Dr Richard Eikelenboom, Forensic Scientist, Trace Evidence Expert

Dr Richard Eikelenboom

JP back on stand. He is states he has reviewed requested instruction. They are discussing the potential testimony of Dr Eikelenboom. Defense will call Dr. Richard Eicklenboom. A statement will be read to jury first. They haven't been brought back in yet.JP will read a stipulatio to jury and will tell them that the report was not  given to prosecution until Saturday. Baez states he has withdrawn the previous issues. JP> states he needs to make an inquiry of the witness. 
JP questions witness.Dr.Eikelenboom was notified July 2010. He was NOT  informed that he was required to produce a report on your opinion on the case. JP reads the court order to him. 1 Qualification of expert 2<Field of expertise 3> Specific topics of offered opinon. 4>Opinion 5> Summary. No he was not made know. 
He predominated lived in Netherlands. He now lives in the United States.He communicated with defense, via email, Skype and phone.His primary contact with Defense. Witness, Mr Baez and Michelle. 
JP> From May 2011 to present were you asked to produce outline of report as the court stipulated.
He was asked on Saturday and he wrote one Saturday. Witness testifies he was readily available to defense team. He did not disappear. Eikelenboom says he was never asked to provide CV, a report, and never saw judge's order.
Baez> Is this the first time you had to write a report with these parameters. Witness>  No, he has been told how to prepare report in othe cases. Baez spoke to wife at times and messages were given to him Ashton,>objection. Witness already testified he was not told to narrow report. JP>Overruled
He was never told to narrow report by wife or Ms Medina(co worker) He does not recall being told by wife either about the narrowing of report. His PowerPoint given to Ashton on Saturday was touch DNA. When he went to Ashtons office to be make a deposition on Saturday , Ashton was rude. 
TOUCH DNA> So what’s touch DNA?
The touch DNA method—named for the fact that it analyzes skin cells left behind when assailants touch victims, weapons or something else at a crime scene.

Ashton> Was there anything different you could  offer , prior to Satuday. Witness> NO

Baez gave Eikenbloom FBI reports that he did not previously have in the past. This perks Ashton ears and he asks what reports.  He states he saw reports before. Witness says he didn't follow case. New information came up within last week. started asking for more info after being subpoena. 

JP> is citing McDuffy vs State, 2007 decision, . 1> discoverable violation On Dec 10, 2010, the court entered the order. States order for clarification..addition Discovery. At a subsequent meeting there was a dispute over the intent and language. The defendent shall provide a list of experts and subject matter and area of expertise for eoach expert. The debate was over the words "subject matter" rather "matter." In order to clarify, the court order, where the expert does not have tests, the attorneys are to present the outline.   H. e is going over all the motions that were filed in regard to the court order for the expert testimony outline. They had December 23, 2010 as the final deadline. It is the responsibility of the attorney to notify experts. JP rules this is not an inadvertant. The discovery violation was intentional. Was it trivial or substantial? The court finds it was substantial. Next, what is its effect. The court has held up testimony.  The court had to provide time to depose witness. Do I exclude opinion. It is a testimony on DNA.  Exclusion of testimony is rare and used to extreme circumstances. The witness will not be allowed to testify  on DNA and the fluid in the car  at this particular time. The court will give the attorneys till next week, Saturday  to file motions for FRYE hearing. The following Wednesday, after a one hour break, we will conduct FRYE hearing. If there is even a FRYE  hearing.


Frye >The Frye standard, Frye test, or general acceptance test is a test to determine the admissibility of scientific evidence. It provides that expert opinion based on a scientific technique is admissible only where the technique is generally accepted as reliable in the relevant scientific community.

