I’m thinking out loud here…another Flori-Duh! moment

The motion filed by the attorneys for the defendant in the case State of Florida v. Casey Anthony – [nutshell ver. – outlines the reason why they want the presiding judge to recuse himself from this trial].

28 U.S.C. sec. 144, captioned “Bias or prejudice of judge,” provides that under circumstances, when a party to a case in a United States District Court files a “timely and sufficient affidavit that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of an adverse party,” the case shall be transferred to another judge.

The general rule is that to warrant recusal, a judge’s expression of an opinion about the merits of a case or familiarity with the facts or the parties must have originated in a source outside the case itself. This is referred to in the United States as the “extra-judicial source rule” and was recognized as a general presumption, although not an invariable one, in the 1994 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Liteky v. United States.

What do you think?

Here is what Judge Strickland was thinking during a bond hearing July 2008

“Not a bit of useful information has been provided by Ms. Anthony as to the whereabouts of her daughter,” Judge Strickland said.  “And I would add that the truth and Ms. Anthony are strangers.”

… Judge Stan Strickland 22 July 2008

Response from three of the local affiliates of ABC, NBC and CBS on the recent Motion filed by the defendant to have the judge recused from her trial.

WKMG anchor – said that Strickland wasn’t commenting.

WESH law Analyst –  “Judge Strickland has previously shown fairness to Casey Anthony in the way he sentenced her in the check case.”

WFTV anchor Liz Artz said, “We’re not expecting to hear anything from Judge Strickland until he takes up the motion in court.”

9 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. Finn Perkins
    Apr 18, 2010 @ 01:05:50

    Yes he did day this

  2. Ideas
    Apr 18, 2010 @ 08:41:30

    The judge said this in response to FACTS that Casey had not provided ANY useful information but had in fact given LE a series of lies. This response is then factual, not biased.

    What should he have said instead?

  3. sophie
    Apr 18, 2010 @ 10:31:52

    Don’t really think it’s going to help Casey to switch judges. I don’t have a problem with them doing so…

    But the truth and Miss Anthony ARE strangers, she herself has proven that. And the jury is who she has to convince of reasonable doubt.

    If I were Strickland, I’d want to wash my hands of the whole mess by now. Wouldn’t blame him a bit if he voluntarily stepped down. Just to prove a point.

  4. Venice
    Apr 18, 2010 @ 18:16:52

    It is factual portraying zero bias! This country is shot to hell!

  5. Ideas
    Apr 18, 2010 @ 18:37:04

    Strickland should have stated, (to be completely unbiased) “Well, Casey may or may not be telling the truth. Perhaps Universal is mistaken and she does work there. Perhaps Sawgrass is mistaken and that apt was occupied by one named Zanny and they’ve lost their paperwork. Perhaps Casey is lying, however, and Caylee is not missing at all. We must look at all angles here.LE, please take Casey out again”

  6. jon
    Apr 19, 2010 @ 10:35:48

    I don’t know the legalities of what the judge may/may not have said, but this seems to me like another ploy by the defense. They’ll do anything they can to stretch this out

  7. Teena in Toronto
    Apr 26, 2010 @ 12:24:22

    Happy blogoversary 🙂

%d bloggers like this: