Sunfire, and that based on the insect activity her remains decomposed at another location. If Dr Huntington were called to testify, he would rebut any other claims that were not based on any scientific explanations.

DR. KENNETH FURTON (Expert)
University Medical & Forensic Consultants, Inc.
10130 Northlake Boulevard, Suite 214
West Palm Beach, Florida 33412
1. Dr Furton’s curriculum vitae is attached as exhibit 8.
2. Dr Furton’s field of expertise is forensic chemistry.
3. If Dr Furton were called to testify the subject matter that he would render opinions on are forensic chemistry.
4. If Dr Furton were called to testify, the substance of facts that he would testify to would relate to the cadaver dog “alerts.” And those opinions rendered by the Oakridge laboratories.
5. The substance of Dr Furton’s testimony would if the were called to testify to are that the cadaver dog is a tool, not a witness. He will be able to testify about the procedures and limitations of cadaver dogs, as well as the odors of decomposition and the limitations in sound scientific principles currently used in decompositional odors.

DR. BARRY LOGAN (Expert)
National Medical Services, Inc.
3701 Welsh Road
Post Office Box 433A
Willow Grove, PA 19090
1. Dr Logan’s curriculum vitae is attached as exhibit 9.
2. Dr Logan’s field of expertise is forensic chemistry.
3. If Dr Logan were called to testify the subject matter that he would testify to is forensic chemistry.
4. If Dr Logan were called to testify would depend on the Court admitting for the first time in any State air samples tested by Oakridge Laboratories.
5. The summary of Dr Logan’s testimony is that he disagrees with the methodology employed by Oakridge laboratories in their “Forensic Report.” That the science employed is not recognized in the scientific community.
DR. JOHN LEESON (Expert)
1208 Wolverine Trail
Winter Springs, FL 32708
1. Dr Leeson’s curriculum vitae is attached as exhibit 10.
2. Dr Leeson’s field of expertise is digital forensics.
3. If Dr Leeson were called to testify the subject matter that he would testify to is digital forensics.
4. Dr Leeson has reviewed the reports issued by State experts Sandra Cawn and Kevin Stenger.
5. If Dr Leeson would be called to testify, the substance of the facts that he would be expected to testify to would be to rebut any false claims raised by the State’s forensic computer experts. Until that occurs it is difficult to give a complete summary of his opinions and the grounds for those opinions.

DR. WILLIAM RODRIGUEZ (Expert)
16465 Old Frederick Rd.
Mt. Airy, MD 21771
1. Dr Rodriguez’s curriculum vitae is attached as exhibit 11.
2. Dr Rodriguez’s field of expertise is forensic anthropology with an emphasis in taphonomy.
3. If Dr Rodriguez were called to testify the subject matter that he would testify to would be forensic taphonomy.
4. Dr Rodriguez has reviewed all reports dealing with the remains of Caylee Marie Anthony and those specifically discussing decomposition.
5. If Dr Rodriguez would be called to testify, the substance of the facts that he would be expected to testify to would be to rebut any false claims raised by the State’s forensic experts dealing taphonomy. Until that occurs it is difficult to give a complete summary of his opinions and the grounds for those opinions.

RICHARD EIKELENBOOM (Expert)
Poppeswegje 36, 8077 RT Hulshorst
The Netherlands
1. Richard Eikelenboom’s CV is attached as exhibit 12.
2. Mr. Eikelenboom’s field of expertise is DNA, crime scene analysis and trace recovery.
3. If Mr. Eikelenboom were called to testify, he would testify in the areas of DNA, crime scene analysis and trace recovery.
4. Mr. Eikelenboom has reviewed all of the reports and photographs taken at the recovery site and has personally inspected many of the items.
5. If Mr. Eikelenboom would be called to testify, the substance of the facts that he would be expected to testify to would be to rebut any false claims raised by the State’s forensic experts dealing with DNA, crime scene analysis or trace recovery. Until that occurs it is difficult to give a complete summary of his opinions and the grounds for those opinions.

DR. MICHAEL FREEMAN
1. Dr Freeman’s curriculum vitae is attached as exhibit 13.
2. Dr Freeman’s field of expertise is that of a forensic Epidemiologist.
3. If Dr Freeman were called to testify, he would testify in the area of forensic epidemiology.
4. Dr Freeman is still in the early stages of consultation, the defense has notified the State of this, he was listed in an abundance of caution to meet the deadlines set by this court. No further information can be provided at this time.

Jose Baez was sanctioned in January by Chief Judge Belvin Perry and made to pay a fine for this what THEY call “willful violation” of a court order. I see nothing willful about it and I definitely see no violation.