Baez has an issue to bring to the court. We were handed two compact discs,....We will handle this at lunch. Ashton wants anything in regard to DNA removed from the PowerPoint display.
The jury is brought into the court. JP reads the stipulation that the Prosecution was not given court ordered report. They may consider this in judging the reliability 
Eikelenboom is testifyiing to his education and background. Richard is a forensic scientist specializing in trace evidence recovery and bloodstain pattern analysis.He has testified in the Jon Bonet Ramsey case and has worked in the Innocence Project.
Ashton> Is questioning education. He did study in bio chemistry. Ashton has some general questions. His degree is a "engineer's degree" which in U.S.- somewhere between bachelor and master's.  There is molecular studied involved. In his training, he was a coordinator of DNA results. His emphasis was trace recovery, Ashton refutes that he is an expert in DNA processing.He is not certified. 
Baez> The Eikelenboom lab is certified. He has gone through profenciency training.RE says his business is also inspected (audited) ever year compared to twice a year in United State.  His lab does work for law enforcement. The lab has been utilized over a hundred times by LE. He has testified over 70 times.  He first came to the US when he testified in the RAmsey case. Objection. Can not mention court cases. Baez keeps trying to ask a question of how he came to testify in US courts by keeps meeting objections that are sustained. Sidebar.


What is trace Evidence>Trace evidence comes in many forms; paint, hairs, fibers, ropes, glass, soil, tape and light bulbs are the most common type of evidence that are submitted to the Forensic Laboratory. Each of these types of evidence can be used to indicate transfer from one source to another, and therefore indicate contact between individuals or objects.
Touch DNA>The touch DNA method—named for the fact that it analyzes skin cells left behind when assailants touch victims, weapons or something else at a crime scene.

What is Touch DNA?

Touch DNA is not Low Copy Number (LCN) DNA. LCN DNA profiling allows a very small amount of DNA to be analyzed, from as little as 5 to 20 cells. Because of the small amount of starting DNA in LCN samples, many more cycles of amplification are necessary.

Touch DNA samples at Bode are processed/amplified exactly the same way as blood, semen, saliva etc, and are therefore admissible in court.

Humans shed tens of thousands of skin cells each day, and these cells are transferred to every surface our skin contacts. When a crime is committed, if the perpetrator deposits a sufficient number of skin cells on an item at the scene, and that item is collected as possible evidence, touch DNA analysis may be able to link the perpetrator to the crime scene. Touch DNA has been successfully sampled from countless items including gun grips, steering wheels, eating utensils, and luggage handles, just to name a few.

However, since Touch DNA is usually deposited in smaller amounts than the DNA found in bloodstains or other body fluids, it is more difficult to obtain DNA profiles from touch DNA samples. The key to obtaining successful Touch DNA results depends on recognizing items which may be suitable for Touch DNA analysis and using the sampling technique that will recover the highest number of skin cells.

Many labs test for Touch DNA using either the swabbing or cutting method. In the “swabbing method”, the surface of the item is rubbed with a cotton swab to collect possible cells. This method is preferred for hard items such as glass or plastic. The “cutting method” may be used for soft items, such as clothing, in which fabric from areas of interest is cut to collect possible cells. These two approaches can be successful on many items of evidence and both are used by Bode Technology; however they both have the limitation of placing unnecessary substrate (the cotton swab itself or the fabric cuttings) into the small DNA processing tube. There is a limited amount of substrate that can be placed in a tube, and the substrate itself may “trap” some cells during processing, which would decrease the likelihood of obtaining results.

In addition to the commonly used swabbing and cutting methods, Bode has recently started using the “Scraping” and “Tape Lift” methods, in which the surface of soft items (such as clothing) are either scraped with a blade, or sampled with a small piece of tape, to collect possible cells. Due to the lack of unnecessary substrate generated by these methods (scraping produces a small “pile” of fiber, cells, and debris that can easily be placed in the DNA processing tube), a larger surface area can be sampled. An increase in surface area increases the number of possible cells recovered; therefore, increasing the chances of obtaining a DNA profile.

The scraping/tape lift methods are ideal in situations where the scientist can locate areas on the item which are most likely to contain the perpetrator’s skin cells. If clothing were left at the crime scene by the perpetrator, pressure points on the clothing such as the interior neck of a shirt or the band inside a hat, are excellent candidates for these sampling methods. In addition, in a sexual assault case in which the victim’s clothing had been removed by the perpetrator, areas such as the waistband may contain sufficient cells belonging to the perpetrator to produce a profile.

