Rose speaks – Celebrity and High Profile Trials

#1 #2 #3
John

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=11723383

Pictures Show Last Months of Anna Nicole Smith
Defense shows jury idyllic photos taken during Anna Nicole Smith’s final months
The Associated Press
LOS ANGELES September 24, 2010 (AP)

Suggesting pictures are more powerful than words, the defense in the Anna Nicole Smith drug conspiracy case put on a slide show for jurors Friday of 90 photos depicting the last five months of the former Playboy model’s life.

With defense lawyers planning to call no witnesses after the prosecution rests its case Monday, the photos were their only evidence, designed to show Smith was not impaired by drugs as witnesses have testified.

The photographs, many of them taken by defendant Howard K. Stern, suggest an idyllic time for the blonde beauty beginning with the birth of her baby, Dannielynn, on Sept. 6, 2007, and continuing through Jan. 28, 2007, little more than a week before she died.

The prosecution entered two less flattering photos as evidence.

Except for a few shots of Smith in heavy mourning veil and black dress for her son’s funeral, the photos presented by the defense reflected joyous scenes.

The images included Smith feeding a bottle to her baby, posing the tiny girl in huge sunglasses and sitting with Stern and the baby in family portraits.

Smith died in Florida on Feb. 7, 2007, of a viral infection and an overdose of nine different drugs.

Stern, Dr. Sandeep Kapoor and Dr. Khristine Eroshevich, a psychiatrist, have pleaded not guilty to providing Smith excessive opiates and sedatives. They are not charged in her death.

The prosecution’s final witness, who was to conclude his testimony Monday, was Dr. Tim Botello, a psychiatrist who said he knew of no medical reason that a treating psychiatrist would have for giving Smith the multiple drugs she was prescribed.

Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

John, I used to think you were straight forward and now I don’t get a lot of your euphemism’s anymore, (so what, right?) You have your style and that works for you, Awesome!, but you leave a lot of open ended remarks or analogies and/or are not clear to me a lot of the time of what you are saying, (so what again, who am I), I am glad you are happy, I am happy also. I just wish you were not so cryptic in your articles, (maybe it is just me that thinks that) , I do like reading your articles anyways and maybe I will get them more down the road, at least I hope.

After this is over in Los Angeles, Howard will be fine…….SC that is a suckers bet. And why on earth would anyone worry about that after what he has been through here in Los Angeles. Liann thanks for your question…..NO BOOK! My style of writing is just that, it makes the reader or whoever, understand that I know more than the average ‘bear’. Also please understand this was not an easy group to be around, please believe me…. the habits that got this group into the crap they found themselves in, is just that, it is their way of doing things. All knowing, and let me just say this, that in my opinion there was always something ‘missing’ in the conversation…..do you remember SPY v SPY, it was most often that type of an environment.
I do not consider any of them my friends and I am sure the feeling is quite mutual. And I am again, very happy with that as it is……but NO BOOK.
All my best,
John

10
John, I think I understand a lot more now from your statement. Spy v Spy is something I do remember. I love reading your take on all this and even on other things, you always leave us with wanting to know more and that’s a good thing.

Article by Alan Duke of CNN

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/09/23/california.anna.nicole.trial/?hpt=T2

Anna Nicole Smith trial nears end with bathtub videoBy Alan Duke, CNNSeptember 24, 2010 — Updated 0029 GMT (0829 HKT)

Los Angeles, California (CNN) — Defense lawyers in the Anna Nicole Smith drug trial announced Thursday that they will likely not call any witnesses when the prosecution rests its case.

Prosecutors are expected to call their last witness Friday afternoon in the seven-week-long trial of Smith’s boyfriend Howard K. Stern and two doctors for allegedly conspiring to feed her drug addiction and using false names to obtain the drugs.

One expert witness for the defense, a pain medications expert, has already testified for the defense. Dr. Perry Fine testified early because of scheduling issues.

Jurors watched a video on Wednesday of the Playboy model singing, kissing and bathing with her infant daughter just two months before her February 2007 death.

“Momma didn’t mean it, I’m sorry,” Smith said when Dannielynn began crying as she washed her face.

Prosecutors showed the 13-minute video to support their argument that Smith’s speech was slurred and her mind was groggy from drugs.

The defense does not deny Smith took a lot of drugs, but they contend Drs. Khristine Eroshevich and Sandeep Kapoor were treating her for chronic pain that other doctors had also diagnosed.

“If she’s being treated for pain, it’s not illegal,” Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Robert Perry said last week.

Judge Perry has suggested several times in recent weeks that the prosecution had fallen short in proving the core of its case, including that Smith was a drug addict.

The judge told the lawyers on Monday that he was considering dropping some of the charges before the case goes to the jury.

“I expect some charges will likely survive in some form,” Perry said.

The three are charged with a conspiracy to provide drugs to a known addict and using false names on prescriptions for Smith.

They are not charged in her death, which a Florida medical examiner ruled was from an accidental overdose of a sleep aid, a lethal mix of prescription drugs and a viral flu.

While much of the past seven weeks have been tedious testimony about medical practices and drugs, the video shown in court Wednesday captured the jury’s full attention.

