Casey Anthony: Case hearings in March

A look at March motions in Casey Anthony case hearings.

1N THE CIRCUIT COURT or THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT,

IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA

STATE OF FLORIDA CASE No. ; 2008-or-15606

Plaintiff,

V.

CASEY MARIE ANTHONY,

Defendant.

_/

ORDER MEMORIALIZING MOTIONS HEARD ON MARCH 2 -1, 2011

THESE MATTERS came before the Court on March 2, 3, 4, and 7, 2011. Attorneys Jose

Baez, J. Cheney Mason, and Dorothy Clay Sims were present for Defendant and Attorneys Linda Drane Burdick, Jeffrey L. Ashton, and Frank George were present for the State. Also, present for certain motions were Tamara L. Gappen, Attorney for Orange County Corrections; Mark Lippman, Attorney for George and Cindy Anthony; and Gregg D. Thomas, Attorney for WFTV and Kathleen Belich.

It is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. Motion to Quash Subpoenas and/or Motion for Protective Order and

Supplemental Motion to Quash Subpoenas:

This Motion, heard on March 2, 2011, was presented by Tamara L. Gappen, Attorney for

Orange County Corrections. Per stipulation of the parties, Deanne Adams and Mary J0 Dykes were released from attending the hearing. The Court ordered that Cindy Corrado, Tammy Unser, Dennis Moonsammy, and Marlene Baker be on 2 hour standby.

2. Motion for Relative of Victim to be Excluded from Rule of Sequestration:

This Motion, heard on March 2, 2011, was presented by Mark Lippman, Attorney for

George and Cindy Anthony. The Court invoked the rule of sequestration, but per this Motion, George and Cindy Anthony, as next of kin to victim Caylee Anthony, were permitted to attend certain proceedings after they both testified. Ftuther, the Court ordered that for future proceedings, this Motion may be re-addressed on a hearing by hearing basis.

3. Motion to Strike Kathleen Belich a/k/a Kathleen Gallagher from Defendant’s

Supplemental Witness List:  This Motion, heard on March 4, 2011, was presented by Gregg Thomas, Attorney for  WFTV and Kathleen Belich. The Court ruled that pursuant to the journalist’s privilege under ž 90.5015, Florida Statutes, Defendant failed to meet her burden to provide a clear and specific showing that: 1) the information sought from Kathleen Belich is relevant and material to unresolved issues that have been raised in the proceeding for which the information is sought;

2) the information cannot be obtained from alternative sources; and 3) a compelling interest exists for requiring disclosure of the information. Accordingly, this Motion is GRANTED.

4. State’s Motion in Limine:

This Motion was heard on March 4, 2011 and Defendant was in concurrence.

Accordingly, the Court ruled as follows:

Item No. 1 in motion: Any testimony or expression of personal opinion by counsel, or

any witness, that the defendant is guilty or not guilty: GRANTED.

Item No. 2 in motion: Any testimony about irrelevant character traits of Defendant

(for guilt phase only): GRANTED.

 Item No. 3 in motion: Any testimony or argument of counsel expressing a personal

opinion that the witnesses are “liars” or words to that effect. GRANTED (except

where evidence exists in support of such information).

Item No. 4 in motion: Any testimony or argument that unidentified members of the

Orange County Sheriff’ s Office, Office of the State Attorney, or any other government

agency “leaked” information to the media, or any third party. GRANTED (however,

if necessary, this information may be addressed at side bar via stipulation of the parties

and proffered outside of jury’s presence to determine the relevancy of the

information).

Item No. 5 in motion: Any testimony or argument that members of the Orange

County Sheriffs Office arranged for the Defendant to be video recorded upon learning

that her daughter’s remains were found. GRANTED (granted because there will be

no reference to video footage)

Item No. 6 in motion: Any testimony or argument that unidentified members of the

Orange County Sheriffs Office, Office of the State Attorney, or any other govemment

agency, who will not testify, committed any alleged improper acts. GRANTED

(however, if necessary, this information may be addressed at side bar via stipulation of

the parties and proffered outside of jury’s presence to determine the relevancy of the

infonnation).