Through improvements in sampling methods corresponding to increasingly sensitive DNA testing methods, and through continual education of the criminal justice community regarding the testing possibilities, Touch DNA is enabling forensic scientists to provide information in cases which were once unsolvable.

Witness has Powerpoint display and is showing epithelial cells.(skin cells). He is explaining Touch DNA.s
For epithelial cells there is no test to test for presence of cells. He explains using a light source for identifying cells. He is explaining obtaining DNA from different types of crimes.  
The process is to work up a hypthesis (guess) on the and where to obtain evidence in relation to specifics of crime. 
Some people "shed" more DNA than others.They are called "good shedders." The longer the contact the better the chance to get DNA but in bad conditions DNA could break down.
Baez> If a person were to cut DNA would you get DNA? What kind of pressure would be needed to cut duct tape.?  Ashton> Objection. Have you ever had to recover DNA from duct tape?> RE: Yes.  Given the hypothesis that duct tape was placed on face what would you expect to find? RE>  Per other crimes you would expect to find DNA.  Eikelenboom says you should collect more DNA on duct tape because one side is sticky. RE is explaining the process of evaluating DNA.The get fragments of DNA and amplify them. He states one cell is enough to get DNA
.) 
Baez> Baez are you aware there were 2 partial profiles on duct tape evidence number Q63. , one on sticky side and one on non sticky side. Witness does not answer
Witness> The sample could be contaminated. Baez asks about contamination. RE says if large amount of DNA overtakes small amount it would contaminate (duct tape)
Baez is asking specifically about the DNA found.  
Cross by Ashton> RE does not have PHD. He is in school now.  RE and wife started company in Netherlands. The examine Touch DNA> There DNA is in a converted barn. There lab  is accredited. In 2008, they decided to expand to US due to more work in the US. Ashton attempts to ger RE to admit that the notariety of the case would benefit them. RE states NO. They have alot of work and they are trying to "downscale" amount of work. Ashton attempts to have RE admit they need to monies to build lab in US. RE>NO. in fact,they do Pro Bono work. The field is growing. There is Bode labs and a lab in Denver. Ashton keeps referring to their lab in the Netherlands as a barn.  RE states that the lab in Netherlands has been workingn since 1999. 
(At the time of the Ramsey case, Touch DNA evaluation had been in existance for 5 years.)
AShton is discussin low copy DNA. (limited )


Low Copy Number (LCN) is a DNA profiling technique developed by the Forensic Science Service (FSS) and in use in some countries since 1999 LCN is an extension of Second Generation Multiplex Plus (SGM Plus) profiling technique. It is a more sensitive technique because it involves a greater amount of copying from a smaller amount of starting material, meaning that a profile can be obtained from only a few cells, which may be as small as a millionth the size of a grain of salt, and amount to a just few cells of skin or sweat left from a fingerprint. LCN evidence has allowed convictions to be made in several cold cases. For example, Mark Henson was convicted of rape in 2005, 10 years after the crime was committed, from re-analysis of a microscope slide. o far the technique is only used in several countries:the UK, the Netherlands and New Zealand. (Wikipedia)
RE> the problem has been in cases, is to find the DNA. Ashton is refuting his method and need for service.  Ashton asks him about finding DNA in insects, Baez has asked earlier. RE states he has never had oppurtunity to find DNA in Fruit Flies. He worked in a case. He looked for DNA in pupa. 

DNA CHAIN

PUPA

RE testifies it depends when Pupa died and the ability to find DNA in pupa. 
Ashton asks what is the most destructive to DNA. RE>Moisture and tempurature is the most destructive. AShton.>Along with bacteria RE> Yes.   Ashton>Duct tape placed on a human being and then placed in a wet , hot trash dump and sits there for 6 months.. and decomposes and skelatanizes,.. the abiltiy to find DNA are remote. RE> The conditions you describe are detrimental to DNA.It depends on the conditions. There may be some cells to test.  Eikelenboom does say it would be harder to trace DNA. 

