Your Federal Quarterly Tax Payments are due April 15th Get Help Now >>

Casey Anthony Status Hearing by denjet


									11/29/2010 Status Hearing @ 1:30 pm Part1
@ 0:33 CJP: Ok be seated. Madam clerk you may call the case. Clerk: case # 2008 ………..State of Florida
versus Casey Marie Anthony. CJP: Ok let the record reflect that the defendant is present a long with counsel
for the defense and the assistant state attorneys we’re here for a status conference and also I think the State has
scheduled something. Folks we’re going to need to complete our work by one-forty I am in trial in courtroom
nineteen delta. So I have a jury coming back at one-forty-five. Ok you want to hear your motion first Mr.
Ashton? JA: Yes sir thank you. CJP: You may proceed. JA: Yes sir the State has filed a motion to compel
additional discovery pursuing to the rules cited in the motion. As background the defense has I think five or six
expert witnesses over the last year. The deadline for listing expert witnesses is tomorrow. From conversations
with Mr. Baez I believe I understand that they may two or three or four more by then. The difficulty that we’ve
had with the defense experts is while we have provided defense with in excess of ten thousand pages of
discovery, notes and information about our experts as to their experts we have received nothing. No reports, no
statements nothing so we filed a motion to compel some of these are included in the discovery rules and some
are not @ 2:14 that is additional discovery. We asked first of all for any contracts or agreements to respecting
scope or expecting compensation. We want to know what these experts listed were hired to do and what the
payment schedule is both for them being hired prior to the indigencey and supplement. Ant communication
between the expert and any member of the defense team either past or present. These particular communications
I’ve acknowledged some of which may contain work product and I believe an appropriate order would be that
the defense should turn them over unless they feel it is work product and then the court could examine it and
make an in camera determination. The particular purpose of this is one difficulty that we have had is in
determining what’s @ 3:01 area of expertise and expert listed in. For an example one of the experts which was
listed sometime ago was a gentleman I believe his name is Fairgrieve a doctor listed as a forensic @ 3:13
anthropologist from Canada. We have been operating under the assumption for the last year that he was a
forensic anthropologist and was relevant to witnesses of that type. We were informed a couple of days ago that
no he maybe a witness having to do with the dog scent issue. So again we need some kind of information that
will help us know who we need to depose, how long we need to depose them and on what subject and normally
that would be done by providing a report again this case we have been given none I assume that there are none
but I believe some of these communications may qualify as reports or as statement of witnesses and so if their
listed we would like @ 3:57 to have those. We want all records of bills submitted by or payments made to the
expert a common form of discovery. We want any records having to do with travel, meals or entertainment. In
another words if his airplane flight has been paid or he has been taken out to dinner we want all those records
because anything the expert received by way of the defense or defense attorney privately or through his trust
account through other payments is potentially is grips for cross examination so we would like all of that. Any
notes taken by the expert or for the expert during the records of examination. Again this exactly identical of
what we gave the defense probably a year and half ago as to our experts and as to, in one in particular I noted
that the evidence examination that Dr. Lee was dictating to one of the witnesses there and she was taking notes
for him that’s why I said for taken by the expert. Any photographs or video taken by the expert in connection
with the case in as to civilian witnesses we have on more than one occasion been handed photographs or found
out about some of the evidence in the middle of a deposition or I believe Mrs. Burdick has occasionally been
given stuff the day before. We would just like a little more order of these relevant materials. We would like that
all of these are appropriation of the discovery rule we would ask the court to enter an order on all of these
matters and as to the communications between the expert and the defense if there is a concern about work
product we ask the court to do an in camera determination redact those portions that you feel are work product
and gives us what remains. Thank you. @ 5:48 CJP: response from the defense Mr. Baez? JB: Good afternoon
Judge Perry. CJP: Good afternoon. JB: My first response to Mr. Ashton motion would be borrowing a page of
Mr. Ashton’s book and that is there is no where in the rule, in the rules that outline this type of discovery at
least some of it. I think there is multiple areas here so as to having me go back and pull agreements or give him
a total accounting of certain things there is nothing that entitles the State to this. If they want to what each mem,
person is being paid they can simply ask them. That is what the purpose of a deposition is for. That, none of that
has been given to us by the State of Florida, they haven’t given us their contracts, their accounting of how much
these experts were being paid and their communications with expert. As a matter of fact it is to the contrary, we
have been one hundred and sixteen depositions that we have taken in this case. We have been operating under
the agreement Mr. Ashton specifically objects any time during the deposition when we ask them about any
communications in between them and the prosecutors. Now after all the State expert witnesses are deposed Mr.