5. State’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Supplemental Witness List

filed February 14, 2011:

This Motion was heard on March 4, 2011 and the following occurred:  Kathleen Belich, a/k/a Kathleen Gallagher is removed as a witness per separate Motion as addressed in paragraph 3 herein.

The State concurs with Defendant that good cause exists for naming Defendant’s

former boyfriend, Kemieth Drupiewski, as a Witness because his testimony would be

relevant as to the date when Defendant's diary was written. Accordingly, Kemieth

Drupiewski is permitted to remain on the witness list.

Defense counsel voluntarily removed Marvin Schecter from the witness list.

6. State’s Motion for Rule to Show Cause: This Motion was heard on March 4, 2011 and pursuant to the Court’s request, the parties provided a resolution for this Motion and in compliance with the Court’s Order dated February 4, 2011. Accordingly, the Court finding that the resolution and actions of counsel at this hearing to be satisfactory, no further action will be taken on this Motion.

7. Defendant’s Motion in Limine to Suppress Video Footage (Jail Video):

The State confirmed with the Court that it will not be utilizing this piece of evidence or

descriptions of this video during its Case-in-Chief. Accordingly, at the hearing on March 4,2011, the Court rendered this Motion MOOT.

8. The Court reserved ruling for the below Motions that will be addressed in

separate orders: Defendant’s Motion and Amended Motion to Suppress Statements made to Law Enforcement Officers. Motion heard on March 2, 3, and 7, 2011.

 Defendanfs Motion to Suppress Statements made to George, Cindy, and Lee

Anthony, Maya Derkovic, Robyn Adams, and Sylvia Hernandez. Motion heard on March 3, 4, and 7, 2011.

 State‘s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Unreliable Evidence

Pursuant to Frye (Chloroform). Motion to Strike heard on March 4, 2011.

State’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Unreliable Evidence

Pursuant to Frye (Plant or Root Growth). Motion to Strike heard on March 4, 2011.

DONE AND ORDERED in chambers at Orlando, Orange County, Florida, this /2 ii

day of March, 2011. Nunc pro tunc to March 2, 2011 and March 4, 201 l for the applicable

BELVIN PERRY, JR.

Chief Judge

Motions heard and ruled upon on these dates.

QERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Order has been

furnished by U.S. Mail or hand delivery, this day of March, 201 1 to:

 Jose Baez, Esquire, The Baez Law Firm, 522 Simpson Road, Kissimmee, Florida 34744

 J. Cheney Mason, Esquire, J. Cheney Mason, P.A., 390 North Orange Avenue, Suite

2100, Orlando, Florida 32801

0Dorothy Clay Sims, Esquire, Sims & Stakenborg, P_A., 118 SW Fort King Street, P.O.

Box 3188, Ocala, Florida 34478-3188

Ann Finnell, Esquire, Finnell, McGuinness, Nezami, & Andux, P.A., 233 E. Bay Street,

Suite 601, Jacksonville, Florida 32202

Linda Drane Burdick, Jeffrey L. Ashton, and Frank George, Assistant State Attorneys,

Office of the State Attorney, 415 North Orange Avenue, Orlando, Florida 32801

 Tamara L. Gappen, Esquire, Orange County Attorney’s Office, Orange County

Administration Center, P.O. Box 1393, Orlando, Florida 32802-1393

Mark Lippman, Esquire, Lippman Law Offices, P.A., 255 South Orange Avenue, Suite

720, Orlando, Florida 32801

Gregg D. Thomas, Esquire and Rachel E. Fugate, Esquire, Thomas & Locicero PL, 400

North Ashley Drive, Suite 1100, P.O. Box 2602 (33601), Tampa, Florida 33602