DUCT TAPE EVIDENCE

DUCT TAPE EVIDENCE

Ashton is questioning RE as to the DNA found on tape. The only way  a person could "mask" the DNA profile is that the markers would have to be the same. RE> It is unlikely that this is a very partial profile. It would not mask Full profile.  
You can not tell from results given. He states this sample would have been a good sample for the Low Copy DNA Analysis process.  They are discussing DNA peaks are graph. Anything on 50 
RFU's is not a good result and discarded. In this case the tape had results of 50 RFU's. 
RE did not ask to retest tape.   Ashton> You do not kow if any items were retested per request  of Defense. RE>NO
Baez> You were asked about your lab in a barn. Your barn is internationally known. RE> Yes. Baez is attempting to ask about  his notarity and reputation.Objection and sidebar.
Baez is questioning RE on the Masters case.  RE worked the case Pro Bono.

Touch DNA and the Masters case

In the Masters case, Selma and Richard were successful in the recovery of full DNA profiles in three areas of the victim, Peggy Hettrick's clothing. All three profiles matched an individual who was on the short list of suspects in the original investigation. In January of 2008, prosecutors agreed to vacate the conviction of Masters after the results of the DNA testing came back. Masters was set free. 


LINK TO ARTICLE ON MASTERS CASE

http://pendulumfoundation.com/newsletter2/?p=70

ABI 310, GENETIC ANALYZEr
RE is testifying to the tools and machines he uses to evaluate 
DNA

RE has found DNA profiles in wet , hot  locales.  He shows PowerPoint slide to jury. It shows 3 examples RE said he found DNA on prior cases. (pantyhose, a hand, a Jean jacket) . He shows pantyhose., 20years old. There is blood on the pantyhose. RE states usually there is alot of DNA from victim. 
,   He shows a jean jacket that was in water for 3-4 days and they found DNA of suspect.  The enviromental conditions make it difficult but it does not preclude them from finding evidence. Baez questions RE> You were ready willing and able to retest but the prosecutor was unwilling.......Objection and sidebar.
Recess. Jury is dismissed
JP> Previous objectin is sustained. The State made an objection and the judge states he will need to study it.
It is not a  easy legal issue to decipher. Some things are best left unsaid.
Baez You would have to have all 13 elia's markers for a DNA profile. RE> You. have to compare samples
Ashton goes through the progress in DNA testing. As progress grows in the field , contamination becomes a greater concern.  With low copy DNA, it is more prone to contamination. In testing, we compare all profiles from suspects and lab workers. . None of the 3 cases, the  hand, the jacket and the pantyhose where associated with skeletalonized remains. RE> NO
RE> the skeletal remains bears no reference in finding DNA. The duct tape could have not been on Caylee. In the beginning if it was on Caylee, there would have been DNA.  
Ashton> RE if the body was decomposing then the DNA would decompose on the tape. If the tape was away from the body the chance for degradation are smaller. Of course, the enviromental conditions are a factor. Witness Excused. Sidebar.
JP calls him Doctor and Ashton quickly points out he is not a doctor. JP> said whatever he  is..

Jane Bock, Forensic Botonist

Forensic Scientist, Expert Witness at Forensic Botany LLC

 

Jane Bockis testifying to her education and experience. She is a PH.D. She has taught for 30 years. She is an author. She has won many award.  She has done research.She has testified 50 + times including depositions. She has testified in cases in which body was thought to have been moved.

