Evidence

PotatoHead said:

Thanks for all of the great legal input. It really helps.

Let me toss a question out there a bit differently:

If you were prosecuting KC, what would you specifically fight for to be admissible (aside from the obvious forensics)?

Click to expand...

Well so far, everything is admissible since we have yet to see any stunningly brilliant pre-trial maneuvers by defense team.
Beyond that, we all know my feelings on accidentally assisting team Casey, so no further comment on this question from me, 'cept Howdy, PH!!!:blowkiss:

Coley said:

She stole money to purchase the items on the tape. They might even show them to reinforce that she wasn't searching or being concerned that her daughter was missing.

IMO, some of the tapes will be played. Now JB will argue for them not to be but he is going to argue that the sky is blue.

Click to expand...

She allegedly stole that money, she has not been convicted of that crime. In a courtroom that becomes much more than nitpicking about words. They don't even let in evidence regarding crimes that have been convicted, it is prejudicial and has nothing to do with the crime they are being tried for. Think of the numerous cases where juries have said well if we knew he had other convictions for child molestation we would have ruled differently, if we knew he was accused of robbing other house we would have felt differently.

They can show that she wasn't looking for her child many other ways.

Fandy said:

All those party-pics of her dancing the night away several nights in a row....

Click to expand...

Yes, those certainly spoke to me about her state of mind.

manatee said:

yes, that's right! those are going to be troublesome as well. the prosecution would have to prove that they go to show mentat state or something to that effect.

Click to expand...

On the taped jail visit with her parents, can't remember the exact date, she admits to stealing from Amy via forged checks for shopping/bill payment, and says to her father she feels really guilty about that and that was done in a "time of desperation." I would say the various tapes of her shopping sprees show how "desperate" she really wasn't.

Everyone needs a new wardrobe, JackieO sunglasses and some cherries to conduct their own investigation. :bang:

I apologize this is so wordy. I just want to clarify and I know you are interested.

Coley said:

No. Why would you think with it being on tape and recorded that it would be a problem?

I guess I'm kind of torn between what is hearsay and what is not.

Click to expand...

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3898/is_/ai_n8895477

Law Article is:Videotapes may be admissible under learned treatise exception to hearsay rule

We can add to that article:



They are comprised of a series of out of court statements. The tradition is to admit video because it has such high levels of reliability when properly authenticated. These concerns have gone all the way to the US Supreme Court.

Coley said:

No. Why would you think with it being on tape and recorded that it would be a problem?

I guess I'm kind of torn between what is hearsay and what is not.

Click to expand...

I think it is hearsay because basically it would be hearsay though it falls within exceptions to render it or lots of it admissible at trial.

There are so many exceptions to the hearsay rule that it gets complicated.

Declarations against interest is an exception...but it doesn't have to have been against the declarant's interest at the time it was stated. The fact that it has changed perspective and now falls within the range of incriminating makes it fall into that category. So that is an admission of sorts but there are also party opponent admissions and vicarious admissions and admissions by silence. Admission by silence is its own specific exception. So is adoptive admissions.

There are enough exceptions to get the tapes in. I haven't dented one tiny area of hearsay exceptions , here.



Out of Court Statements can be spoken, recorded, noted, video, behavioral etc. They can be non-verbal acts which can also be hearsay although no word is spoken. Sometimes silence can also be hearsay but it falls within an exception and is admitted.
Because of the ease of authenticating video evidence, the S. Ct has stated that once it is properly authenticated, so we know it isn't changed and is in its original form, it has great reliability.

As our technologies have expanded, many statutes have come into place which allow for the proper introduction of video, which may be considered demonstative evidence, while we hear and see its contents.


Generally, Investigative police reports which are written are not introduced at trial. These fail as hearsay even though they are official documents, official sworn statements etc. It has been argued they should fall within business record exceptions to hearsay but that has failed as well.

Surely the FBI generated written reports off all their collected materials.
The videos, while also hearsay, because you know we want it for the verbal and non-verbal acts therein, will fall under a myriad of exclusions to be admissible.
You might view the video booking of a drunken defendant, as a juror, but you won't read the police report which was generated. This video is allowed by statutes which have morphed as times have changed.
I hope some of this makes some sense.

I'm going to weigh in here, too: the tapes are all admissible, with the exception of irrelevant information. Problem so many times though if you edit out portions that seem irrelevant is that you could lose the context of what was being said. With that said, keep in mind that neither side can simply "hit play" for a jury to hear them, such as other posters here at WS have said in previous posts on other threads could be done. You must first jump through the legal "hoops" concerning hearsay and it's exceptions. Therefore, the defense cannot get Casey's "story" out re: what happened by hitting a playback button and letting the whole tape rip.

HeSaidSheSaid said:

On the taped jail visit with her parents, can't remember the exact date, she admits to stealing from Amy via forged checks for shopping/bill payment, and says to her father she feels really guilty about that and that was done in a "time of desperation." I would say the various tapes of her shopping sprees show how "desperate" she really wasn't.

Everyone needs a new wardrobe, JackieO sunglasses and some cherries to conduct their own investigation. :bang:

Click to expand...