Smith and her 2-month-old baby sat naked in a large tub in the Bahamas home where she spent most of her last months. The mother softly sang to her baby and kissed her repeatedly.

“Love the water,” Smith said to her child.

Stern smiled several times as he watched the video from his seat at the defense table.

“Come on, Danny, do something good,” jurors heard Stern say from behind the camera. “Show us you’re a star.”

In one moment, Smith and Stern seemed to joke about their rivalry for the baby’s attention.

“Say ‘Mommy,’” she told the baby. “Say ‘Daddy,’” he said.

They repeated that exchange several times before Stern said “She made a funny face, she pointed to the camera.”

SAMMY 1 –Reading,that Howard smiled from the defense table makes me all warm inside.May the time now come when he will be able to enjoy in private his good times with Anna,and put Vergie and friends where they belong.I hope Larry will always let Howard in Dannielynn life .There was something that has always been on my mind,Did Dannielynn have the sacrament of Baptism,?

#16, Moe – Larry & Curly ………… ( schemp ) once and awhile……. for so many reasons! I have the entire collection and now I have this group. Beverly, ‘religion & politics’ always a dangerous! LOL
Not to be ‘dodging’ any thing, but this will be my last comment of this subject at this time.

All my best to all,
John

#20 Beverly – Yes, I thought the same while reading the statement about HKS smiling at Anna and DL. For a moment, he remembered a happier time. The author made HKS seem more human in the eyes of others. It was a generous statement by the author.

#23 – Heath – Welcome back from your trip. You’re welcome. Glad I can contribute in a small way. My sleeping habits are in increments of 2/3/4 hours at a time. Late to bed and early to rise with a nap later.

Everyone have a great weekend. Fall is coming. Weather is cooler with plenty of sunshine.

This morning I had time so i played Vergie’s LAX airport video ”are children are precious to us”

An interesting article on the media or the lack of integrity.

http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/lifestyle/When-Did-The-Information-Superhighway-Become-Such-A-Brambly–Thorny-Byway_7991215

Roxanne—–The day Howard is free,is the day I WILL LET GO.

ROXANNE—To many mothers try and shove the responsibility of there failure on someone else,This week will end for me anything to do with Vergie,I do not think Howard is blamless in all this,but he did not deserve what Vergie has done nor did anyone else.The minute Howard walks out of court,free,then and only then will that name be forgotten,and trust me,never again thought about.

VA was only 15 when she had Ana may be that why she did not do a good job .The one who push that case that high is the media the hungry layers and the one that protect the people and the law OQ and JB also not to forget the prosecutor .

PixiesMom50 you maybe right in what you say.They may have pushed VA into going after everyone and anyone.

And as far as Kapoor being a drug addict. Maybe before a person posts on what they “know” they should check out what the drug is used for.

BuSpar is an anti-anxiety medicine that affects chemicals in your brain that may become unbalanced and cause anxiety.

BuSpar is used in the treatment of anxiety disorders and and for short-term relief of the symptoms of anxiety, such as fear, tension, irritability, dizziness, pounding heartbeat, and other physical symptoms.

BuSpar may also be used for purposes not listed in this medication guide.

Read more: http://www.drugs.com/buspar.html#ixzz10f7kRn3Y

WELLBUTRIN

Suicidality and Antidepressant Drugs
Use in Treating Psychiatric Disorders: Antidepressants increased the risk compared to placebo of suicidal thinking and behavior (suicidality) in children, adolescents, and young adults in short-term studies of major depressive disorder (MDD) and other psychiatric disorders. Anyone considering the use of WELLBUTRIN or any other antidepressant in a child, adolescent, or young adult must balance this risk with the clinical need. Short-term studies did not show an increase in the risk of suicidality with antidepressants compared to placebo in adults beyond age 24; there was a reduction in risk with antidepressants compared to placebo in adults aged 65 and older. Depression and certain other psychiatric disorders are themselves associated with increases in the risk of suicide. Patients of all ages who are started on antidepressant therapy should be monitored appropriately and observed closely for clinical worsening, suicidality, or unusual changes in behavior. Families and caregivers should be advised of the need for close observation and communication with the prescriber. WELLBUTRIN is not approved for use in pediatric patients. (See WARNINGS: Clinical Worsening and Suicide Risk in Treating Psychiatric Disorders, PRECAUTIONS: Information for Patients, and PRECAUTIONS: Pediatric Use.)
Use in Smoking Cessation Treatment: WELLBUTRIN®, WELLBUTRIN SR®, and WELLBUTRIN XL® are not approved for smoking cessation treatment, but bupropion under the name ZYBAN® is approved for this use. Serious neuropsychiatric events, including but not limited to depression, suicidal ideation, suicide attempt, and completed suicide have been reported in patients taking bupropion for smoking cessation. Some cases may have been complicated by the symptoms of nicotine withdrawal in patients who stopped smoking. Depressed mood may be a symptom of nicotine withdrawal. Depression, rarely including suicidal ideation, has been reported in smokers undergoing a smoking cessation attempt without medication. However, some of these symptoms have occurred in patients taking bupropion who continued to smoke.