Bock has looked at photographs from Crime Scene. She has visited scene of remains.  She has reviewed the Medical Examiners report. She has read Ms. Welsh(CSI, OCSO) report and the report from Forensic botonist.  January 1st, 2009, she went to visit crime scene with photographer, Patrick PcKenna. It was 7 weeks later. She is being asked to ID a pic she took at crime scene.  She ID's "leaf litter". Leaf Litter is a general term for leaves that fall off vegetation.and falls to ground. She states the remains could only be there for 2 weeks prior to discovery.She testifies it is her opinion due to the leaf litter on the ground. The vegetation found on the Pontiac Sunfire does not match to that at the crime scene. Ashton objects and Sims is instructed to build case.  The car leaf litter was from Camphor trees .There was no camphor tree at site.
Sims>Are botonists able to tell how long a root has been alive by measuring diameter.,
Objection and Sidebar.

Sims calls Dr. Bock >Dr. Hall - he's the state's plant expert.  Bock cannot testify to age and species of plants because the host plant is not available.There are environmental factors that inhibit or enhance growth, soil,water,type of plants, etc.Bock describes root growth rate in the area. Roots were found growing thru Caylee's skull, other remains and bags. 

ROOT GROWTH THROUGH LAUNDRY BASKET.

Bock did her PHD work in Florida. She has done projects in Florida. She did her PHD work in 1960.Her PHD was the comparison of growth site and water types of Hyacinths. She has studied food habits of  tortoises in Florida in 1980-1990. She testifies she reviewed pics and reports. She went to site.Bock says at scene plants could have accumulated there. She says there is a difference between grow and accumulates. Swamp Hardwood is how she would characterize the remains site. The site is generally wet and certain plants grow there. She testfiies  that the leaf litter and vegetation could have grown their in 2 weeks. Ashton asks if Bock saw photographs of roots growing into canvas bag and bones. Bock says yes but she's not a bone expert.    It is her opinon the roots growing into the bones, and through the laundry basked could have occurred in two weeks in December.She has limitied experience with roots growing through bones. She agrees that in the pics, there is leaf litter up to the ears or nose area. Casey looks down as she is shown pic. Brock is being shown pics of skull found at scene with leaf litter. 
REPORTS>  Ashton pulls up photo with Caylee's skull. People in audience let out a small sigh.Cindy and George Anthony both look down as this photo is projected in courtroom.


Bock says some of the vegetation around skull could have come from fallen leaves. Ashton asks if she is familiar with leaf falling patterns in Florda Bock> Yes  Bock says she thinks 2 weeks because the leaf litter in photo was accumulated on ground- scraped bare by Dec 15.
Bock approaches pic Ashton has on easel and asks her to point out leaf litter and is it possible the litter was pushed up around skull. It is her testimony is that the leaf litter is the same on the ground and  around the skull. She did not measure leaf litter.Bock>Did anyone else do that? Ashton> Laughs.You don't get to ask the questions. The court laughs. Ashton is questioning her on growth patterns.Ashton asks why there's more leaves on one side. Bock says because of people trampling around and animals..  She states she cannot state how long the remians of Caylee  had been at site. "No", after Ashton reviews her deposition in which she stated she could not render an opinion. Bock now says it's possible remains were placed there 2 weeks before discovery. It's also possibly there longer. Ashton is confused. Her final testimony is that the remains could have been there 2 weeks or more.
Redirect Defense.> She is testifiying to her experience with Florida vegetation. If there is a hole in a bone , depending on the type of root, it could grown through bone.The fact that there is no leaf litter on log prompted her to question if the log had been moved. Brock states per reports of Jennifer Welsh, the log was heavy because it took 2 people to move it. Brock is drawing on a board a log with layers of vegetation.  First layer is humous. On top of humous is  ( no sound) ,  Bock is explaining/drawing cross section oi leaves , soil, rocks beneath. Bock states item could sink when discovered with all the layers of vegetaion on top.
Ashton on redirect. Bock can not testify that the skull or not. Ashton asks her if she knew that the hip bone was buried in 4 inches in "muck."  meaning that it was buried. Brock> It could be or a dog buried it. Ashton> A dog . Brock >or a coyote. I don't know. It could have been pushed. Ashton, No more questions. 
Recess 30 minutes for jury, Ten minutes for attorneys. JP> We have matters to take up.