Ashton decides to file this motion @ 7:22 I don’t think he can have it both ways. Upon receiving this motion I
filed a mirror motion because I think if the court is going to grant this for the State it should work both ways. It
hasn’t been working both ways as to what each person will testify to on reports I have not asked that any of
our experts write any reports I think that is extra work @ 7:49 especially since many of them are going to
work pro bono and they are working under the agency standards from the JAC. I’m trying not to get them to do
repetitive work the State and its three hundred and plus witnesses despite numerous efforts that we’ve made to
ask them what each witness will testify to they just basically shack of their shoulders and say sorry they’re all
category a witnesses. We’ve gone over this song and dance before the court many times and that is that we’ve
had to find out about these witnesses and what they’re going to testify to the hard way by rolling up our sleeves
and doing the work. The State apparently doesn’t feel that they have to work in that way. The, as to any of
whining and dinning going on there’s none of that so there is nothing to turn over, the and as I’ve mentioned
earlier there are no reports that any of the experts have prepared . I would think if the court is inclined to grant
this motion for the State we are now put in the possession because we have been operating under the
understanding that any communications between experts and their respective and besides we would then have to
go back because we’re of course going to have to ask for the same thing from the State we would like to go
back and question these experts about these specific communications because we were not granted the ability to
do so and other than that I don’t know if the court has any questions but. CJP: Would you respond to the
request one by one Mr. Baez? I think you listed six areas that he was interested in you addressed the first one
then in contracts agreement @ 9:49 or in any form of matter enhancing the scope or expected compensation.
You addressed that one but what about and you also addressed number two communication between yourself
and experts but what about three, four, five and six records for travel notes taken by experts and any
photographs or video taken by experts in the case. What is your position on those sir? JB: As to the travel issue
I think that is a burdensome issue. @ 10:32 For, to have us stop what we’re doing in the middle of one of the
busiest portions of the trial when they can simply ask these experts during depositions I think that is the more
customary way of doing things. It certainly is the easiest way of doing things. That would be our position on
that as to any photographs that we have that we intend on using for trial that would be discovery and I don’t
have any issues with that other than work product we’d be more than happy to turn it over to them. CJP: What
about notes @ 11:05 taken by your experts during any examination? JB: Any notes that do not contain any
work product information we will be glad to turn over to the prosecution. CJP: I take it from your previous
statements that your experts do not intent to offer any reports? JB: Correct. CJP: Has the State listed any
expert witnesses that they intend to call? JB: The State has listed many experts yes. CJP: Have they provided
reports? JB: Many of them have yes. CJP: Anything else Mr. Baez? JB: Nothing further thanks. CJP: Ok. @
11:46 Mr. Ashton. JA: Very briefly, we have provided category five to the defense, approximately a year and a
half ago, with the notes of all of our experts, as I said it’s over ten thousand pages, six has been provided
completely a year and a half ago, number three, we have provided the defense with all the bills that we’ve
received showing the payments to our experts, to come to mind immediately, I recall Dr. Haskell, Dr. Jawitz
and many of our experts are government employees and don’t have bills, so to the extent that this request is
made we have complied with every request that’s been made. As far as work product, I don’t want the defense’s
work product. I don’t want any email that reflects the attorney’s thought process. But to the extent that there are
statements within those documents that would qualify as statements of a witness under the rule. I think we’re
entitled to those and I’d ask the court to, if necessary, do it in camera, I think that’s all. @ 12:53 CJP: OK, Mr.