The AP has a new article up that needs to read by everyone. Enlightening/insightful and how the outcome may affect others. A very good read.

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=11730180

Smith Verdicts Will Resonate for Doctors, Patients
Verdicts in Anna Nicole Smith drug case will resonate with doctors, patients
The Associated Press
By LINDA DEUTSCH AP Special Correspondent
LOS ANGELES September 26, 2010 (AP)

During the past few weeks, a beautiful blonde celebrity has been making cameo appearances in a downtown courtroom.
Her image appears on a huge video screen above the heads of three of her friends whose futures are now at stake because of their relationships with her.

The woman is Anna Nicole Smith, a one-time Playboy model who died in 2007 of a drug overdose. Those on trial are her former lawyer-boyfriend and two doctors, all charged with conspiring to give her excessive prescription drugs while knowing she was an addict.

The trial’s approaching outcome is sure to reverberate among doctors and pain management patients whose need for drugs is at the heart of California laws under which the defendants are charged.

Underlying the legal issues is the puzzle of Anna, the busty bombshell who sometimes slurred her words and appeared drugged. Who was she in life? Even her name was a mystery. Was she Vickie Marshall, Anna Nicole Smith, Michelle Chase, Susie Wong, Jane Brown or a number of other pseudonyms used to fill prescriptions?

Was Smith a drug addict or a woman beset by so much pain from various ailments that she sought relief in medicine bottles?

Was she a pliant victim drugged into semiconsciousness by others or a strong-willed woman who told people what to do?

The jury of six women and six men will ponder those questions when the case is submitted to them, possibly next week.

Superior Court Judge Robert Perry has harshly criticized the prosecution for “overreaching” and indicated he will bar some charges from going to the jury.

“I’m very concerned about the way this case is charged and being prosecuted,” he told Deputy District Attorney Renee Rose. “If you’re going to accuse someone, you should have some evidence.”

On another occasion, he declared, “I would hope that a prosecutor would be intent on finding the truth, not just a conviction.”

Now, Perry has presented both sides with a 15-page document he labeled “Thoughts,” asking 50 different questions about the charges.
His first question was: “What evidence shows that Anna Nicole Smith took drugs to get high or obtain a euphoric state and not to relieve pain?”

The one defense witness, pain management expert Dr. Perry G. Fine, clearly impressed the judge. Fine testified that even if Smith was prescribed 1,500 pills in one month for pain, it did not mean she was an addict — that clinical factors had to be considered as well as her high tolerance for opiates and sedatives.

Perry sees this as central to the case and advised jurors: “The number of pills is not a determinative factor in this case. Please keep that in mind.”

He spoke after Rose spent two hours having an investigator enumerate thousands of pills found in Smith’s homes after she died. Much of the prosecution’s case has been a laundry list of powerful medications, including Methadone, Dilaudid, Demarol, Valium, Xanax and Chloral Hydrate. Pharmacists testified about being shocked at the number of medications prescribed and one said he refused to fill a request that he felt was “pharmaceutical suicide.”

Witnesses testified that Smith suffered from chronic pain syndrome, seizures, fractured ribs, migraine headaches, insomnia and severe back pain, as well as depression after the death of her son, Daniel.

Perry, who said he has researched the legislative intent behind the relevant laws, said he may tell jurors that to convict the defendants of prescribing to an addict they must find the prescriptions were for “non-therapeutic purposes,” meaning to feed an addiction rather than treat an illness.

Loyola Law School Professor Laurie Levenson said it’s unusual for a judge to do so much research on his own.

“But I can see why he is concerned,” she said. “Even the (California) legislature has expressed concern that these statutes might be used in a way that would chill doctors from treating pain-management patients’ needs.”

Defendants Howard K. Stern, Dr. Sandeep Kapoor and Dr. Khristine Eroshevich have pleaded not guilty to an array of charges, including conspiracy to provide excessive controlled substances, prescribing to an addict, and obtaining drugs by fraud — some prescribed under false names. The three are not charged with causing Smith’s death.

Their defense team — veteran lawyers Steve Sadow, Ellyn Garafalo and Brad Brunon — recently made a surprise announcement that they will call no further witnesses after the prosecution rests. They say the case against their clients has not been proven.

The three attorneys intensely cross-examined every prosecution witness and the judge said they succeeded in destroying the credibility of several, including two nannies flown in from the Bahamas. Sadow accused one of them of outright perjury.

The prosecution summoned up Smith’s video images to suggest she was addicted — showing her at the American Music Awards slurring her words,

The defense answered with its own videos of Smith speaking clearly and still photos showing her smiling and engaged.

Prosecutors used photos of Smith naked in a tub with Eroshevich and pictures of Kapoor kissing Smith after riding with her in a gay parade to show that the doctors blurred the line of their professional relationship with Smith.

Perry scheduled arguments Monday on dismissal motions, but indicated some charges “will likely survive in some form.”

He wants arguments to be limited to two issues: whether Smith was an addict and whether prescriptions were obtained under false names.

