Hearing 3/18/10 (Criminal)

Today’s hearing: Casey asks for her Bloody Black Backpack Back
Posted on March 18th, 2010 by Valhall

As we all know, Casey has filed to be declared indigent because she ran through all the money she got from her days of home confinement. Remember those days in 2008, when she’d spend almost all day of everyday at Baez’s law offices? Remember how she’d show up at his office with her flip-flops, “hey I’mma rock star” sunglasses, and that mighty swollen backpack full of…

What? Well, Caylee, that’s what. Remember how Leonard Padilla said he bonded her out because he was convinced if she just got out of jail she would be able to help find Caylee? Remember how we never saw any evidence of her assisting in finding Caylee during that period? WRONG! The backpack was the evidence. Casey WAS looking for Caylee. She looked for Caylee in the photo albums, she looked for Caylee in memento boxes, and she looked for Caylee on computers filled with digital pics and videos. She spent ALL her time, looking for Caylee – oh, and watching One Tree Hill, and obsessively listening to weird songs about hiding secrets; and making bracelets, surfing Myspace and Facebook and eating strangers’ pizzas.

The reason we were confused that Casey never looked for, or assisted in looking for Caylee is that while half the world looked for a living Caylee at that time, and the other half looked for a dead Caylee at that time – Casey was looking for a marketable Caylee at that time. THAT Caylee would be found in sellable forms of media: pictures and videos. Remember how, in Cindy’s formal deposition with the prosecution in 2009, when they started talking about a picture of Casey and Caylee and whether Cindy had seen Casey leaving with pictures of Caylee and all of a sudden Baez did an on-the-record wig-out, followed by an off-the-record wig-out, followed by an on-the-record “ZIP IT!”?

Remember how that went down? Cindy started saying I’ve never seen this list, and the question of pictures came up and Baez said don’t answer that, and then Cindy had one of her traditional “My mouth just ran off with my bare-ass” moments? Baez couldn’t get her to shut up and hollered right there on tape – ZIP IT! – to his precious Rosebud? Remember how Baez challenged Miss Linda and said this was all determined to be confidential, and don’t go there? He was referring to the private conversation that took place between Judge Strickland, the defense attorneys, and the prosecution on the question of – where you getting all this money, Jose?

Read more:
http://www.thehinkymeter.com/2010/03/18/todays-hearing-casey-asks-for-her-bloody-black-backpack-back/

Here is a video of today's hearing.

Here is a video of the post hearing press conference posted to Youtube by Marinade Dave.

INDIGENCY DECISION HANGS ON DEFENSE'S LIST

March 18, 2009



Casey was in the court room Thursday morning for her indigency hearing wearing a striped, light-colored, button-down, long-sleeve shirt and dark pants (images | raw video). She was all smiles as she sat down between attorney Jose Baez and new addition J. Cheney Mason as the hearing got underway.

Casey’s new attorney told prosecutors and Judge Strickland that Casey's defense doesn’t have a dime left.

“It's all way gone and way upside down,” Mason said. “I’ve been asked to join and I’m doing it pro bono [free]. We’re just seeking confirmation of Ms. Anthony’s indigency and I don’t think that should be in question.”

“I think it needs to be out here in open court. So, if they want to tell me what happened in the past, the court is willing to listen,” Judge Stan Strickland told Cheney, referring to money already paid to attorneys in the case.

Under oath, Baez told Judge Strickland he received $275,000 early on in the case, made up of $5,000 from a yet unnamed donor, $75,000 from Casey's former attorney Todd Macaluso, and $200,000 from ABC, the latter being something WFTV reported over a year ago.

“Those were for licensing of photos and nothing else,” Baez told the judge.

Baez received $90,000 in legal fees. Andrea Lyon got $22,500 for investigations and travel. The rest was spent on things like experts, depositions and investigators. But that explanation wasn't good enough for the judge.

“If they were given X amount in the past and it's not well-accounted for, why would I want to entrust them with the public's money?” Judge Strickland asked Mason.

“And there's another way to deal with that. I think you'll trust me,” Mason responded.

“A novel position, but that's fine,” Strickland said.

“Am I right?” Mason asked.

“Of course, I trust you, but that has nothing to do with me handing over money,” Strickland said.

Mason said he still wants taxpayers to pick up some of the costs of Casey’s defense, which he said could reach $200,000, even with free lawyers and free experts.

“You want these funds, but I don't have much about the source of what happened in the past and where that money went,” Strickland said.

“I'm not seeking any public funds today, judge. As I said, the lawyers are appearing pro bono, so, therefore, it's nobody's business about what we're doing or not doing unless you can prove that the money previously paid was used improperly,” Mason replied.

After much discussion, Judge Strickland asked Casey's defense team to submit an itemized breakdown of exactly where the team has spent money to this point. It will be after Judge Strickland reviews it that a determination on indigence will be made.

Most defendants who are declared indigent get a public defender, but because Casey and her lawyers have already established a relationship, she would get to keep them.

If Casey's request is granted by the judge, her team does not just get a blank check. She will only get money for state-approved expenses, like investigators and court reporters. Also, if the judge thinks Baez has misspent any of the money he has made, the lawyer could have to fund some of his own services.

Casey Anthony's murder trial is set for May 11, 2011.

http://www.wftv.com/news/22876305/detail.html

“I'm not seeking any public funds today, judge. As I said, the lawyers are appearing pro bono, so, therefore, it's nobody's business about what we're doing or not doing unless you can prove that the money previously paid was used improperly,” Mason replied.