Ashton, one additional question. JA: Sir. CJP: Specifically under the rules of the discovery rule three point two
two zero, perrian d the defendant’s obligation. What in that rule or what case authority do you cite for the
proposition for your request for one, two, three and four? JA: Your Honor there is let’s see one, two, two I
would submit qualifies, may qualify, depending on what’s in there, as a report, in other words if it expresses
some opinion in the communication, it would qualify as a report. It may also qualify as statement under the
basic rules of witness statements. Four I don’t believe is covered under the rules, but I do believe it is covered
under (f) which is additional discovery that is appropriate for counsel to reveal what has been paid to their
expert both in terms of money or compensation of other types, so I believe that is covered under (f). And did
you have a question about six as well? @ 13:58 CJP: Nope my only question that was one, two, three and four.
@ 14:02 JA: Three, your Honor I believe would be covered under (f) as well. Again, direct compensation to
witnesses is I think discoverable and we would be asking to be provided with that under additional discovery
under (f). CJP: One additional question, there are some cases that seem to indicate that those questions can
be asked through the vehicle of depositions. There are also some cases out there that also state that the
discovery rules was never designed to eliminate what is called the investigation by either side and to matters
that they can glean these things through other sources, ie: subpoena duces tecum to the witness and asking the
witness in deposition as opposed to having the lawyers go out and scurry those things up, similar to getting
ones criminal records as if the defense would ask you to give you them criminal records of each and everyone of
your witnesses. They could simply make a public records request of the Florida Department of Law
Enforcement. @ 15:24 JA: I believe in, if I’m recalling the cases we’re in citing there, they have to do with
Brady material cases and the obligations of the defense when an item becomes Brady material, because it’s not
reasonably available to both sides unless there’s another case that you’re thinking of? CJP: No, I’m not talking
about Brady materials. JA: I was. CJP: The discovery rules were never designed to eliminate the attorneys
doing certain things on their own that can be obtained and my question simply to you is those are things that
you can obtain such as compensation or agreements from the experts themselves either through a subpoena
duces tecum and have them bring them to the deposition or present it prior to the deposition so you can review
those. @ 16:19 JA: Well again, most of these witnesses are out of state. So in order to do and your right there is
a legal vehicle to do a subpoena duces tecum for documents out of state. Obviously in order to get them it
would necessitate coming to this court obtaining the appropriate specific materiality, going to a court in their
jurisdiction, one of them that I know is in Canada, so I don’t know if Canada is reciprocal in that matter. We
would have to go to the court in the state where they live, file a motion to for that court to issue a subpoena
duces tecum to provide the records at a deposition in that jurisdiction which would we have to then take and
then travel to that jurisdiction to obtain the records if you will. Obviously, we would want to look at them for
some period of time before actually taking their deposition. So the court is correct there is a vehicle for that. My
understanding of the case law in the area of additional discovery does not necessarily require that proof to be …
I would also comment @ 17:23 that the defense filed probably two years ago, an extensive motion asking for a
huge amount of information that is not covered in the discovery rules. And again, we didn’t object, though it
was extremely burdensome on FBI and the other agencies to obtain all these documents, they agreed to do so.