If false-name charges stand, he asked whether nine prosecution witnesses should be considered accomplices and jurors should be warned to treat their testimony with caution. These included pharmacists and doctors who prescribed to Smith under pseudonyms, a common practice with celebrities.

David Kettel, a former federal prosecutor of drug cases, said this case was overcharged and Perry will probably pare it down to the bare minimum he feels can be supported by law, should the jury return convictions.

“I wouldn’t be surprised if it came down to as little as three charges,” Kettel said.

Levenson said convictions could send a message that would inhibit doctors from prescribing pain medications and treating celebrities.

“They will feel that big brother is looking over their shoulder,” she said. “And even though we do want monitoring to keep the public safe, what we don’t want is witch hunts.”

Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Ken – can you highlight this portion of the last sentence in the above post.

“And even though we do want monitoring to keep the public safe, what we don’t want is witch hunts.”

Thank you Ken. I think this kind of says it all.

SAMMY1 You are SUPER with your finding of articles.That was a hum-dinger,and every word could not explain it better THANK YOU.

should be by far the greatest mother

Beverly, it would make no difference about any doctor bringing up Anna’s past and how she was raised. It does not excuse any actions for her own behaviour. Yes, Anna was looking for love but do you believe she ever gave love to any other person besides her children? I think she used them all including Stern for whatever she wanted at the time. As far as virgie goes, maybe the samething could be said by her or maybe she felt entitled to whatever Anna had because she was the “mother”. Lord knows Anna’s family felt that way, giveme, giveme, giveme. What they refused to understand is that Anna did not have it to give. She blew any money as fast as she earned it. She wasn’t an superstar and made millions off of her talent. She had surgery to enhance her looks and body in order to sell her “sex”. I am not trying to put Anna down for her life, just stating facts as I see them.

Anna must have felt betrayed by Larry when he went to her mother. My guess would be that virgie felt the same thing when Larry buddied up to Howard. No deals being made, Larry just had a chance to be with his child after 6/7 months. That is what people refuse to see.

Apparently there are a lot more better people than myself because if I were in the same set of circumstances, I would have made a deal with the devil himself to get my child. I have read many time where people would NOT have made any deal.

You keep blaming virgie for all of Anna’s choices that she made. Isn’t that like the same thing that other are blaming Stern for the same thing? He should have had some control over her actions right? Or is it the opinion because Anna was so screwed up in her early years that nothing or no one could have saved her from herself at all?

Also,if Dr E was her friend,what in the world was the denying Larry the right to be a father,all WRONG ADVICE,if given by a friend who just happen to be a psychiatrist.There was NO happy future,Larry had a baby girl with Anna NOT HOWARD.You cannot build a life on a LIE,It was up to Dr E to help Anna straighten out the mess,not walk away from it or condone it.

ROXANNE—What I am saying it was up to Dr E to direct Anna in the right direction.What Larry was doing was making her face the truth,he was the father and would not be denied.Larry was the first one to stand up to Anna,and is being torn apart for doing so.I am so happy he had the guts to not let Anna deny him his child,There was going to be no good time,to approach Anna,

Beverly, no one could tell Anna what to do. Not her mother, not Howard and certainly not Dr. E. Get Anna medicated after Daniel died, I agree with but not to the point of “knocking her out”. IMO, there was extreme depression after Daniel died on top of that hormone imbalanced after a pregnancy that some women experience.There were things that Anna should have had to face, but instead all around her coddled her.

I don’t agree, it wasn’t all up to Dr. E. IMO, she couldn’t handle the depression that Anna was in, let alone guide her to a right way of life. I don’t believe anyone gave Anna the advice to keep Larry from the baby. I think she believed that she would be able to keep him away by being as devious as possible. Look at how she threatened GBT if he didn’t place his name on that birth certificate. The only people that stood up against Anna’s demands are/were Larry and GBT. And look at what it cost them both, GBT won’t get Horizons or any money out of it. Larry almost lost the chance at having his daughter in his life. Anna had no right to decide what she did. Although virgie filed lawsuit after lawsuit, it was the actions of Anna that created the mess that Stern is trying to handle today, tomorrow and next month.

If Anna wanted nothing to do with her family then she should have been the adult and told each one of them herself. Not send Stern to do her bidding on that. No wonder that it made it look like he kept her family at bay. And yes, I saw the video where Stern begged Anna to see her cousin.

IMO, Anna used people and disgarded them when she was done, if she could not get anything more out of them. How sad.

So many people in this world have come from families that suck big time but yet they grow into responsible adults, taking care of their own business and the reverse can be said also. So many come from great families and they screw up royally. Not an easy thing to be a parent in today’s world, let alone in a world that considered having a baby out of wedlock a disgrace.

DIAMONDGIRL,–You have got to the problem that is made when a Doctor does not keep Dr/Pt relationships separate,If Dr E wanted Anna friendship,then that should have been kept a friendship,Once she perscribed meds as her Doctor,she took the responsibilty of treating Anna,and all the problems she finds herself in.

Rose, I wouldn’t believe Opri if her tongue came notarized. She had a bone in this entire saga also. She needed the media to watch her every move and then it bit her in the ass when she Birkhead’s money and placed in into her account and did not want to give it back.