JENNIFER WELSH

PROSECUTOR ASHTON

Ashton: "Discovery violation clearly has occurred," but won't prevent witness from testifying. 

 Morning starts off with state taking up defense discovery violation issue. Doesn't want witness excluded.but he should have been in the Frye hearings. Ashton wants a portion of his testimony about DNA be excluded.

Ashton says the defense has already offered this testimony w/ Another witness (Seubert) Ashton wants this discovery violation to be considered with others after this trial is over. Ashoton wants sanctions.Baez says Eicklenboom would testify would about trace DNA. He says this is not an attempt for a "gotcha" moment.Judge grants state's request for jury instruction and will prohibit testimony on decomp fluid in trunk. Judge says they can schedule a frye hearing to discuss admissibility. 
Judge Perry says no sanctions right now but reserving final decision later. Ashton walked hand written Instruction for jury over to defense. They objected. Defense will prepare one. 

JENNIFER WELSH, CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATOR, OCSO

Defense calls Orange co Crime Scene Investigator Jennifer Welch. Dorothy Sims will 

Defense.DOROTHY CLAY SIMS

question.Welch is reading and explaining her "end of day report" and she noted tree root area and vegetation. She identifies evidence. It is a pic of the crime scene that is cleared of all vegatation  
Sims asks he about the log at the scene. The log was moved by Stephan Hanson and a supervisor at the scene. No more questions Sims pulls up crime scene photos - Welch says some vegetation was removed bc it was obstructing view   .
Cross by Ashton. Jennifer Welsh is testifying how evidence is given "Call number" Number for item of evidence.
Redirect Sims. Welsh identifies evidence by number. We are not shown pics. She is testifying to log and vegetation cleared. 
No more questions . Excused.

Casey Anthony Trial Today: 1020A> All The attorneys are in the judges chamber...

Casey Anthony Trial Today: 1020A> All The attorneys are in the judges chamber...: "1020A> All The attorneys are in the judges chambers. 1045> Mason and Baez come out and head out of courtroom. Prosecutors come out- deep bre..."

Casey Anthony Trial Today: Pre Court arguments Baez and Ashton

Casey Anthony Trial Today: Pre Court arguments Baez and Ashton: " CAs' attorneys' are in the courtrom. Awaitnig CA.Geroge and Cindy are in court. They are writing in notepads per reports.The cameras are fi..."

1020A> All The attorneys are in the judges chambers. 1045>Mason and Baez come out and head out of courtroom. Prosecutors come out- deep breaths by Ashton and George. 1049> Attorneys back in judges chambers.1050>JP is in doorway but not on bench. He is talking to deputy. 1053 > JP speaks to his law clerk. Attorneys are all back. Baez and Sims heads out of courtroom.Attorneys head to judges chambers .AGAIN!  Slabaugh (defense attorney) just abruptly and quickly walked out of courtroom.955A> All attorneys out of judges chambers.1058> JP on bench. COURT IS RECESSED FOR DAY. BACK AT 900AM TOMORROW.  Sidebar.  After sidebar Judge Perry let's out a big laugh.