So the defense is now indicating that it is too burdensome for them to go through their records to see how much
they paid their experts. I would also comment that these documents we provided were provided a year before
the depositions of the experts. So, yes you’re right, I could go into the deposition, ask questions, get the
documents and the reschedule the witness for another occasion to get @A 18:11 to question them about those
documents, I can do that, I would just submit it is an inefficient and overly burdensome system to make me do it
that way, but I will if the court requires. I would however say that in sort of a reciprocal equity, the defense
requested massive amounts of information that were not covered under the rules of discovery which we
provided, the agencies provided, without objection to us although we didn’t have it totaling over ten thousand
pages. So, I would submit that in fairness and I think that additional discovery rules use the term that in fairness
ought to be provided and I think that in fairness, these request are not that odorous, @ 18:56 are not that
extensive, I can’t imagine it’s all that difficult for Mr. Baez to go to his trust account records and determine how
much money was paid to a particular expert or how much money was paid for that person’s travel. Part 2
JA: So I would just ask the court in the interest of fairness and under f which does consider that. To order these
few things to be provided to us so that we can properly prepare these depositions as the defense did and they’ve
had a great deal of time to prepare for their depositions and I’m trying to depose these witnesses within the next
four weeks and I have nothing. Thank you sir. @ 0:25 CJP: Well f specifically provides on showing of
materiality. Mr. Baez is there anything else you would like to show, to say sir? JB: I would just briefly add to
what the State said. What we asked previously in our, in the defense’s motion, the State didn’t, he is correct,
they didn’t object, but what was given to us was misinformation to the court stating that we had to get it directly
from the FBI that had not been provided to prosecutors and I don’t think and this is a complete @ 1:01 one
hundred eighty degree turn from the issues we were before your honor asked as it relates to the Tennessee
Oakridge Laboratory’s if your honor will recall we asked for significant items that related both to financial and
to contracts that were never disclosed and Mr. Ashton had the to their response said that it’s burdensome for
them to turn over this information and we had to jump threw the hoops why testing and ask these questions at
deposition. I would also state that they have not under the rules shown any materiality for this. CJP: Ok. Well
gentlemen’s and ladies, gentlemen and ladies it is quite obvious that most experts don’t work for free. That’s
their stock and trade and that is how most of them make their living. @ 2:01 They are either paid by some
governmental entity or if they work for a private lab they are paid and the issue of compensation does go to
someone’s biased or interest, but at the same token that information can be obtained either by through their
deposition or through a subpoena duces tecum. So as to the request dealing with one, two, three and four I will
deny those without prejudice unless they can not be obtained through the vehicle of their deposition. As to five
and six I will grant those requests as to any notes taken by the experts during their examination of the evidence
as to photographs or videos that were taken. Since the defense is not having any of their experts offer a reports
under sub section f additional discovery the court will require that the defense lists the subject matter of what
these experts will @ 3:29 be testifying to prior tot their depositions at least that gives the State an opportunity
to know the subject matter of what they will be testifying to in order to properly prepare to take their
depositions. The defense is to provide the subject matter of what they will be testifying to and their area of
expertise that they will be attempting to qualify them as expert witnesses to the State and your deadline is I
believe tomorrow I’ll give you two weeks to provide that information to the State. I will give you three weeks to
provide any notes or any photographs to the State. Anything else in that subject matter Mr. Ashton or Mr. Baez?
@ 4:35 JA: Yes your honor the, we’re attempting to take the depositions of the witnesses this month so your
time frame is actually past. CJP: What is the date of your depositions? JB: I will prefer. JA: If I could have just
a moment? JB: I will prefer. CJP: Just a second Mr. Baez? JA: I’ll just look on here I think I don’t have my
office calendar. LDB: One is on the 16th. JB: I just wanted to say I’ll give him, the reason he knows about Dr.
Fairgrieve is because I told him. JA: I think. JB: He can ask. CJP: One at a time folks. JB: Anytime that asked
me about what this person is going to testify about I have willing told them. I have no problem with giving.
CJP: Well can you do it sooner? JB: Absolutely. CJP: How much sooner? JB: If Mr. Ashton wants to speak to
me after the hearing he can run down the names and I. CJP: No, no, no. This has to be provided in writing
because I’m not going to get into a swearing contest between the two of you. Do it by when? JB: End of the
week judge I have no problem. CJP: Ok by Friday by four pm on all three items that I have previously
discussed. Ok Mr. Baez we will and Mr. Ashton and Mrs. Drane, Mr. Mason and Ms. I forget your name. AF:
Finnell your honor. CJP: Ms. Finnell. You have one outstanding @ 6:12 motion that has been lingering for
quite sometime and that is with Mr., the meter reader. JA: Mr. Kronk. CJP: Mr. Kronk do you all have a plan
to call that one up or do you want me to deny that since you have no interest in calling that motion up? JB:
Well the way after reviewing that I think what happened. I think we may withdraw it and re-file it closer to the
trial because a lot of these issues will, the court is going to have to determine at a later time that to there
relevance so I think that’s probably going to be the wiser choice of proceeding. CJP: Please bear in mind that
there are certain deadlines to be heard on motions. If you try to set it beyond @ 7:09 that I will not hear it.
