The hearing that is latest in the multiple motions that have been filed in this case has concluded today.
Casey Anthony was led into the court room and after not having seen her in months, I must say she looks drawn. Her face seems to me to be sunken in some and she looks as though she has not had much sleep. George and Cindy Anthony were in attendance. Both of them really look as if they have been through hell.
The motions that were filed were argued, argued and then argued. Mark NeJame was in attendance representing Tim Miller of Equisearch. He is really an act of class. I think he is truly saddened by this case and after the exchange with George Anthony yesterday at a press conference, it is easy to see the compassion he has for these people.
Jose Baez was of course inserting little jabs at the State as he does at every hearing, but we are used to him and if he all of a sudden became completely professional we wouldn’t know how to act.
The motions ruled on and the results of those motions are as follows:
TO CERTIFY TIM MILLER AS A MATERIAL WITNESS:
In this motion the defense asks to have access to the records of searchers who volunteered with Equisearch. The defense sites that they have valid information that the area in which Caseys remains were found were thoroughly searched and therefor they believe that the body of Caylee Anthony was placed there by someone else after Casey Anthony was incarcerated.
Judge Strickland has held off ruling on this case for a week.
Some of the key points of the arguments given are:
Arguments by the Defense:
~ There is substantial evidence that Caylee Anthony was placed there after Casey Anthony was incarcerated.
~ Proves that someone else put her body there.
~ The searchers are potential witnesses to say there was no body there.
~ Casey Anthony has the right to a full investigation of all volunteers due to this being a capital murder case.
~ Has evidence that the area was extensively searched.
~ The defense has a right to review all the documents. The fact that they have been reviewed by NeJame and Conway does not prove who else viewed them.
~Just because they determined that they have found 32 people who are worth looking into who is to say that there is no other volunteer that we feel relevant.
~ Our intent is not to harass or embarrass anyone, should we find a volunteer that we feel will add something of worth to this case then and only then will the information be released.
ARGUMENTS BY MARK NEJAME:
~ Texas Equisearch has thousands of searchers who were a part of this case. So do we tell all four thousand that they must give their information? The motion is too broad. We are willing to give the information of the searchers in the area and within 200 yards of the place where Caylee was found.
~ We are willing to allow the judge to review the four thousand people behind closed doors and rule as to what he sees fit.
~Out of sympathy and concern for Mr and Mrs Anthony, we allowed their attorney Brad Conway to review the documents first. Even prior to our reviewing and he was unable to find even 32 people who he felt had a valid reason for the defense to inquire about.
~No Tim Miller will not be allowed by me to give a deposition until the defense narrows down what it is they are looking for. If at that time we can agree then by all means he will be more than willing to testify.
~ When asked why it would be Tim Miller to give the information as to who was there and why Nejames response: If Tim Miller doesn’t know if a specific volunteer was in the area, how would anyone else?
~We have no issue if the defense is willing to pay up front for the costs that will be incurred by theirreviewing all of this information. Texas Equisearch is a donation only charity and does not have themeans to pay for the man hours it will take. They will need to pay for the people who will be needed to gather all of the information, Pay an independent withness to monitor them and ensure it is being done correctly. If they want to come in and not be able to take anything with them and review the people associated within 200 yards then yes there is no issue.
**********************************************************************************
MOTION TO QUASH SUBPEONA OF ANTHONY LAZARRO:
This was addressed previously and the outcome was that the defense had to narrow its motion. The subpeona was narrowed and they are asking for records for the dates of June 1st of 08 through July 15th of 08, and July 23rd of 08 through January 09.
Judge Strickland has ruled that the defense may have access to the phone records from June of 08 through December 0f 08. He stated that he will allow access of the phone records up until two weeks after the discovery of Caylees remains. He stated that his reasoning for this is that if he takes into account the defenses claim that someone else placed Caylee there, then there could possibly be a flurry of panicky phone calls during the time the remains were found. He denied them needing the text messages and said should they be deemed necessary after receiving the phone records they can then come back and ask. As far as the cell phone pings he stated he does not know much about them but if they are in the report with the phone records then they can have them, otherwise they need to ask the court after reviewing the phone records.
