Comments

21 thoughts on “Enlightening Article on Judge Perry

    • No, there is nothing I could really add.

      It seems clear to me that Judge Perry made up his mind about the admissibility of the trunk evidence long before the hearing began.

      • So, do you think that he made up his mind to allow the trunk evidence to be presented before the jury?

        In my opinion, and it’s just an opinion so not worth too much….I feel like JP has made up his mind about a lot of issues before they are brought up in hearing.

      • This is a wonderful article about Judge Perry. If I’m not mistaken, JP presided over the Grand Jury Indictment in this case, so would he not be privy to more than most? Richard, please do speculate on whom you think is stepping down (news buzzing on the net) on this case. Apologize if you’ve addressed elsewhere.
        Thank you.

  1. Omar said: I feel like JP has made up his mind about a lot of issues before they are brought up in hearing

    But he’s ruling on the law and in areas of the law that are well supported by, well, the law. He doesn’t need to re-invent the wheel each and every time that he makes a decision.

    Judge Perry has also said that he does he own research – independent of what the opposing sides bring to him. He’s well schooled and well versed…he’s been doing this for in excess of 20 years and when he sits at the bench he brings much knowledge, experience and a history of having made many of these same type decisions before.

    Of course it’s not his first rodeo; why should we expect him to be an empty cylinder waiting for the lawyers to fill him up with what THEY know.

    That all being said however, I have no doubt that should either side present the judge with something compelling or illuminating (which actually, he invites both sides to do…that’s their job) he would consider their argument/evidence during his decision making process and afford it the weight it deserves.

    • I’m sure that you’re right, M.Ed.Jai. Sometimes the hearing seems to be a technicality that must be adhered to. I know HHJP does do much of his own research, and I don’t doubt that he has read all documents pertinent to the issue before he enters the courtroom. I’m not doubting that. I am curious, though, about whether Richard feels that HHJP already decided to allow or exclude the trunk evidence before the Frye hearing.

  2. Anyone have any ideas about which attorney the Defendant’s Motion to remove appointed attorney is talking about??

    Also, am I wrong to say that there are no appointed attorneys on the defense team? As far as I know, all the defense attorneys voluntarily took the case.

    Thanks in advance.

  3. RH: you said:
    “It seems clear to me that Judge Perry made up his mind about the admissibility of the trunk evidence long before the hearing began.
    ___________________________________________________________

    Whoa, that sure makes me feel good about the Judge being impartial. How could one do such without listening to the experts? If he not even willing to listen to experts with a lot more knowledge than himself, then where are we today with Justice? Will you do this if you ever become a judge?

    • Imo, Judge Perry was doing just that in listening to the witnesses the defense offered. He seemed more than willing to let someone change his mind, even if was outside of what guidelines had already been set. Did these so-called experts sway your opinion at all? They didn’t seem to “experty” to me. jmo

  4. If Channel 13 is correct, the motion is a hoax. They are saying that a motion was mailed in an envelope from a Michigan prisoner asking to have Jose Baez taken off the case.

  5. Richard, thank you for sharing this article. It’s a wonderful piece.

    With regard to the statement JP made up his mind before the hearing, I would like to address Notthatsmart. IMHO I think it’s more apt to say, there was nothing in the hearings that he had not already read and researched. Therefore, he was already knowledgeable on the topics to be testified to. I believe after the hearings JP reviews the testimony, combines knowledged gained through depos and expert reports and makes his decisions.

  6. IMO for those who disagree that there is a possibility JP may of had his mind made up to allow the canine and the trunk smell be allowed. If this is true (I see no fault allowing the true facts in the case to be heard). Now, if those facts were thrown out. (Now, with all the motions that Dufense has filed to try and keep most of everything (that is knowledge and evidence to this case to be thrown out. NOW THAT WOULD BE DISHONEST. To me, whether it be the Dufense or the Prosecution, all this information should be allowed, so the jurors can make their own decision. It isn’t any secret that these topics did indeed happen. Canines have been used for many many years. They are trained well. These canines are judged on performance. Some of them do not make the grade, so they aren’t used. If anyone does not believe in working trained canines is not beneficial. Then ask the police, the military, search and rescue their views ( canines were used in the 911 tragedy searching for men and women. Canines can go places and their keen nose will search what a individual can not do. Some of the experts that have put their two cents in (has never worked a working dog). Seeing isn’t alway believing. But if their child was ever missing, would you truly send the canines away saying they are unreliable. I think not.

  7. A couple of sites of interest:

    Director of search team is charged with faking evidence
    Midland, Mich., woman who has received international acclaim using a cadaver-sniffing dog to crack homicide cases was charged in federal court Monday with planting evidence at crime scenes.
    The government said Sandra Anderson, 43, planted human bones at crime scenes in Oscoda, Bay City and Oakland County, Mich., between October 2000 and April 2002.
    The charges were filed by lawyers for the U.S. Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division in Washington. They wouldn’t discuss the case. Anderson was charged on criminal information, the route prosecutors often use when suspects are considering pleading guilty.
    http://leerburg.com/fake.htm

    *Of note, Anderson testified for the prosecution in the trial of Peter Kupaza. She was the only expert whose testimony connected Mr. Kupaza to the crime in any fashion. She testified that her dog, Eagle, made a positive hit on the defendant’s vehicle for biological material. However, a Luminol test failed to react positively to anything in the vehicle. 

    http://www.nasams.org/forensics/for_lib/Documents/1104878947.51/forensic_fraud.html

  8. I, for one, am ok with Judge Perry letting the Frye hearings ramble on. I was truly suspicious of his pronouncement that what did not make it into the expert’s report would not be allowed later. Let them get all their opinions out in the open. Should she be found guilty and sentenced even though some information comes to light in the time between a report and the trial? If it makes a difference between life and death, it has to be dealt with. After all, “death really is different”, and there should not be a bias against any defendent from the court.

    In a nutshell, bring on all your experts, JB, I still believe the outcome will be “guilty”.

Loading Facebook Comments ...