Since you’ve had an opportunity have it heard and you knew about it before hand. So think carefully about
withdrawing because once we get to that deadline if you knew or should have known about a motion and you
did not file it I will not be hearing it. JB: I’ll discuss it with counsel today and will let your, I’ll e-mail your JA
and notify you to as immediately as to whether we plan on setting it for hearing or withdrawn. CJP: Ok I take it
that all the discovery depositions of the State’s expert witnesses have been taken and completed. JB: Yes sir. As
well as. CJP: Ok I also take it Mr. Baez that your experts had an opportunity to review all of the State’s
evidence at this time? Since the deadline was August, not August but October thirty-first. JB: With the
exception of the DNA evidence that the court just ruled on yes. CJP: With the exception of DNA. When do you?
JB: and I’m sorry judge. I don’t believe they got their items back that their process. It is a lengthy tedious
process, but. CJP: When do expect them for your DNA analysis to be completed? JB: I believe the State. I just
handed the State the stipulation I presume that is going to go out this week. I can’t imagine it would be anything
more than thirty days. CJP: So it’s going to be examined and reports done and findings done within thirty days?
JB: That’s the best estimate that I can give to you. CJP: Now I take it that this laboratory will produce a report.
JB: Yes I expect yes. @ 9:00 CJP: Since your experts have not produced reports in the past this one will
produce a report? Correct? JB: Correct. CJP: Ok. So forty-five days from today’s date give or take a few days
but from forty-five days that analysis and report should be done? If not let me know? JB: Absolutely. CJP: Mr.
Ashton you see any problem or anything wrong with that? JA: No that should be fine the items should go out
this week. CJP: Ok. @ 9:36 All right so DNA analysis should be completed with a report within forty-five days
from today’s date. And Mr. Ashton I take it by your statement earlier that you’re well on the way of taking and
completing the experts listed by the defense by February twenty-eighth? Mr. Baez you will be complying by
tomorrow which is the deadline with listing of all of your experts? JB: Yes sir. JA: Yes sir we presently have
two of the four listed experts set in December. We are, one thing I did want to put on the record something that
counsel told me privately. The hair analyst Mr. Petraco who examined the hair in the case, my understanding
from counsel and I would like to put it on record that person will not be listed as a witness. So we will not be
setting him. Is that correct? JB: I don’t believe so at this time unless it changes from today until tomorrow.
CJP: You don’t believe what? JB: That. CJP: He will not be listed as a witness? JB: Correct. CJP: Ok. JA: So
barring that we are trying to set depositions on Dr. Lee and I expected counsel, we’re having some difficulty in
getting responses back from his assistant about any call back about setting him. So whatever counsel can do to
help with that we’d appreciate it. The Dr. Bach I think it is or Dr. Broch. JB: Dr. Boch. JA: The botanist Boch
there’s been some communication but just trying to set her obviously we get these additional witnesses will set
them to. I would ask counsel that I think of all of our greatest concern is to get the Frye hearing motion set.
Counsel and I have had the discussion about the motion. My understanding is that the motion is going to
challenge the @ 11:33 use of the composition odor database only. In other words it is not going to challenge the
instrumental of variations of what they found but the application of that data to the database. That being the case
we would agree that that is new and we will make a Frye showing on that I do, I would appreciate though if
counsel could let me know any witnesses that are called for that hearing @ 12:00 so I can prioritize them. Get
them done more quickly I know the court wants to get that motion heard and time for the court to rule upon it
intelligently aside from that we seem to be moving along at pace and pretty good fashion. JB: I would agree
with Mr. Aston statements as a matter of fact I am going to speak with Mr. Ashton and work out the logistics of
the Frye hearing who going to show up and which way, if their going to come live or via some type of Skype.
We plan to have. CJP: Well you can use the Cisco system. JB: Yes so if what I. CJP: Which will be installed in
this court room sometime shortly after the first of the year. JB: What I would like to do is of course if Mr.