ARGUMENTS MADE BY ATTORNEY JAY: (atty. for Tony Lazarro)
~Under case law the defense has to show relevancy. Most of what they want pertains to their client Casey Anthony and all contact with her was severed after July 15th.
~The defense states as example of relevancy that they searched Mr. Lazarros car . In fact his car was searched due to the fact that Casey Anthony was driving his car for more than a week.
~Subpeona filed by the defense is too broad. It does not meet the criteria for materiality, they need to state what it is they actually want. The reason they cannot narrow the subpeona is because they have no facts.
~ In the event the motion is granted, it should be the court who receives the records and reviews them under camera.
ARGUMENTS BY THE DEFENSE:
~The time frames are based on many things that have been turned over to us. ie: State submitted information that he was used as an informant for a secret meeting with Lee Anthony.
~ The relevancy of the records from September to January are : 1) Because Caylee Anthony’s remains were not found until December 2) We want the cell phone pings in order to see whether or not he was in that area past September. 3) He is a material witness and spent a significant amount of time with my client and will offer testimony against my client.
************************************************************************************
MOTION TO BAR LEONARD PADILLA AND AFFILIATES FROM TESTIFYING:
This motion was filed to stop Leonard Padilla and his entourage from testifying against Casey Anthony. In the motion it states that it is in violation of Attorney/ Client priviledge. Baez states that Leonard Padilla was hired as part of the defense team, yet his actions and instructions to Casey Anthony and her family members show otherwise.
Judge Strickland ruled that he wil not rule on this case as he was given three hours of video tape by the State to review in order to determine if the motion has relevancy.
George Anthony was called to testify by Jose Baez, and then cross examined by the State. He seemed to be conflicted, it’s as if he wants to know the truth but doesn’t want to give the State anything further to implicate his daughter. Casey Anthony’s eyes filled with tears when her father took the stand. When he left the stand he blew his daughter a kiss.
Here are some of the main questions posed to George Anthony and his responses:
QUESTIONS FROM JOSE BAEZ:
Q: MR. ANTHONY CAN YOU TELL ME HOW LEONARD PADILLA AND HIS AFFILIATES WERE INTRODUCED TO YOU?
A: YES, BY YOU
Q: WHEN YOU SAY THEY PERFORMED SECURITY DUTIES WHAT DO YOU MEAN?
A: THEY STAYED AT OUR HOUSE, IN THE BACKYARD, OUTSIDE THE HOME, AND TRACY STAYED INSIDE THE HOME.
Q: WHAT PERIOD OF TIME WERE THEY PRESENT IN YOUR HOME?
A: LATE AUGUST EARLY SEPTEMBER, I BELIEVE THAT WAS THE FIRST TIME PERIOD.
Q: CAN YOU TELL ME HOW THE PERSON FROM THE BACKYARD COMMUNICATED WITH THE OTHERS?
A: I GUESS BY CELL PHONE OR FACE TO FACE. I SAW ROBERT DICK HAVE A KIND OF PORTABLE RADIO ONE TIME.
Q: WAS THE MOBILE HOME OUTSIDE THE HOUSE A SORT OF COMMAND CENTER?
A: YES
Q: HOW DID CASEY ANTHONY GET FROM THE JAIL TO YOUR HOME WHERE SHE SERVED HER HOME CONFINEMENT?
A: SHE WAS TRANSPORTED BY LEONARD PADILLA AND HIS GROUP.
Q: WAS YOUR DAUGHTERS SAFETY AN ISSUE?
A: NOT REALLY, SHE HAD FOUR TO FIVE PEOPLE AROUND HER AT ALL TIMES.
Q: MR ANTHONY, WERE THERE PROTESTERS AT YOUR HOME?
