First, please don’t shoot the messenger.<\/p>\n
Second, I think Judge Perry made a rather large boo-boo…<\/p>\n
Third, read Sparkman v. State, 902 So. 2d\u00a0253 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)<\/a> to see why…<\/p>\n First Comes the Tape, Next Comes the Objection<\/p>\n During trial, when the state offered the videotape of Sparkman’s statement to Brock, Sparkman objected \u00a0[…] Defense counsel admitted that the prosecutor had asked him to review the tape and provide his objections pre-trial, but he declined to do so.<\/p>\n The prosecutor also excised two portions on his own, which as an officer of the court he felt needed to be removed. The prosecutor explained that defense counsel knew that it would take a full day to edit the tape and that the court did not want the jury waiting that long.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Then comes the trial Judge’s response…<\/p>\n The trial court ruled that Sparkman’s contemporaneous objections were untimely because Sparkman should have filed a pre-trial motion pursuant to Rule 3.190 of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure: “Now the defense wants the court to hear in round numbers somewhat less than a hundred objections they have to the state’s two and a half hour taped statement when the grounds for these objections were known some fifteen months ago.” The court considered the objections waived and refused to address them on the merits.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Now comes the Appellate Court’s Take…<\/p>\n The first issue presented is a purely legal question \u2014 whether Sparkman’s objections to Brock’s statements had to be made pretrial.<\/p>\n While it is always good practice for counsel to raise known objections pretrial, and counsel may be compelled to do so by order of the court<\/strong>, Rule 3.190 does not require Sparkman to object pretrial to raise the instant issue.<\/p>\n Rule 3.190 addresses the necessity of pretrial objections for a “Motion to Suppress Evidence in Unlawful Search” and a “Motion to Suppress a Confession or Admission Illegally Obtained.” Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.190(h), (i). Nowhere in Rule 3.190 is a party required to object pretrial to the interviewing officer’s legally obtained statements, if such objections go to specific questions or answers within the statement.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n So the question then is whether Judge Perry specifically stated that the parties were to make pretrial objections to statements of Casey Anthony’s that would be introduced, if the objections were to relevancy, hearsay, or some other purely evidentiary issue.<\/p>\n The only order entered by Judge Perry that addressed the issue, was a general statement in paragraph 5 of the\u00a0Amended Order Setting Discovery, Motions & Hearing Deadlines & Trial Date.<\/p>\n But the question remains, will the appellate courts find that was sufficient notice, given that the primary focus of the order was on discovery, not evidentiary issues?<\/p>\n Oh, and how did the Appellate Court Rule?<\/p>\n In this case, the error was not harmless because Brock’s out-of-court comments as to what he believed happened and that he believed Sparkman killed Courtney were so prejudicial that the erroneous admission of the statements cannot be considered harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.\u00a0Id.<\/em> at 1135. We therefore reverse Sparkman’s conviction and remand this case to the trial court.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n My personal opinion is that Jose Baez is screwing up so bad, that even if this issue alone was not enough to warrant a reversal due to Judge Perry’s generic statement in Paragraph 6, the combination of errors will cause the case to be reversed no matter what Casey is convicted of (and if she is convicted of course).<\/p>\n I have a feeling that Judge Perry is going to end up allowing in Baez’s late witnesses and discovery come Saturday at the show cause hearing because this case is becoming one of those rare cases\u00a0“where the incompetence and ineffectiveness of counsel is apparent on the face of the record and prejudice to the defendant is [so] obvious” that the “appellate courts will address [the ineffective assistance of counsel] issue on direct appeal.”\u00a0Aversano v. State, 966 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)<\/a>.<\/p>\nSparkman and the Tape<\/h2>\n
Did Judge Perry Actually Enter an Order on the Issue?<\/h2>\n
\n
Whatever happened to Sparkman?<\/h2>\n
The Ineffectiveness Assistance of Jose Baez, Cheney Mason, Et. Al.<\/h2>\n