Ashton can agree to just say these are the people I’m going to call your going to call if they are known and we
can make sure that they’re deposed and ready to go. So I don’t have any problems with that. CJP: The only
thing I will remind you of is that motions related to forensic scientific evidence shall be heard no later than
February twenty-eighth of. JB: If I could just say. CJP: twenty-eleven. JB: I have considered that. CJP: Well
JB: The only other thing that I would add before the court would be that as of today we will conclude all the
law enforcement depositions. There is one or two that haven’t shown that doesn’t include the no shows and two
officers that have they claim that there is an investigation going and we are just waiting for them because we
would like to finish them so we can conclude their depositions. We have already taken or started them and
we’re waiting till their finished so we can conclude. The other thing that might be of interest @ 14:02 for the
court is that December we plan on knocking out as many of these civilian witnesses as possible. However one I
have a trial, one of the weeks that we have upon December and I know Ms. Drane Burdick just filed a notice of
unavailability I think for two weeks? LDB: One. JB: One week, @ 14:24 so it’s two weeks shot, just bringing it
to your attention. CJP: Well. JB: I fully anticipated on having it done. CJP: That’s why there is Fridays and
Saturdays. JB: Well I have @ 14:38 no doubt that will probably be able to please everything along with trial.
It’s just can I look. CJP: Bear in mind contained that non-forensic scientific legal motions requiring no
testimony before the court shall be filed and heard no later than December thirty-first twenty-ten so when we
deal with Mr. Kromp I believe there is no testimony and it is basically legal argument that needs to be heard
before the thirty-first if it is not heard before the thirty-first it won’t be heard. How Ms. Finnell are we doing
with penalty phase witnesses? Your deadline is tomorrow. AF: Thank you your honor. Your honor I have
prepared a penalty phase response there are known witnesses of, there is approximately fifty witnesses long at
this point. As I indicated to the court I am not yet prepared on the mitigation expert and I would ask for
additional time obviously. CJP: How much time are you asking for? @ 16:05 AF: Judge I just don’t, I just can’t
tell you right now. CJP: Do your best to tell me and think about it but if your going to need a mitigation expert
you’ve been. AF: I would be hopeful that we can list one within the next sixty days easily. CJP: What about
thirty days? You are quite experienced Ms. Finnell and this @ 16:27 is not your first trip. AF: Ah. CJP:
Around. AF: That’s true it’s not my first and some of this is depending upon the expert your honor I will make
the best effort to have that finalized obviously it’s in my best interest to have it done sooner as well. CJP: I will
give you to January the first on your mitigation expert. AF: Thank you judge. Judge I have also filed a motion
to seal penalty phase discovery which I will ask. I know that we’re not set for a hearing on that today. I will ask
for a hearing on it. CJP: Ok. AF: And ask for it the discovery to be temporarily sealed so until we have a
hearing for it. CJP: The only suggestion @ 17:11 that I will make is that based upon things that have happened
in the past that you may want to look in the court file and notice the attorney for the media. AF: Yes. CJP: So
they may have some objections to that. AF: I understand that sir that’s one reason why obviously we can’t go
forward. CJP: Right. AF: with it today. So I will notice him and send him a copy of the motion if the court can
tell me the best date for hearing that? @ 17:42 CJP: Unfortunately the week leading up to Christmas I will be
here. Think we have something Mr. one of you I don’t know if it’s you Mr. Ashton? Monday and Tuesday?
Lebron or Rogers? JA: Yes the, I think the twenty-first and twenty-second or twentieth and the twenty-first.
Yes completion of Rogers. The pet scan issue. AF: Any of those dates will be fine with me your honor. JB: I
didn’t hear that. JA: It’s a Monday and Tuesday either twenty twenty-one or twenty-one twenty-two. CJP: I
think I put you down for a day and a half the twentieth and the twenty-first. How long, we can do it the
afternoon of the twenty-first. Why don’t we notice it for then? JA: One further thing we may for my purposes
from e-mail discussions counsel in that case I think what we may end using is just the two mornings @ 18:48
because my expert is unavailable till, is only available in the morning so you may want to leave the afternoon of
the twentieth available. We have to check and see. I think this is going to be limited to Dr. Woo for them, but
anyway. CJP: Ok. AF: Which ever is good for the court I think I can be here either day, the twentieth or the
twenty-first? CJP: Either one of those afternoons will work for me for this. AF: Alright then how about I do it
the twentieth for, would one o’clock be a good time notice the. CJP: One thirty. AF: One thirty. Very good sir I
will notice the media and in the interim to my discovery response can it be sealed until then? CJP: Until then.