I have never said that there was a halo hanging over Larry’s head or anyone’s elses. I could understand why he sent the emails that he did, I may not agree with it but I do understand it. Anger creates people to do a lot of hurtful things. When one is angry, that is when they tend to hit back with whatever ammo that they possess.

Since both Prosecution and Defense have rested, wonder if closing arguments will start today or tomorrow.

Updated article – CNN

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/09/27/california.anna.nicole.smith.trial/?hpt=Sbin

Both sides rest in Anna Nicole Smith drug trialBy Alan Duke, CNNSeptember 27, 2010 — Updated 1946 GMT (0346 HKT)

Los Angeles, California (CNN) — The prosecution and defense rested their cases Monday in the drug trial of Anna Nicole Smith’s boyfriend-lawyer Howard K. Stern and two doctors.

Closing arguments were scheduled to begin Thursday morning with jury deliberations expected to start next Tuesday or Wednesday, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Robert Perry said.

Judge Perry will consider motions to dismiss or reduce some of the charges against Stern and Drs. Khristine Eroshevich and Sandeep Kapoor during a Monday afternoon session.

The three defendants are on trial for allegedly conspiring to feed her drug addiction and using false names to obtain the drugs.

They are not charged in her February 2007 death, which a Florida medical examiner ruled was from an accidental overdose of a sleep aid, a lethal mix of prescription drugs and a viral flu.

The defense does not deny Smith took a lot of drugs, but they contend the doctors were treating her for chronic pain that other doctors had also diagnosed.

“If she’s being treated for pain, it’s not illegal,” Judge Perry said two weeks ago.

Judge Perry has suggested several times in recent weeks that the prosecution had fallen short in proving the core of its case, including that Smith was a drug addict.

The judge told the lawyers last week that he was considering dropping some of the charges before the case goes to the jury.

“I expect some charges will likely survive in some form,” Perry said.

#75, hmm, I’m surprised that you remember me. Of course, I remember you also. Has life been treating you well? I have special favor from God and I’m doing great!

Repost of HS
“After the judge suggested that most of allegations were just misdemeanors, defense lawyer Steve Sadow said those should be dismissed because the one-year statute of limitations on misdemeanors ran out before charges were brought.

“My God, I didn’t even think about that,” Perry said.

Heath, did you like the “kitchen sink theory”?

I don’t have a link for this statement as yet.
Comment from Howard Supporter

A judge thats gets it!! What we’ve been saying from the very beginning!

“After sending the jury home until Thursday morning, Perry told attorneys that he has presided over 622 felony jury trials in his career, but only in three cases has he been faced with “overzealous’ prosecutors who “appeared to put winning above’ fairness.”

Posted at 6:39 PM on Sep 27, 2010 by TZ

Here’s AP’s article with some difference.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/39385592/ns/today-entertainment/

Prosecution, defense rest cases in Smith trial
Boyfriend, two doctors have pleaded not guilty to supplying former model with excessive drugs

LOS ANGELES — Prosecution and defense attorneys rested their cases Monday in the seven-week drug conspiracy trial of Anna Nicole Smith’s lawyer-boyfriend and two doctors charged with providing her with excessive amounts of opiates and sedatives while knowing she was an addict.

Superior Court Judge Robert Perry planned to hear defense motions to dismiss the case before jurors returned for final arguments Thursday.

Perry has indicated he planned to throw out some charges before the case is submitted to the jury. He suggested prosecutors had overreached the evidence when they filed the 11-count indictment.

After jurors were dismissed for the day, Perry told lawyers his research showed most of the charges in the complaint actually amounted to low-level misdemeanors, some of which carry only a fine as a possible penalty.

“Should the court decide that the district attorney’s office decided to build a case because you had a dead celebrity and a bunch of low-level misdemeanors?” Perry asked.

Deputy District Attorney Sean Carney said it took two years for investigators to “unravel the puzzle” of the case.

“We believe there were felonies,” he said.

The judge said the only felonies charged were three conspiracy counts, two of which he said earlier could be dismissed.

Jurors were told the case would be placed in their hands next week.

Much of the testimony focused on whether Smith, a former Playboy model and reality TV star, was addicted to prescription drugs or instead seeking relief from chronic pain.

The prosecution called a long parade of witnesses, but the defense called only one, an expert on pain management. None of the three defendants testified.

Howard K. Stern, Dr. Sandeep Kapoor and Dr. Khristine Eroshevich have pleaded not guilty to three conspiracy charges and other drug counts. They are not charged in Smith’s 2007 drug overdose death, which was ruled accidental.

The prosecution’s last witness was Dr. Tim Botello, a psychiatrist who testified that Eroshevich overstepped the physician-patient boundaries when she flew to the Bahamas with medications that were administered to Smith after the death of Smith’s son Daniel.

Under cross-examination by defense lawyer Brad Brunon, who represents Eroshevich, Botello insisted Smith should have been treated by a psychiatrist licensed in the Bahamas.

Brunon, however, has noted that some drugs Eroshevich brought with her, including Methadone, were not available in that country.

Botello suggested other drugs could have been substituted.