In my opinion, Jose Baez did an excellent job of compliance. Notice the 5 criteria’s are nicely listed just as Judge Perry ordered. Ex-State Attorney Jeff Ashton should have been a happy guy but in those days of heated debates and hearings, nothing was good enough when it came to Defense Attorney Jose Baez and his hated client Casey Anthony.
Nonetheless, I don’t recall reading a detailed expert probable testimony list coming from the State Attorney’s Office. Shouldn’t both sides have to comply to the judge’s order?

Next…

Judge leaves a big mess in wake of his resignation

On to Judge Strickland’s weary resignation speech. I can only speak on my own behalf but in my opinion, it was Judge Strickland’s choice, a very poor one at that which provoked his recusal from the Casey Anthony case.
He admitted he read the Casey Anthony blogs. He had his court deputy approach this blogger in his courtroom while the cameras were rolling. What was said between the blogger and he is not audible but be that as it may, he said he complimented the blogger which is all fine and dandy.
To take it a step further…
Weeks later, when Marinade Dave announced he was in the hospital for complications of diabetes, he posted  his phone number on his site asking his readers to call him. Judge Strickland, made another bad decision. He called the blogger.

This blogger was in every sense of the word Anti-Casey Anthony. Other than verbally slandering everyone else, the Defense attorneys included, his only rule was to protect the Anthony’s from verbal attacks. No Cindy or George bashing.  Other than that the blog was run of the mill meaning no different than the hundreds of other Casey Anthony blogsites.

Besides the “Ode to Judge Strickland” plastered on his homepage and of course the bragging of the judge’s call to him, on March 18, 2010, Marinade Dave made another reference to Judge Strickland.  On an older post, not the current one most of his readers were using, under a comment I had made, he posted this.

Note the date, Nov-30-2009.

http://marinadedave.wordpress.com/2009/11/30/say-hello-to-laura-and-joe/comment-page-1/

Marinade Dave // March 18, 2010 at 3:00 pm

  • I’m back. I had lunch. We all went out. Jose and gang, Linda Drane Burdick and
    company. I told them we wouldn’t all fit in Waffle House, but dang! We did.
    Cheney Mason even picked up the tab – plus, he left a big tip! Judge Strickland
    was telling funny jokes the whole time. I coughed in my coffee, it was so
    funny. The only sad part for me was that they all ate dessert, but I couldn’t.

What is a fine defense lawyer such as Cheney Mason to do?  Would it be ethical to have this knowledge and not ask for this judge’s recusal? If Casey, while being tried in Judge Strickland’s courtroom were found guilty of 1st degree murder and facing the death penalty, wouldn’t this be an enormous cause for appeal?

Jose Baez and Cheney Mason acted in the best interest of their client Casey Anthony. This judge had to go.
After the recusal, when it was announced that Judge Belvin Perry Jr. would preside over her case, the blogging community screamed with joy knowing Judge Belvin Perry’s death penalty record was a good one.

Of all of the judges in the Orange County Courthouse, he would be the one who would make sure the needle was stuck into Casey’s vein. The only thing standing in the way was the jury.
In a televised interview, after Casey’s acquittal, Judge Strickland tells Nancy Grace that the jurors had it wrong. The jurors were misguided because Juror #3 said she was sickened by the verdict.

In Judge Strickland’s interview with Nancy Graceless, clearly both seem misguided because “not guilty” does not mean innocent. It simply means there wasn’t enough evidence to prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. So be it.

Has anyone forgotten this is America?

And then there’s the matter of probation…

================Matter of Probation================

Not long after he made these statements, he corrected his sentencing order for Casey’s check fraud convictions and forced her to serve one year probation even though she was freed after her murder acquittal.  Even though Casey Anthony had a signed document from Orange County Corrections congradulating her on her completion of probation while she was in jail.

=================Matter of Timing================

On the same day, as the Florida Bar is confirming the general nature of the two ongoing complaints against Casey Anthony’s attorney Jose Baez  there’s talk that Judge Strickland’s appearance on the Nancy Grace show has led to a Judicial Qualifications Committee complaint against the judge.

Incidentally…

There another bombshell in waiting in the wings.  Yesterday, Judge Strickland announced through his counsel WFTV’s legal analyst, Bill Sheaffer that he will step down  after 17 years of service. December 31, 2011 will be his last day on the bench.

~~~

The JBMission~

Sources:
http://thejbmission.wordpress.com/2011/01/11/oh-please-mr-judge-reconsider/
http://thejbmission.wordpress.com/2010/12/17/defense-expert-probable-testimony/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-JjRhyhQao&feature=related

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/os-jose-baez-bar-complaints-20111018,0,501302.story

About these ads