AF: Thank you sir. JA: Well I assume your going to give it to me. AF: Absolutely. I was going to give it to Mr.
Ashton and to the court this afternoon actually and if it could just be sealed until we can hear it. CJP: Ok. JA:
Thank you for that. And does that go for, I assume I will be getting statements from these witnesses also would
the same go for the statement? AF: If there are statements that qualify in the rule or if Mr. Ashton just wants to
call me up I can, I’ll be more than happy to kind of give him an informal. CJP: Ok. @ 20:05 AF: Overview of
what I think the witness is going to say. CJP: Ok. AF: Thank you your honor. CJP: Thank you. Again all
penalty phase witness depositions need to be completed by February twenty-eighth. Are there any other matters
we need to take up? Are there any issues or problems from the defenses stand point? Mr. Mason Mr. Baez. CM:
The only problem is @ 20:35 JAC? CJP: What about JAC? CM: The problem is that the court reporter from
Tennessee and that is past their job and we can …... Their mixed up. The problem is the court reporter we had
agreed to take them. …them perhaps you can tell them that we and I’m going back today to see if we get a
response and it will be forwarded and it will come to you. CJP: Agreed to what? CM: Pardon? CJP: Agreed to
what? CM: To the payment of deposition transcripts from Oakridge National Laboratory of course we went to
Knoxville to take. The court reporters up there agreed on our JAC rate, but we went up there and Mr. Baez and I
wonder if this is compatible per deum the State will pay for it. Now the JAC is, we’re heading, I’m trying to get
this resolved before we bring it to you. CJP: Ok. CM: If there isn’t you know and you. CJP: If you all can’t
resolve this I will. CM: And when you do that I am going to ask you also to consider some of the time this order
when we’re taking depositions from are own transcripts that they can be approved without us having to go,
because it has been a week delay to get a transcript. CJP: Did you check with @ 21:58 when you hired a court
reporter whether or not they would take the JAC rate? CM: Say that again? CJP: Did you check before you
hired the court reporter to see if. CM: We did yes sir. We went a got a motion with an affidavit for that. I had
the law firm in Knoxville gives us the use of a hall for free I mean all of us. CJP: Then what happened did they
tell you beforehand that they would not take the JAC rate or what? CM: Well they said they would based on the
JAC rate and when we got down to them doing it they said holed it wait a minute this is going to be to long and
it is going to cost too much and… CJP: My advice the next time that you enter into a contract with them. CM:
Well fortunately I won’t do it next time I don’t think there is going to be a whole lot of …… CJP: I know. CM:
But bottom line is @ 22:51 that I’ve got a .. CJP: Ok. CM: That … Jeff, he was up there with us in
Knoxville court and to reason alright and if they don’t you get a motion and will be asking .. CJP: Alright. CM:
And you can rule. CJP: Ok. CM: And the other thing is to just think about it is it is easy to get a transcript than
they were …… not individually having go through this whole process. CJP: Ok we’ll take a look. CM:
Something I need the committee to know about. CJP: Well there is no more committee Mr. Mason. CM: Well
we perhaps know the court is ready for something else I think counsel wanted you. CJP: Ok Mr. Baez. @ 23:36
(sidebar) to @ 31:25 CJP: Ok folks I believe we have the matter of the Texas Equusearch those records have
been done. The defense will be required to give the State a list of witnesses as a result of that by December
thirty-first. Any depositions that need to be taken of those witnesses need to be completed by March thirtieth.
CM: March when your honor. CJP: Thirtieth of March two thousand eleven. Ok anything else folks? JB:
Nothing further from the defense. LDB: No sir. CJP: Ok may I, Ok let me see the corporal or the lieutenant,
but we’ll be in recess in this matter. Ok thank you.
hank you.

To top