Brunon asked Botello: “Did any of (her) doctors say she was using drugs to get high?”

“I did not see that,” the witness said.

Jurors also heard a stipulation read by Stern’s attorney Steve Sadow that prosecutors had spent $24,386 in travel expenses to bring two nannies from the Bahamas to testify.

At the end of their testimony, the judge said their credibility had been seriously undermined.

Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Good Morning,and I do mean good,This judge has restored,a small part of my faith in the judicial system,He did homework on the case,and took a interest right from the start.The proscution was so blinded,and so wanting to convict,these Attorney’s made it look like they bought and paid for testimony from the nannies,which they did,the term (bribery)I will aways admire Howard and Larry,for standing tall,took what was dished out,and now can hold there head high.This Thanksgiving.Mr and Mrs Stern will have there son back.and know” He took the blows,and did it his way”and to ROXANNE,”IT IS OVER”Anna’s mother is in the Almighty hands,she has to face herself,and kive with the harm she caused so many people.

SAMMY1—Have you ever sat on grass,that has been burned fom lack of water.it is like sitting on straw.we also had rain,never thought I be so glad to see it,As kids were used to put on the bathing suit and run out in it,this getting old sucks,now they would put me in a mental Hospital.

Beat me to it Rose. Score one more for tlhe Team.

From Swims regarding Supreme Court …

• For reference

The first three questions in HKS’s Petition are:

1) What is the scope of the probate exception to federal jurisdiction?

2) Did Congress intend the probate exception to apply where a federal court is not asked to probate a will, administer an estate, or otherwise assume control of property in the custody of a state probate court?

3) Did Congress intend the probate exception to apply to cases arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, including the Bankruptcy Code, or is it limited to cases in which jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship?

As discussed previously, the gist of HKS’s argument is that the decision of the 9th is out of step with other (far less reversed) circuits and thwarts the will of Congress. SCOTUS will now speak in due course.

Posted at 9:02 AM on Sep 28, 2010 by Only swim in the Ocean

News from In Sessions TV

Court reporter Jean C. in court – Judge and attorneys arguing over charges and jury instructions (the word arguing was used by Jean not me). Which charges to be dropped. Is it criminal to use multiple names? According to judge, in Calif, it is not required by law to formally change one’s name before using that name, ie. Michelle Chase. You can go by any name you choose. Other things stated were posted yesterday in multiple articles, i.e., may dismiss some charges, over charging, judge has 16 years experience. Prosecution strongly believes there was drug abuse and over prescribing.

I believe this is what I heard so not to be taken to task by the other side.

Interesting …

http://www.fox4kc.com/news/nationworld/sc-dc-0929-court-orders-20100928,0,1450955.story

Article speaks to several cases before the Supreme Court. At the bottom of the article is a statement regarding Stern vs Marshall and then the following statement. Guess we’ll have another website to visit on weekly basis.

And for those who want to listen to a Supreme Court argument, the court announced it will post on its web site (www.supremecourt.gov) at the end of each week the audio recordings for cases heard that week.

Ken – I agree with you totally, at first I thought perhaps I had read that portion of the article incorrectly. Made me think of a movie with Tom Selleck called “An Innocient Man”. Cops break into his home, catch him with a handheld hair dryer, shoot him, realize their mistake, plant drugs, arrest him, court and then to prison. Makes you think doesn’t it???

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100928/ap_en_ot/us_anna_nicole_smith

Judge delays final arguments in Smith drug case

LOS ANGELES – The judge in the Anna Nicole Smith drug conspiracy case has delayed final arguments until Monday while he considers defense motions to dismiss charges against the model’s two doctors and boyfriend.

Superior Court Judge Robert Perry said he planned to begin issuing rulings later Tuesday. He spent the morning finalizing jury instructions and told prosecutors they should try to pare down the overt acts they have alleged against the defendants. He said it is essential to simplify the case to prevent jurors from becoming confused.

Dr. Sandeep Kapoor, Dr. Khristine Eroshevich and Smith’s lawyer-boyfriend Howard K. Stern have pleaded not guilty to providing her with excessive prescription drugs while knowing she was an addict. A key issue is whether she was addicted or seeking pain relief.

http://abovethelaw.com/2010/09/the-estate-of-ms-smith-goes-to-washington-again/

The Estate of Ms. Smith Goes to Washington (Again)
By David Lat

Anna Nicole Smith: her candle burned out long before her legend ever did. And the great beauty’s legend continues to grow, over three years after her untimely death in February 2007, as litigation involving her estate contributes to the development of a rich body of law regarding bankruptcy and probate law — in a tribunal no less distinguished than the Supreme Court of the United States.

Over at USA Today, Joan Biskupic has this report:

The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to hear an appeal from the estate of Anna Nicole Smith, the late Playboy model and TV reality-show star, in the decades-old dispute over an inheritance from her tycoon husband.

The action, involving a sensational set of characters in an otherwise dry case at the intersection of probate and bankruptcy law, came on a day of varied court business that included acceptance of 14 new cases for the 2010-2011 term that officially begins Monday.
Sounds scintillating. Let’s get all up in Anna Nicole’s business, shall we?