A: YES, FROM THE TIME CASEY CAME HOME
Q? WERE YOU THREATENED BY THE PROTESTERS?
A: YES ALL OF US WERE THREATENED.
Q: DO YOU FEEL THAT MR PADILLA USED THIS AS A PUBLICITY STUNT? IF SO DID YOU FIND IT UNNECESSARY?
A: YES
CROSS EXAMINATION BY THE STATE TO GEORGE ANTHONY
Q: WAS MR. PADILLA INVOLVEMENT BROUGHT ON BY MR BAEZ?
A: YES, HE WAS CONTRACTED TO ASSIST MR BAEZ IN AN EFFORT TO LOCATE CAYLEE.
Q: MR ANTHONY YOU ARE AWARE THAT MR PADILLA PUT UP THE HALF A MILLION DOLLAR BOND FOR YOUR DAUGHTER CORRECT?
A: I DO NOT KNOW WHERE THE MONEY CAME FROM, I THOUGHT HIS NEPHEW OR SOMETHING.
Q: MR ANTHONY DIDN’T YOU MEET WITH MR PADILLA WHEN HE CAME INTO TOWN?
A: I MET WITH HIM AT A LOCATION.
Q: WHERE WAS THE LOCATION?
A: A WAREHOUSE
Q: AND DIDN’T YOU MEET WITH HIM TO DISCUSS YOUR DAUGHTER’S BOND?
A: YES
Q: WAS MR BAEZ PRESENT AT THIS MEETING?
A: NO HE WAS NOT
Q: THAT WAS SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO YOUR DAUGHTER BEING RELEASED CORRECT?
A: YES
Q: DURING THE MEETING WITH MR PADILLA WAS IT DISCUSSED THAT THOSE INDIVIDUALS NEEDED TO SECURE THEIR RISK. THAT BEING CASEY ANTHONY AS THEY WERE PUTTING UP A HALF A MILLION DOLLARS FOR HER BAIL?
A: YES TO PROVIDE SECURITY
Q: WAS IT TO PROTECT BOTH THE HOME AND THEIR ASSET?
A: I CAN’T RECALL
Q: MR ANTHONY CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT LEGAL SERVICES THAT MR PADILLA AND HIS TEAM PROVIDED?
A: LEGAL SERVICES? NO THEY WERE THERE TO SECURE OUR HOUSE,THEY WERE PROVIDING SECURITY.
Q: SO YOU ARE CATEGORIZING THEM AS SECURITY?
A: YES
Q: YOU HAVE A FRIEND JIM, IM SORRY I CAN’T RECALL HIS LAST NAME.
A: I DON’T SEE THE RELEVANCY
** STRICKLAND INTERJECTS AND SAYS SIR SHE IS ASKING YOU FOR HIS LAST NAME
A: CAMPBELL
Q: OKAY YOU WERE IN SECURITY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AS WAS MR CAMPBELL CORRECT. IS MR CAMPBELL STILL IN LAW ENFORCEMENT?
A: NO HE IS NOT AND AGAIN I DON’T SEE THE RELEVANCY
Q: WELL I AM ASKING WHY YOU ALLOWED LEONARD PADILLA TO PROVIDE SECURITY IF JIM CAMPBELL WAS THERE FOR THAT?
A: THEY WERE ALREADY THERE
Q: DO YOU RECALL A CONVERSATION THAT TOOK PLACE IN WHICH IT WAS SAID THAT MR PADILLA AND HIS GROUP WERE NOT ALLOWED TO TALK TO CASEY WITHOUT MR BAEZ PRESENT?
A: YES MA’AM
Q: OTHERWISE IT WAS FURTHER UNDERSTOOD THAT THEY WERE NOT ALLOWED TO TALK ABOUT CAYLEE?
A: YES
Q:TRACY WAS STAYING INSIDE THE HOME CORRECT?
A: YES MA’AM
Q: WERE YOU AWARE OF THE PRIVACY AGREEMENT THAT WAS MADE BETWEEN MR BAEZ AND MR PADILLA?
