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

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
https://thejbmission.wordpress.com/2010/12/17/defense-expert-probable-testimony/

I agree with Mr. Mason that all five provisions were met. They, Casey Anthony’s defense team were simply being mindful of their obligation to protect privileged matters (work product).

As part of Section 9, Mason submitted supplemental information for each of the expert witnesses. 
As listed in item “d” of Section 9, Dr. Werner Spitz who did a second autopsy of the victim, cut open the cranium which Dr Garavaglia did not. He discovered dirt and mud on the left side of the skull which doesn’t support Dr. G’s finding that the remains were in an upright position. Cheney Mason added “Dr. Spitz is expected to bring significant rebuttal testimony in the matter of autopsy findings.”

Mason points to Order of December 3, 2010, Exhibit “B”, that “work product” privileged documents would not be included in any required discovery. He fears that the Orders would be outside the essential requirements of the law.

Interesting in Section 11 the motion addresses the dreaded “tax payer’s expense” that is all too often used in this case. The State experts have been “retained at tax payer expense”. Mason says this isn’t accurate. As he explains this that some of the experts have or will submit requests for reimbursement of expenses in accordance with the schedule of the JAC. He points out that the State bears no such burden or restrictions when hiring their experts.

mmmmmmmmmmMOTIONmmmmmmmmmm

NOW HERE COMES THE STATE. So what does Jeff Ashton of the State Attorney’s Office want? They filed a motion to compel additional discovery pertaining to the defense expert witnesses.

Starting with “#1 – Any contracts or agreements in any form, setting for the scope of work or expected compensation”
I suspect this will allow the State to cite any other cases this expert has testified. Maybe the intention is to taint the juror’s belief in anything this expert will say.

As for the other 5 requests, some are just plainly outrageous and a few of them could easily be ascertained by asking through deposition, looking on the internet and other sources as it was ruled in an earlier motion.
Thanks to the Gods of Justice and the hand of Judge Perry, 1, 2, 3 and 4 were DENIED without prejudice.

Number 5 and 6 pertaining to the actual evidence examined by the experts were granted.

5) Any notes taken by the expert or for the expert during, or referencing their examination of any evidence; and
6) Any photographs or video taken by the expert in connection with this case.

As a constant student of life, I’ve never realized how difficult it can be for a defendant in the State of Florida. I do hope Judge Perry has a change of heart and grants this one minor motion for the defense. He’s made his point. Yes he’s set deadlines and Yes, he can make a call of Contempt of Court but in this case and in the name of Justice, he was wrong in my un-lawyered opinion.   Perhaps the Gods of Justice will lead Judge Perry’s hand again and he’ll grant this motion.

News source:
http://www.wftv.com/news/26455776/detail.html

.

Advertisements