Baez better have more than ‘police misconduct’ on his slate, more than TES ‘misconduct’, more than some misconduct by Scott Bolin and the FBI, and all those FBI lab scientists, technicians, for some ‘misconduct’– that seems to be Baez’s weak spot, well, one of them.

(and btw, Baez’s insistence on release of that final visit video, showed lack of communication with the family and his client, but especially the family, where they should have told Baez there was a problem with showing Casey’s behavior in the visit– don’t do it! Because Baez was on a one-track plan for these videos and the families specific questions that were designed to ‘prove’ that the family believed in the kidnapper and to ‘prove’ that the kidnapper(s) existed for the media, he figured that the police misconduct accusations by Casey (they aren’t listening to me! they didn’t show me a photo of that girl, etc), he really stepped in it big time.)

As for the jailhouse video when Casey saw “the news” … they don’t really need it. Her story has so many holes in it already a few more or a few less won’t make much diff.

I spoke too strongly above when I wrote, “1) because there was no indication that either party would seek to introduce the tape into evidence at trial.”

I didn’t recall that Macaluso was even at that hearing. I was thinking of the motion hearing in in terms of Strickland’s statement that he wanted to talk to both parties and the media before making a decision about the December 11 videotape and also to Strickland’s ruling to seal the videotape. He wrote in the ruling that was released on June 17, “It is at least a possibility that the video in question will never be shown to the jury that decides this matter.”

http://www.wftv.com/pdf/19779284/detail.html

I didn’t remember his exact wording when I wrote my comment, but the impression I took away from the ruling (going from memory) was that neither side had indicated an intention to introduce the video into evidence.

You certainly could be right that it was simply a strategic decision of the SAO to let the tape be sealed for now.

It also occurred to me that there are underlying issues/problems regarding the situation in which Casey was brought to the medical station that the SAO wanted to back away from (and they might avoid using that tape at trial because of those issues).

Within the last few months I read that the OCSO official who ordered the jail personnel to take Casey to the medical station, put her where she could watch the TV, and take notes regarding her reaction to the news of the remains discovered on Suburban Drive had been demoted. No reason was given for the demotion, but I suspect he was punished for poor judgment in the matter of the December 11 videotape. The taping does reek of a set-up to “catch” Casey, maybe even to capture her on tape blurting out something incriminating.

Got it. The state did not have a dog in the fight at that time, imo, purposefully. They released the tape to the defense, which in turn doing so forces the PI access to kick in. They let the media take the helm, and let it ride. It is my personal opinion that tape will never come in. HOWEVER, I think Baez is just dumb enough to open the door to that parlor with the impugning of the County staff at the jail. The option would be for some sort of mutual stipulation on the evidence.
B

Anthonys should have listened to Mark Long ago but A’s are SSSSSSSTTTTTUUUUPPPPPIIIIIDDDDD

IMO, there are many good reasons why he should keep tabs on the coverage of this particular case. I say that because Strickland has to make decisions in this case relative to Florida’s extremely liberal sunshine laws that he probably rarely or never must make in other criminal cases.

This case is highly unusual for the fact that the media has gone to the trouble of gathering the discovery and making it public. While the law permits the public to seek pre-trial discovery for every criminal case, the public doesn’t care about Joe Shmoe’s trial so the media doesn’t bother getting it. I don’t know of any trial like this one in which every scrap of discovery is sought and made public by media outlets and in which virtually everything the defendant does is reported on. There was a time when every stick of deoderant and every granola bar Casey ordered from the jail commissary was considered news-worthy.

It’s my opinion that the Florida lawmakers who voted to liberalize Florida’s open records laws to the extent that they did never anticipated that the discovery of any particular case would be used in the way that discovery has been used in the Anthony case. IIRC, the laws were liberalized in the late 70′s, long before personal computers and Internet culture. Because the laws are what they are, Judge Strickland is forced to release most of the discovery, so the fact that millions of people have read discovery material that is highly prejudicial to Casey (including material that may not be allowed into evidence at trial) is not something that Strickland can control for the most part.