A: NO I AM NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT, I WAS NOT PRESENT FOR THE TERMS.
Q:MR ANTHONY WERE YOU WORKING DURING THE TIME MR PADILLA WAS PRESENT?
A: YES,A LITTLE
Q: WAS YOUR WIFE WORKING? AND WAS YOUR SON LEE WORKING?
A: NO
Q: ALL THE MEMBERS OF YOUR FAMILY HAVE VEHICLES TO TRANSPORT CASEY TO HER LAWYERS OFFICE CORRECT?
A: I NEVER TRANSPORTED HER, MY WIFE NEVER TRANSPORTED HER AND MY SON DID ONE TIME.
Q: RIGH, BUT WHAT I AM ASKING IS: YOU EACH HAD VEHICLES SHOUDL THERE BE THE NEED TO TRANSPORT CASEY TO THE LAWYERS OFFICE CORRECT?
A: YES, BUT WE WERE NOT ALLOWED. ONLY THE SECURITY TEAM WAS ALLOWED TO.
Q:MR ANTHONY WERE YOU PRESENT CONTINUOUSLY IN THE HOME WHILE YOUR DAUGHTER WAS THERE?
A: YES
Q: SO YOU COULD HEAR DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN CASEY AND TRACY TAKING PLACE?
A: NO, I DON’T EAVESDROP
Q: HAVE YOU EVER SEEN CASEY AND TRACY GO BEHIND CLOSED DOORS?
A: THEY COULD HAVE
Q: MR ANTHONY HOW MANY SQUARE FEET IS YOUR HOME?
A: ABOUT 1700
THANK YOU I HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS.
*** there were many arguments posed by both sides and it was mostly going back and forth as to why it is relevant, what is relevant and who is protected under the atty/client priviledge.
**********************************************************************************
MOTION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE CHECK FRAUD TRIAL:
This motion was filed by the state to move ahead with the check fraud trial brought against Casey Anthony regarding her forging checks of her good friend Amy Huzeinga. The state is asking to set a date for the trial and the defense is asking to not set a date until after the capital murder trial.
Judge Strickland again refrained from ruling on this case until he reviews it. This again was mostly a pissing match and even though there is no ruling I’d say the State won this one. They had very valid points and completely squashed the theory that the defense is entirely too busy to deal with this.
ARGUMENTS FROM THE STATE:
~The state is ready for the trial and would like to proceed. This case has been going on a year and going nowhere. We are talking about a small time frame of one week.
~ I realize there are overlapping witnesses in this case yet I feel that we will be able to seperate the two.
~ The defense claims that they are too busy preparing for the death penalty trial and yet they cannot argue the following facts:
- Only one attorney on record is involved with both cases. That being Mr. Baez.
- Mr Baez has 20 other pending cases that he took on after the death penalty was announced. So to say that he is wholly cosumed in this case only is false.
- Ms. Lyons as of now is not involved on record in this case and yet she has said she will be participating in both. Should she decide to get involved I think she could give one day to this case.
- The defense states that there is no way they can get a jury. We would like to think that the utmost concern would be given when questioning a jury pool.
~ In a sworn affidavit Amy Huzeinga staes that this case has been going on over a year causing her great mental stress. Her name is all overthe internet, and it is hindering her from getting a job.
~ We are not demanding a speedy trial, we are asking to have a date on the docket.
~We are ready for the trial, have 15 witnesses and only need one day for trial. Aside from jury selection we can be done in a day.
ARGUMENTS BY THE DEFENSE:
~ We are not complaining that we are to busy We are trying to prepare to save Ms. Anthony’s life.
~We will be filing a change in venue
~ Even though the state claims it will only take a day it will divert attention and resources.
~ Our suggestion would be to set a trial date 60 days after the murder trial…
At that point the state rebutted with: We don’t even know when we are going to have a murder trial…
One thing is for sure, it is never dull when something happens with this case!
Read Full Post »