|
Post by SeabiscuitChick on Oct 10, 2008 9:55:40 GMT -5
Damn this is good you guys got me riveted!!!
|
|
|
Post by ezrider on Oct 10, 2008 9:56:10 GMT -5
I'm buffer challenged....
|
|
|
Post by ezrider on Oct 10, 2008 9:57:44 GMT -5
This is someone who deals with the home confinement. Can't belive they'd be in favor of this at all.
|
|
|
Post by QuickAttack on Oct 10, 2008 10:01:08 GMT -5
Baez calling home confinement field officer Meg Hughes.
Are people on home confinement allowed "errand time?"
Yes. Based on prior history.
CA has done all asked of her.
How long have you monitored her?
since she got out of jail. Saw her one time when she got out first time. Since this time, five times.
I ask her questions when I see her.
There is another officer who has gone there.
Has she been drug tested?
Yes. Has not tested positive.
STATE UP NOW--Cross examine:
Ms. Hughes, how many years have you worked for corrections?
25
In home confinement?
7
when you assess flight risk, what do you consider?
The assessment is done before they are released...based on criminal history, FTAs, violence, time in community, how long at same residence, stable employment, charges.
Reviews assessment as she works with individual.
Ms. Anthony has started to request extensions of times..yesterday and day before.
Her current daily schedule: Can leave at 10 in morning, must be back at 4.
How do you follow up and monitor Anthony:
I know when she leaves home, where she's going. She gives sckedule when she comes in once a week. I have laptop in my car and I can tell where she is.
Specific schedule is VERY important so I can do my job, so that I know where she is, when she leaves what her destination is. They have to know what her destination is. If you're not home on time, you're required to call officer and let them know what situation is.
Is the specificity of this schedule crucial for the way you do job?
Yes, home confinement--we're responsible folr them. If they aren't where they're supposed to be, we have to answer why to the judge.
|
|
|
Post by QuickAttack on Oct 10, 2008 10:02:31 GMT -5
Is this close monitoring designed to make it hard for a defendant to commit crimes?
Yes mam.
To prevent fleeing?
Yes mam
If defendent flees, you have to notify the client immediately?
Yes.
The specific schedule is designed to help you see very quickly that she may be fleeing.
|
|
|
Post by gigi2009 on Oct 10, 2008 10:03:02 GMT -5
Tru Tv has it live also
|
|
|
Post by QuickAttack on Oct 10, 2008 10:04:05 GMT -5
How hard would your job be if you didn't have a specific schedule?
It would be hard. One or more officer would have to be assigned to that individual. It's a seven day program.
If she has an unspecified schedule, it would be a huge increase in manpower.
(Baez burned his own ass by calling Meg. That right there is enough for the judge to deny the motion to travel.)
|
|
|
Post by SeabiscuitChick on Oct 10, 2008 10:05:58 GMT -5
yea...right..she was asking unspecified leave to 'search'
|
|
|
Post by ezrider on Oct 10, 2008 10:06:28 GMT -5
Is it unusual for a defendant to be at their attorney's office 6 hours a day every day?
|
|
|
Post by QuickAttack on Oct 10, 2008 10:08:02 GMT -5
No one has asked to spend six hours with their attorneys every day. It is an unusual request.
Would it stand to reason that she is able to ask for permission to go elsewhere? Did she ask about going to a wedding?
Mr. Baez asked hypothetically if Casey could go to a wedding? Meg said no.
If she asked to travel to a specific location, say the Amscot, would she be given permission?
I would be asking questions, like why she would be wanting to go there. Off the top of my head, I'd say no.
|
|
|
Post by QuickAttack on Oct 10, 2008 10:09:50 GMT -5
Baez clarifies: I never asked you if she could go to the wedding.
Hughes: You asked hypothetically.
|
|
|
Post by ezrider on Oct 10, 2008 10:09:53 GMT -5
dammit...please point me to a link that's gonna work....
|
|
|
Post by gigi2009 on Oct 10, 2008 10:10:43 GMT -5
QA--your summaries are awesome--I invited an old friend of mine that I just found on Mono's board to come and check it out here. Told her I didn't want to steal your summaries without permission LOL--but everyone posts on both boards so feel free to have 2 tabs going. Or in my case 10.
|
|
|
Post by thebunny on Oct 10, 2008 10:10:55 GMT -5
The HCO is very smiley/flirty with Baez. IMOO
|
|
|
Post by gigi2009 on Oct 10, 2008 10:11:47 GMT -5
dammit...please point me to a link that's gonna work.... Do you get tru tv? old court tv? it's live on there.
|
|
|
Post by QuickAttack on Oct 10, 2008 10:13:31 GMT -5
WITNESSES SO FARRobert Haney, above, bail bondsman. Meg Hughes, above, home confinement officer.
|
|
|
Post by ezrider on Oct 10, 2008 10:14:30 GMT -5
:waiting: dammit...please point me to a link that's gonna work.... Do you get tru tv? old court tv? it's live on there. Damned if I know. I'm techno-challenged...I can't even find the live link on WFTV. Stuck right now with Orlando Sentinel.
|
|
|
Post by QuickAttack on Oct 10, 2008 10:15:48 GMT -5
Why Baez wants her to have freedom to travel:
He wants her to be able to take him places where she took police, point to places as she showed them. She's been a "model participant" in home confinement. He's asked the bondsman to follow them, so that if she makes any attempt to flee, the bondsman can take her into custody.
In additon to that, the only objection to this motion should be that she's a flight risk. They are impeding her defense by not allowing her to participate in her defense. It should be fundamental that she should be allowed to confer with her counsel in a manner that would not pose a flight risk.
To impede her defense would be unjust.
|
|
|
Post by QuickAttack on Oct 10, 2008 10:16:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by gigi2009 on Oct 10, 2008 10:18:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by gigi2009 on Oct 10, 2008 10:18:47 GMT -5
LOL--you so earned your screen name QA.
|
|
|
Post by QuickAttack on Oct 10, 2008 10:19:00 GMT -5
The county opposes this motion.
It is very vague. Key points of interest are unknown locations.
It would be impossible to monitor this defendant while she's out traveling wherever.
No way to reduce the likelihood of flight or criminal behavior.
It would be an undue administrative burden for Orange County to have to follow her everywhere. County does not have the manpower to do that.
In essense, what this is is a request to relieve CA from home confinement.
The county opposes this motion.
|
|
|
Post by ezrider on Oct 10, 2008 10:19:40 GMT -5
Thank's Q and Gigi..I'm such a whiner.
|
|
|
Post by QuickAttack on Oct 10, 2008 10:20:30 GMT -5
Baez is asking to become Anthony's confinement officer. Asking the court to "trust them".
Hoem confinement has given Ms anthony great latitude in being able to assist with her defense.
If mr. baez wants to work with homeconfinement to ask to go anywhere, he can do it that way by asking for permission, or he can approach the court. But he wants to do this in secret.
The state is opposed.
|
|
|
Post by QuickAttack on Oct 10, 2008 10:21:56 GMT -5
Judge: Skeptics view is that she can tamper with evidence.
Baez: I would tell the court that I will have no part in destruction of evidence. I will not partake in that, nor will I allwo my client to do so.
I won't do anything to jeopardize my ability to practice law.
Judge: I'll issue an order on this later today or monday.
|
|