This is not Anna Nicole’s first time at the SCOTUS rodeo. She previously appeared before the high court in February 2006, and set off a photographer feeding frenzy at One First Street, when the justices heard argument in Marshall v. Marshall, an earlier appeal in the same litigation.

Both Marshalls from that appeal — Anna Nicole Smith, aka Vickie Lynn Marshall, and her stepson, E. Pierce Marshall — are now deceased. The case that was just granted cert is captioned Stern v. Marshall: “Howard K. Stern, Executor of the Estate of Vickie Lynn Marshall, Petitioner v. Elaine T. Marshall, Executrix of the Estate of E. Pierce Marshall.”

(Executrix. That word is nothing short of delicious.)

Here are the questions presented in Stern v. Marshall, via SCOTUSblog:

(1) Whether the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(C) contravenes congressional intent; (2) whether Congress may authorize core jurisdiction over debtors’ compulsory counterclaims to proofs of claim; and (3) whether the Ninth Circuit contravened Supreme Court precedent and created a circuit split by holding that Congress cannot constitutionally authorize non-Article III bankruptcy judges to enter final judgment on all compulsory counterclaims to proofs of claim.
“[W]hether the Ninth Circuit contravened Supreme Court precedent and created a circuit split….” I’m guessing the answer to that one is yes?

So what does this mean in more practical terms for the estate of Anna Nicole Smith? Biskupic provides some background:

The case involving Anna Nicole Smith, who died in 2007, marks the second high-court round in the saga of the former Playboy Playmate, her octogenarian husband and his son. Smith, whose legal name was Vickie Lynn Marshall, married Texas billionaire Howard Marshall in 1994 after meeting him at an adult club where she was a dancer. At the time, she was 26 and he was 89. Marshall died 14 months later.
We’re guessing he died a happy, happy man.

In the earlier Supreme Court case, decided in May 2006, the justices revived her effort to win millions from Marshall’s estate; a lower U.S. appeals court had thrown out the award. The widow and Marshall’s son Pierce had been battling over how much of the inheritance she was due.

Pierce Marshall died in 2006, shortly after the first Supreme Court case was decided, and his estate has now taken up the battle against hers. The new legal question tests how various claims creditors and debtors in certain bankruptcy cases should be weighed.
A number of prominent lawyers and large law firms are involved. The SCOTUS docket lists Kent Richland, of the appellate boutique Greines Martin Stein & Richland, as counsel of record for the petitioner (Anna Nicole’s estate). Richland had some Biglaw help: also involved in preparing the cert petition were Bruce Ross and Vivian Thoreen of Holland & Knight. The other side, Pierce Marshall’s estate, is also represented by a heavy hitter: G. Eric Brunstad Jr. of Dechert (a veteran Supreme Court litigator in bankruptcy cases, as well as my former bankruptcy law professor).

In other SCOTUS news, the Court has changed its policy on the release of audio recordings of oral arguments. It will the post the audio of oral arguments on the Friday at the end of each oral argument week. This is a wonderful development (as explained by Orin Kerr over at the Volokh Conspiracy).

Getting same-day audio, which is what Kash and I argued for in the Washington Post, would have been even better. But Professor Kerr has a thoughtful analysis as to what might be driving this policy:

I would guess that releasing the audio at the end of the week is a compromise designed to satisfy the Supreme Court geeks while minimizing the risk that the mainstream press will use the clips to report on the Court’s work. For law geeks, the transcript will tide us over until Friday when we can load the mp3s on our iPods for a weekend listen. For radio and TV reporters, on the other hand, the delay from an argument in the beginning or middle of the week until the audio is released on Friday will be so long that the clips won’t be nearly as newsworthy by the time they are posted.
This makes sense. So let’s not look a gift horse in the mouth; this is definitely a step in the right direction. Kudos to the justices for making the Court a little more accessible to the American people.

High court to hear Anna Nicole Smith inheritance case [USA Today]
Stern v. Marshall [SCOTUSblog]

hmm and Raven, I could never forget you guys either. your support for me at that time in my life is priceless! May God always keep and bless you guys. Raven, I would like to know the nic you used so that I will know who I’m talking to. LOL. Back to the HKS issue, I know he will be ok and hopefully the docs will also. This case is totally BS.

Totally different.

LOS ANGELES — The judge in the Anna Nicole Smith drug conspiracy case began whittling away alleged acts Tuesday detailed in a lengthy charging do***ent targeting the model’s two doctors and boyfriend.

Superior Court Judge Robert Perry threw out 18 of the 39 overt acts listed to support one of the three charges that the defendants conspired to provide excessive opiates and sedatives to a person they knew was addicted.

Perry has not yet thrown out any charges or ruled on whether prosecutors proved there was a conspiracy. Most of the overt acts targeted by the judge were excluded because they included too many dates and involved actions that did not support a conspiracy, he said. Perry stopped short of striking more of the 81 total overt acts alleged in the complaint and gave prosecutors time to eliminate some of them.

He said prosecutors should simplify the do***ent if they wanted jurors to understand the complex case.

Perry has been critical of the prosecution case and previously said some charges would likely be dismissed.

