In an interesting twist, the Fourth District Court of Appeals issued Bent v. Sun-Sentinel (PDF), which held that an accused inmate’s phone conversations were not “public records” within the meaning of Florida’s public records law, and thus were not subject to being released to the media.
Far Reaching Implications
This ruling obviously has very far reaching implications, as in addition to her jail-house telephone calls and video visitation, its reasoning applies equally as well to Casey’s written letters, if obtained and copied by corrections. However, I do not think it applies to the jail’s visitor log, but as I explain below, I think they have a legitimate argument that it does.
No More Excuses?
What this obviously means for Casey Anthony is that she no longer has a legitimate excuse not to see or speak with her parents, as the ruling’s holding would apply to both video and audio recordings. Or would she?
What will remain to be seen is whether this ruling would prohibit the State Attorney’s Office, as opposed to the jail, from releasing the recordings in discovery.
The Practical Fall Out
The practical application of this ruling is that the ability of the State Attorney to release the information will depend on whether the recordings were turned over to the State and the State then decided that they might possibly use the recordings as evidence.
I believe that the State’s ability to release the tapes would depend on whether the recordings realistically held any evidentiary value. For example, if it is just Casey chatting with a friend who is uninvolved with the case, the recordings would not be subject to release.
On the other hand, if it was a recording of Casey talking to a witness in the case, say her mother or father, it might be subject to release if the recording held potential evidentiary use at trial. If the recording was of no evidentiary value, the recording would not be subject to release not withstanding that the person whom Casey was speaking to was a witness in the case.
A Big IF
More than likely what will happen is that Judge Perry would have to make a case-by-case decision on whether to release recordings the State obtained from the jail – IF Casey were to resume contact with her parents.
Expect a Renewed Argument
So expect the defense to file a Motion first thing next week to enforce the Bent v. Sun-Sentinel ruling in Casey’s case.
But also expect the defense to grasp on to the below underlined language from the Bent v. Sun-Sentinel case:
The expectation that a deputy or state attorney may listen to a call is very different from an expectation that anyone and everyone could listen to the calls. Sensitive or embarrassing information, or information that would otherwise be confidential, like financial information of the inmate or the person called, could be disclosed to the public. Treating the recordings as public records allows anyone to request the recorded calls. Moreover, an accused child should be able to consult with a parent without the communication becoming a public record.
35 responses to “Casey’s “Public Record” Exception”
Thank you Richard,
I was under the impression, Judge Perry had already denied this motion. I’m happy to learn otherwise.
Your article made perfect sense to me. No evidentiary value, no need to release to the media.
I’m trying to imagine Casey’s very first visit with the Anthonys. Something tells me this will be the exception you explained. LOL, sorry I just can’t help it.
As to jailhouse letters being released to the public? Do these same rules apply? Just wondering..
Thanks again for the information. I’m looking forward to Judge Perry’s ruling.
RICHARD:
THANK YOU FOR THE BEING “IN THE PINK”.
Komen Foundation, breast cancer survivors, & I thank you.
Thanks, Mr. Hornsby, for bringing this ruling to our attention.
I’ve never thought there was much evidentiary value in Casey’s jailhouse letters, if any. Now, if he will learn how to reference case law, Baez can get a favorable ruling on this.
P.S. I’ve been reading Bill Richardson’s deposition from April 2009.
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/6629068/Casey-Anthony-Bill-Richardson
I don’t think this video, or even a witness description of Casey’s reactions will be allowed in court. I sure would like to read something by you on your opinion. (And if you’ve already written something and I missed it, please point me to it!)
Val,
I totally agree with you. This case has become “trial by media”. What I’m wondering is can the State get pass the HIPAA laws since this video was shot in the clinic which is a medical setting. What I found compelling was Billy Richardson’s admission that he’s never been instructed to video tape an inmate’s reaction before in his 24yrs as a jailer. It seems to me, Casey was the exception to the usual protocols and procedures. I think if it’s argued correctly, the defense may have a shot.
I know I’m about to use terms that are probably legally incorrect, but I’m just trying to voice my feelings about it. It feels like entrapment…at least a set up. And I don’t think it has any evidentiary value. I just think it would be inflammatory and only inflammatory based on someone else’s opinion or interpretation of what they are seeing (bein’s that Richardson says there is no audio).
I don’t think HIPAA would apply because she wasn’t there for medical care. And even if she was there for medical care she wasn’t anywhere but in the waiting room. She was there to be video’d while watching the media coverage. And she wasn’t told she was being taken there to watch the media coverage, or to be video’d while she watched the media coverage. So it was a set up.
I don’t see how it would be entrapment or a set up because no one knew the identity of the child’s skeletal remains that morning. And what is legally wrong with observing her in their jail while she watches television? I get what you are saying, to show it in court may be inflammatory, however, most of what will be brought up in court will be as well. Like pole dancing pictures & tattoos about a beautiful life while her child is “missing”. Then again, this is just my opinion, I know zilch about law.
Since Unser’s and Richardson’s interviews conflict, I doubt the STATE would want them allowed.
:-p
“Moreover, an accused child should be able to consult with a parent without the communication becoming a public record”
I’m curious about the wording here, “an accused child”. The defendent was 22 yrs old at the time of her arrest and is now 24. Does that make a difference? I mean I’m 51 and my mom’s 80. If I were an accused baby killer would the courts consider I have the right to consult with my parents too? Just curious.
I don’t think it will make a difference about how the law will be applied from this point forward, but it clearly was important to the reason the court ruled in favor of teh accused in Bent.
So the way that I see it, the grandparents could show up and talk to Casey and at the beginning of the conversation, spout off a bank account number to keep it from being public.