You have to love lawyer-speak. How could anybody possibly prove that the money previously paid was used improperly when the defense refuses to account for how they used it? If you are going to ask taxpayers for money, you should have to account for how you spent $275,000.

Also, if the judge thinks Baez has misspent any of the money he has made, the lawyer could have to fund some of his own services.

this is what I'm waiting on! LOL

BTW, does anyone think Casey is royally pissed off that all that money she got for selling caylee's photos is gone! And she didn't even get to buy a bra? LOL

Lottie-I found this for you: (although I kind of think maybe Baez meant to say July.)

Does anyone want to discuss the fact that Jose Baez was retained by Casey Anthony 2 days AFTER Caylee was last seen alive and approximately 28 days BEFORE it was announced she was missing? !!
Jose Baez testified under oath that he was retained on 17 JUNE 2008. Not July but June.
Sorry if this has been posted here already but I have yet to see this discussed anywhere and it is driving me crazy. I thought loads of people would have jumped on this already.
Anyway I am off to look at old phone records of Casey’s from this time period.


http://www.thehinkymeter.com/2010/03/18/todays-hearing-casey-asks-for-her-bloody-black-backpack-back/#comment-17602

Baez admitted that Casey got paid $200,000 by licensing the videos and photos to ABC. Unless I'm missing something, that should result in a tax liability of about $48,000 for Casey. If she does have a tax liability of about $48,000, I’m willing to bet that she didn’t claim the income or pay the tax. If that is the case, why should somebody who owes that much in back taxes be allowed to use taxpayer money for their defense?

Yeah! J4A, great point!

Julie, I also have a feeling the Baez meant to say July. I can't picture Casey retaining him a day or two after murdering Caylee. She was too busy living "The Beautiful Life." If she did retain him on June 17, he should have advised her to report "Caylee's kidnapping" to authorities right away.

No, I don't think she would have done that either. She was perfectly contented partying. Those pics of her at Fusion's don't look like someone even smart enough to retain council.

I'm curious about this trust fund of Casey's from which they withdrew funds for her defense. Who started it up, and who was allowed to take from it? Who oversaw it? what were the rules for distributions from it? Trusts have rules! I want to know what they were and if they were violated. I want to know if Baez was the executor (or whatever they're called) and if he got paid for handling the trust?

more fun with Baez> did you all hear him say he had to take some pay for this case because he was so busy he wasn't able to take any other cases? Well, I thought he DID have other cases!

Besides that, if he was so busy then why did he only work 1/3 of the available days he's had this case to work on? here's the math, but it's late so I hope it's right > he said he worked a total of 2500 hours. That's 314 eight hour days. Casey has been arrested for roughly 970 days. I think he had plenty of time to take on other cases, especially since he's hardly done ANYTHING on this case so far. He has not kept track of his time and is just blowing it out his butt just like how he always does things.

Baez and his team have no idea how much money they spent or on what! That's probably why they wanted to pretend it had be to a secret so as not to give away their defense strategy. How is saying who got how much going to give away your strategy anyway?

Who was the lady sitting behind CA, talking with her? She was rubbing her right arm, and rubbing the palms of her hands together, just like KC was doing. Was she telling CA what KC's actions were, because she couldn't see KC?

Remember, long ago, some body language expert commented on her rubbing her palms together. Said that was a sign of guilt, like she was trying to rub the blood of Caylee off her hands. She does this every time she is in court.

Sorry, I just spent 76 minutes watching KC's and Horseface's face, listening to a silent computer. Just another one of those days we go to court and Bozo is not ready. When will the judge get tired of this?

Lottie, Baez told in his press conference the trust fund was his, that all lawyers have trust funds to take money from on cases like this. The trust fund was not KC's.

It all sounds like a bunch of bull crap. What attorney doesn't keep records of billable hours, money received, legit expenses, etc. And why did Mancuso PAY into Casey's defense fund. Isn't it supposed to be the defendant who pays the attorney?

I agree with you Cali, why would Mancuso pay toward her defense, when he quit her team.

And 70K to boot, I'd also like to know why Macaluso did this. He's a crook.

Don't forget Lyon's contribution from her charity clinic. What was that, about $20,000?

Macaluso is said to have donated $70,000.

An anonymous donor gave $5000.

ABC gave $200,000. but out of that Casey only paid about $112,000. where's her other $88,000?

the numbers are not adding up. LOL

Maybe it went into her commissary fund, she ate it!

im with you lottie.. i wanna know where the rest of the $$$ went... my guess is that it is stashed away somewhere for princess KC to have..
200,000 ABC
70,000 lawyer contribution
20,000 from lyons clinic
5,000 anonymous donor.
-------------------------------
295,000
- 112,500
------------
182,500--- this is the amount unaccounted for.. one hundred eighty two thousand five hundred dollars.. THAT IS A LOT OF $$$$ missing..

one thing that mason said at the end. .. they have objections to the "jailhouse letters" written by KC on the grounds of attorney client priviledge.. WELL..

if the letters were written to a 3rd party (not a member of the defense) and she disclosed things that pertain to her attorneys.. it is NO LONGER PRIVILEDGED.. he needs to go back to law school if he doesnt know that.. IF a 3rd person is privvy to the information (from the client) there is NO longer an expectation of privacy, and attorney client priviledge is null and void pertaining to the matters discussed with the 3rd party.. so i am not sure what their argument could be about. KC is the one who wrote the letters..