But I won’t be surprised if this trial forces modifications of Florida’s open records laws, modifications that would strictly limit the scope of discovery that may be released prior to the trial. Transparency in government does not require the pre-trial release of discovery. It’s not at all on the same level as public access to the doings of legislative committees. I love reading and discussing the discovery in this case, but I’d never claim my rights as a citizen would be harmed if I had to wait until the trial to hear it or until after the trial to have full access to it.

Many rulings Strickland makes are all-but-required rulings relative to Florida law (such as his decision to release the autopsy report over the objections of George and Cindy). In a criminal investigation, the autopsy report is a key piece of evidence that will (without question) be introduced at trial, and the arguments to seal it until trial, while personally understandable, were not even close to being strong enough to allow him to override Florida’s sunshine laws regarding that particular piece of discovery. As he noted when he made the ruling, the autopsy report was very dry and clinical – just the facts, no editorializing. There was nothing inherently prejudicial about the report and nothing sensationalistic in it other than the gruesome content.

But on other rulings, he has more discretion (such as his decision not to release the medical-station videotape of Casey watching the news on December 11). That tape could be interpreted by the defense as Casey’s natural reaction to the news that a child’s skeleton had been found around the corner from her house, the location alone suggesting (as it did to everyone who heard the news) that the remains were those of Caylee Anthony or could be interpreted by the prosecution as indicating Casey’s guilty knowledge that LE had discovered where she dumped the body and Casey’s fear that the discovery of remains along with other evidence at the scene would expose Casey’s lie that she did not know what had happened to Caylee.

Judge Strickland’s decision to seal the December 11 videotape was made 1) because there was no indication that either party would seek to introduce the tape into evidence at trial and 2) because Strickland believed that the content of the tape was likely to be interpreted by most viewers as indicative of Casey’s guilt. He could well have drawn that conclusion (the correct one IMO) because he had been keeping tabs on coverage of the case and knew that widely-followed talk shows (Nancy Grace) don’t even try to maintain neutrality or objectivity when discussing released discovery.

I greatly respect Strickland and the rulings he’s made to date, and I appreciate that the publicity this case has generated is publicity – in great part – fueled by the discovery release. He understands that as well, and the combination of discovery and publicity in this case has required him to be aware of the discussion that the discovery fuels, hence the channel-surfing IMO.

Look at it this way – can you think of any other current murder case in central Florida (or anywhere) about which you know the names of the defendant, family members of defendant, witnesses, judge, prosecutors, defense attorneys, lead detectives, and expert witnesses? About which you can give a timeline of events? About which you can summarize the forensic evidence? Could you have defined forensic air sampling and cell pings before you started reading about this trial? I can answer NO to those questions.

You just reminded me of a discussion I had on CSO late last year after the defense announced on December 12 the names of the well-known forensic experts who had joined Casey’s defense team. The CSO member said she didn’t think it was right that all those experts were volunteering to help Casey when the defendants in virtually unknown murder cases did not get similar free help. But the way I see it is that those experts were drawn by the publicity, publicity that has grown and been fed by the discovery. To me, there’s a karmic balance going on there.

Granted, Casey’s own actions are what triggered public interest in the case (nightclubbing for a month after her baby daughter’s disappearance, a disappearance she apparently never intended to report to authorities), but the discovery is what has kept this case alive in the public’s awareness and created obsessive followers like me. I mean, look at the Melissa Huckaby-Sandra Cantu case. That was in March, and it very quickly faded from discussion after Huckaby’s arraignment because the authorities are making a mighty effort to keep the details quiet (and they were likely looking at the Anthony case as an example of what they wanted to avoid).

Very Interesting and insightful post Maura-
I concur in total with one exception. I dont think the state has ever indicated they would not use the video in trial, they did not fight the bjection imo, because the county really was at issue, and they would rather duck as a strategy manuver because everybody knew there was no way it was coming in prior to trial.

It was Macaluso (Hubolt) that argued to His Honor that he did not see any set of circumstances where that video comes into evidence. The actual probative vs. Prejudicial or innflammatory arguments have yet to happen