The judge also rejected an 11th hour move by prosecutors to add Smith as an uncharged coconspirator in the alleged plan to provide her with excessive drugs.
The judge said such a theory conflicted with the original allegation that Smith was kept drugged against her will.

“We never contended she was kept drugged up against her will,” Deputy District Attorney Sean Carney countered.

The judge disagreed and said evidence during the trial showed Smith “was a willing drug taker.”

Defense attorneys objected to adding coconspirators, saying it would change the case and was unfair to the defendants.

Testimony concluded Monday against Dr. Sandeep Kapoor, Dr. Khristine Eroshevich and Smith’s lawyer-boyfriend Howard K. Stern. All three have pleaded not guilty to providing Smith with excessive prescription drugs while knowing she was an addict.

They are not charged in the 2007 overdose death of Smith.
Closing arguments were delayed until Monday while the judge considers dismissal motions.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/39410349/ns/today-entertainment/

Who would have ever thought a judge would look at a prosecution side and say….. “Let’s get in the real world here.”

From what I’ve read throughout this trial, I like this judge. He’s listening to all the evidence or lack of, applying the appropriate law and rules his courtroom with a firm hand. JN stated early on, this judge takes no bs in his courtroom. In coming days, we’ll learn which of the other charges will be dismissed. From what I understand, the conspiracy charges are the only criminal charges. If the conspiracy charges are dismissed then no criminal charges apply (I think that’s right). Closing arguments begin Monday. By the end of next week if not before, this trial will be over.

I really don’t understand exactly how the conspiracy charges apply. But they are felonies, as are the H&S Code violations.
Some criminal charges in CA are called wobblers. Meaning that they could be a felony or a misdemeanor. Lots of times
the DA will charge someone with a felony only to have it reduced to a misdemeanor during the pre-trial negotiations.
And the defendant often pleads guilty to a misdemeanor and the DA has their conviction.
Conviction rates are important to the DA office. It goes to their reputation.

And what I do know about conspiracy charges is that the sentencing guidelines for a conspiracy charge goes back
to the offense that occurred within the conspiracy. Conspiracy itself has no sentence. Only the charges within the conspiracy.
So if the judge reduces the H&S Code violations to misdemeanors then the conspiracy would also have to be a misdemeanor conspiracy.
I would think. If no felonies were committed then it would not be a felony conspiracy charge. This judge has got his work cut out for him.
Partly of his own making, imo.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i17A4FXTLhJX10-sCbhhnhdqY9HwD9IHLR0G0?docId=D9IHLR0G0

Judge wants simplified charges in Anna Nicole case
By LINDA DEUTSCH (AP) – 4 hours ago

LOS ANGELES — A judge has urged prosecutors to simplify the document charging drug conspiracy charges against Anna Nicole Smith’s two doctors and boyfriend, warning that jurors may have trouble understanding the complex case.

Looking at the lengthy complaint, Superior Court Judge Robert Perry asked prosecutors: “Are you trying to impress the jury with so many charges or abuse the jury?… I think it hurts your case when you complicate it.”

Perry began whittling away alleged acts in the charging document Tuesday and gave prosecutors time to “clean up” the allegations before he rules on excluding more. He scheduled further hearings Wednesday that will culminate in rulings on whether any of the charges should be dismissed before reaching the jury.

Testimony concluded Monday against Dr. Sandeep Kapoor, Dr. Khristine Eroshevich and Smith’s lawyer-boyfriend Howard K. Stern. All three have pleaded not guilty to providing Smith with excessive prescription drugs while knowing she was an addict. They are not charged in the 2007 overdose death of Smith.

Perry threw out 18 of the 39 overt acts listed to support one of the three charges that the defendants conspired to provide excessive opiates and sedatives to a person they knew was addicted.

He has not yet thrown out any charges or ruled on whether prosecutors proved there was a conspiracy. Most of the overt acts targeted by the judge were excluded because they included too many dates and involved actions that did not support a conspiracy, he said.

He stopped short of striking more of the 81 total overt acts alleged in the complaint and gave prosecutors time to eliminate some of them.

In an added complication, defense lawyers pointed out that some of the 11 counts may be misdemeanors, which are covered by a statute of limitations. If they don’t meet time requirements they would have to be thrown out.

Perry has been critical of the prosecution case and previously said some charges would likely be dismissed. But he noted now that “There is a presumption (in the law) in favor of letting cases go to the jury.”

The legal arguments took up so much time that the judge delayed closing arguments until Monday to allow for all the complications to be resolved.

The judge rejected an 11th hour move by prosecutors to add Smith as an uncharged coconspirator in the alleged plan to provide her with excessive drugs.

He said such a theory conflicted with the prosecution’s original theory that Smith was kept drugged against her will.

“We never contended she was kept drugged up against her will,” Deputy District Attorney Sean Carney countered.

The judge disagreed and said evidence during the trial showed Smith “was a willing drug taker.”

Defense attorneys objected to adding new co-conspirators, saying it would change the case and was unfair to the defendants.

(This version CORRECTS story to say closing arguments will be Monday.)

Copyright © 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.