No, they could actually just show up and talk about anything and it would be confidential unless it is shown they were talking about the case.
Thanks for telling Baez how to file these motions. As we are all aware if it wasn’t for you and Bill S he would be so far out in the cold he could never catch up. You are making it very easy for him on how to do things properly.
This comedy needs to go to court and get it over with.
I disagree, “Bill S” clearly knows less about the law than Baez or Mason.
Oh my gosh!!! If Bill S. knows even less than Baez or Mason, where on earth does that put you on the list?
I like Bill S. much more than Richard ( 😉 ), but I can safely say that Richard knows far more about current case law than any of the above named. Not even close. 🙂
ack! It won’t let me edit – for clarity, I like Bill S. much more than Richard likes him…not more than RH himself. 🙂
Me too beach. I don’t know what happened to RH but I do know that those who throw mud never have clean hands.
lmao!
IMO he knows less about the law than the OS ENTERTAINMENT blogger!
misn wign
– to whom are you referring ? it’s unclear.
my question was:
“If that’s the courts ruling on a minor child, who’s not legally separate from their parent as an individual who’s passed their 18th birthday, then could we expect the SAs to argue (if bozo were to get his act together & actually learn to cite case law on point in any of his motions) that CMA was an adult at the time of her arrest for murder, thus not apply?”
however, it seems Terrytsk asked the same thing…so thanks for answering in “riki-tik” fashion …(USMC for “fast”)
Won’t this serve as an incentive to inmates to speak in ‘code’ as Cindy A., the pathological liar, said CMA, the pathological liar, allegedly was doing? (as when Lee A. spoke to CMA on one jail visitation: “I’ll go down the list, you tell me who you trust….just say “no” for “yes” and “yes” for “no”…..and, “just tell mom to look in places familiar to the family”)
If the inmate is speaking in ‘code’ & it’s not ‘deciphered’ as being about the case when in fact it was, it sounds like it’ll pass muster & not be subject to release. They can tell where to look for the body (calling it a ‘ball’…as in, ‘I lost the ball off the bridge…”
I’ll bet all the obstruction-minded inmates & their families are breaking open the champagne & singing a chorus of “Happy Days Are Here Again”……
For the average case, this ruling means very little, as the jails are still allowed and encouraged to screen inmate communications for “code.” What changes is that every inmates conversations are not per se subject to disclosure to the public in general just because someone made a public record request. The only cases this ruling has a practical effect on are ones that carry media interests, thus the inmates most likely to be prejudiced by inflammatory reporting or exposure of their conversations.
Is there a way to know whether it was OCC or the SA who released the visitation videos?
And in your opinion (or knowledge) were they requested or “leaked?”
Well, I think Kc should be able to visit her parents in private. How else are we to keep her from going insane? Where does this fall under cruel and unusual punishment. I am not talking about from Kc’s perspective, but my own. I don’t want to give anyone cruel and unusual punishment. Her parents and her brother are the only blood relatives in Orlando. Blood is thicker than water. She needs a hug from her Mother and her Father. Its not that I feel sorry for her, but I want her to be able to make sound decisions during this trial. Perhaps if she makes peace with her family and peace with herself, that offer of information would be there. IMO
notthatsmart –
CMA is perfectly adjusted to the regimen at the jail & fits right in, as most jails have a large percentage of inmates who are narcissitic sociopaths/psychopaths just like her.
Her only problem now is that this ruling allows CMA’s mother to visit & continue her sadistic taunts toward her daughter in their vicious mother-daughter “dance” cycle while remaining comfortable in the knowledge that she’s physically secure from her sadistic daughter, for now.
Another benefit of this ruling is that the public doesn’t have to endure CMA’s mother’s sadism when she writes on the back of little Caylee’s photos, “Caylee loved her mommy” as a reminder to her remorseless, conscienceless daughter of the acts that got her put into jail in the first place (as Cindy’s own mother said, “CMA hated Cindy more than she loved Caylee”), when that type of item is included in a doc dump.
Cindy & George’s transparent, lame attempts to influence potential jury members through doc dumps using CMA’s mail have just been neutralized…hopefully.
Were you the examining physician,or have you read the examining physician’s reports?
How would any of this affect the state from getting the video of Casey when she heard a small body had been discovered near her parent’s home? Judge Strickland ruled it was too prejudicial to show it. Can the state now use it since it is evidential to their case?
Thanks for all you do to keep us informed.
The video has always been admissible into the trial, just not releasable to the public.
Thanks for that. I did not know.
okay, that’s good news. Thank you. 🙂
I agree it is very interesting and a timely twist! If I were the defense I would file another motion citing the Fourth District of Appeals’ recent decision. Please go ahead and email them the correct citation (per Bluebook format), otherwise Judge Perry will never find it. Seriously, their citations are some of the worst I have ever seen.
Richard, thanks for another great post & something to think about. I don’t really know that KC is interested in seeing her parent’s, the ANT’s are knee deep in the case, they lie, & are witnesses, & KC has accused GA/LA of “sexual allegations.”
It seems, imo, that Baez has worked at keeping the family apart with Baez telling CA that KC could write her but he would have to read KC’s letter first. KC was glaring at CA during the 911 Testimony, GA has confronted KC in a letter WHY she ruined their family,” it will be interesting to see EVEN IF KC was afforded an opportunity to visit with her parent’s without the tapes being released, if she chooses to do so.
I’m thinking she will not allow them to visit. It’ll be interesting to see.
When I first opened the pdf I only had time to scan quickly. After reading more thoroughly I have a question. Can this ruling by the appellate court be considered by the trial court to be new case law since at the bottom of the ruling it states, “Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.” ???