Pre Court arguments Baez and Ashton

 CAs' attorneys' are in the courtrom. Awaitnig CA.Geroge and Cindy are in court. They are writing in notepads per reports.The cameras are fixed on the door in which CA will enter.She has just arrived.  She greets her attorneys and chats with Cheney Mason. She spreads her lipstick with a finger. Judge Perry arrives. The court stand.
CM wants to "take up " a matter. The attorneys approach. JP reminded them that they are to notifiy him at 820a if they have issues to be handled prior to court.  Sidebar.
Ashton is opposing Mr Rodriquez ability to testify.He is stating he just received the report from Dr Rodrquiez testimony. Rodriquez in his report wants to testify that the smell of decomposition is not unique. This is his different from his  previous testimony  .Ashton says he doesn't think he is qualified to give an opinion about people telling difference in stinky smell v human decomposition.Ashton doesn't want Rodriguez called for at least another half a day.  Ashton needs ti me to prepare
Ashton is questioning from Mr. Eichenbloom(spelling) Hfe saw him in court on Friday. He asked him why he was there. He was  not on the witness list. Mr Eichenbloom showed up Sunday at Mr. Ashtons office with a Powerpoint display and for a deposition  Mr Ashton said he had no reports in which to depose him.  Ashton says the defense is again deliberately ignoring court's order. Ashton says he will depose him Tue evening is defense is willing
Mr Ashton is filling our Sanction reports on each individual.
Baez states he had time and oppurtunity to depose witness. Baez says this witness has been listed for awhile and the state could have deposed him at any time if they wanted. The witness list was "timely." Baez sites the order and states the prosecution has refused to depose witness.Baez says witnesses did give report under time restraints. Baez says the state has violated this order as well.    Baez the court has made it clear that there is "gamemansship". Games have been played on both sides.He is an expert prosecutor. He was armed with a court order like a sword and shield." Dr Rodruiez is expected to refute the lack of DNA present due to enviromental conditions at the crime scene. Baez sent Dr Eichanbloom to Mr Ashtons office on Saturday and he was told to "go away" by Mr Ashton. (Saturday after court they had to depose Mr. Rodriquez.) Baez accuses Mr.Ashton of attempting to delay everyone's time. Baez is scolding Ashton with the same verbage Judge Perry used to scold Baez himself, on Saturday. He uses the same words; game playing , gotcha moments etc.BAEZ>  Ashton wants to omit these responsibilities in a death penalty case. If that is not bad enough  he wants to go after her lawyer, too.. Baez accuses Ashton of being disingenuous.
Baez says they (defense) didn't ignore this court's order.Baez says not only is Ashton trying to take CA 's life but he wants to to after her lawyer too. Judge Perry> I want both attorneys to turn around and look at clock. That tells me you too will never agree on anythingn or interpret anything the same way.The jury has been sitting back there for 25 minutes. It is now required all attorneys are to be present at 820A. At 900 , we will start. We will not have this anymore. On Saturday we will work a FULL day. Be prepared.Perry clearly is annoyed this morning with attorneys' attitudes, arguments, etc.

JP> The rules of discovery are clear as to what is discoverable. But it does allow the court to more. JP cites case law for case law.The case law states both sides are expected to report expert background, specific subjects they are going to offer an opinion, summary of opinion and grounds for opinion. Judge is reading his order. He thought it would clear up any situations. But in Jan 2011 there was another order (sanctioned).  That was done because both sides had nothing. January 6th , JP had another order clearing up what  was needed for court opinion. The defense shall provide written reports to state of expert opinion. All reports shall include opinions and reason for opinions. . According to those orders. it was required to have all opinion that are to be given and reason for opinion to be reported. JP> This  court does not make threats......abides by the rules.The state tried to offer a demonstration board but it was excluded because it was not previously given to defense. But to deny the defense it hurts the defendent  However, the Florida State Supreme Court  leaves room for someone who continually defies the court order. It is impunity and the ultimate recourse of exclusion is possible. Yes , there has been gamesmanship.Yes there  is friction between attorneys. The Florida bar will deal with that.
Judge Perry grants state's request for time to properly prepare for Dr. Rodriguez' testimony... But the next witness was Eicklenboom.    Dr Rodriquez's testimony will be deferred. I will read the reports, on conclusion of the day, and make sure testimony is in reports. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. Both sides need to be forewarned, that exclusion even if we have to do this again, exclusion will be the proper remedy.

WOW!!

JP> Who is the first witness

Baez> Our second witness was Dr. Eichanbloom. In light of today, we are picking up the third. It will take 30 minutes.

JP> Take the jury out of that room and tell them 30 minutes. I am very close to starting court at 8am. I have a sequestered jury who live under restrictions. If you do not want to act professional, I will work you real full days with reduce lunch hours. ...All of this is going to stop  or you will be working fierce days. So be prepared.

Recess until 1025a, Orlando time.(one hour)