Yup that was the part I was thinking of when she acted like it was all apart of Caylee missing. But I wonder if they will even need to use this, they added so many people to the witness list that I think there is so much yet to be revealed.

MiraclesHappen said:

SNIPPED: "... Generally, Investigative police reports which are written are not introduced at trial. These fail as hearsay even though they are official documents, official sworn statements etc. It has been argued they should fall within business record exceptions to hearsay but that has failed as well...."

Click to expand...

Yes, and this is why the LE officers always bring them with them, read from them, thereby getting "the info" heard by the jury, but the actual reports themselves aren't *usually* admitted. (Though some not so brilliant attorneys do forget to object :doh: )

MiraclesHappen said:

Well so far, everything is admissible since we have yet to see any stunningly brilliant pre-trial maneuvers by defense team.
Beyond that, we all know my feelings on accidentally assisting team Casey, so no further comment on this question from me, 'cept Howdy, PH!!!:blowkiss:

Click to expand...

I think it's a little late to prevent any of us from "accidentally assisting team Casey", considering all the threads on evidence, videos, searches, our own research in looking at all this stuff, the financial research, etc., etc. ....

To quote the illustrious JB, "the horse left the barn a long time ago"

There's still plenty of time for JB to file the approrpiate motion to attempt to exclude certain items from evidence, but let's see if he even remembers to do that.

Coley said:

They wouldn't be anyone's now. They will just show that they are not being forthcoming about anything so they will discredit anything they say during the trial if called to the stand.

Click to expand...

LE knows theres little evidentary value to these jail recordings..even if admissable...other than to show her lying....but they can fill the court calender for a month just on that. Therefore, I see it as a smokescreen by LE to overwhelm the defense. There may be a few nuggets in there, especially if obstruction charges are filed later, but thats about it.

And Perry Mason (JB) would face charges of introducing contraband to a jail facility if he got caught sneaking cards in for her. He may, and its a big stretch, and I still dont think so, be able to bring them in and SHOW her them, but Im sure those female guards strip search her like any prisoner who has any contact with an outsider...just like visitors day. So maybe she's into that I dont know.

magnolia said:

I'm not an Attorney, but.....

The only videos I'm concerned about being inadmissable are the shopping videos. Baez will argue the shopping videos have nothing to do with Caylee's disappearance and will only serve to prejudice the Jury against his client.

Click to expand...

I agree, JB will argue that the tapes are prejudicial. BUT....IMO, the prosecution can argue that on the dates these videos were taken, Caylee was already "missing" and allegedly "kidnapped" (though not yet reported to police) according to Casey.

The tapes clearly display a carefree and happy-go-lucky Casey, demonstrating not only her blatant disregard for the law by forging stolen checks, but more importantly, her utter lack of concern for the safety and wellbeing of her allegedly "missing" two-year old child. Her behavior along with the items she purchased (lingerie, jeans, beer, etc..), will show that her frame of mind was not that of a distraught mother, "petrified" (as she herself claimed to be) for the safety of her missing child.

I think All of the Tapes will be admissible.

Jose can argue that they are prejudicial but I'm sure the Judge will allow them.

Casey is making statements & answering direct questions, by her own free will, pertaining to Caylee

She's also commenting on her actions before & after Caylee's disappearance

Caylee is the "Murder Victim" & Casey is the "Accused"......It's all revelant

I'm not a lawyer but I don't see how any of the tapes can be thrown out

Boston said:

I think All of the Tapes will be admissible.

Jose can argue that they are prejudicial but I'm sure the Judge will allow them.

Casey is making statements & answering direct questions, by her own free will, pertaining to Caylee

She's also commenting on her actions before & after Caylee's disappearance

Caylee is the "Murder Victim" & Casey is the "Accused"......It's all revelant

I'm not a lawyer but I don't see how any of the tapes can be thrown out

Click to expand...

I would personally like to see the Nursing home video thrown out. In another post on the Questions for Webseuths thread referred to this display of the following articles.

July 12: After they had not seen Caylee for some time, the girl's grandparents got concerned and confronted Casey, convincing her to go to the sheriff's office.

June 30: The car Casey had been using is towed from the Amscot store on Goldenrod Road and Colonial Drive.

June 24 or June 25: Detective Corp. Yuri Melich testified during Casey Anthony's bond hearing that a witness came forward who said he had talked to Casey on the phone on either June 24 or June 25 and that he heard Caylee in the background. The witness said that at one point in the conversation Casey told Caylee to get down from the table.

June 9 - July 12: Casey Anthony tells her parents that she had been going to work every day and that Caylee had been staying with friends or nannies.

June 15: Caylee's grandmother, Cindy Anthony, revised her estimate to this date as the last time she saw the girl in her testimony in Casey's bond hearing in July. Cindy Anthony said video of Caylee reading a book helped her remember that Caylee went with her to visit her father at an assisted living facility on Father's Day.

June 12: George Anthony says Caylee was spotted by friends of the Anthony family in a shopping area near the Orange-Seminole county lines. She was wearing a pink and blue outfit and white-rimmed sunglasses.

At this link http://www.cfnews13.com/News/Sidebar..._timeline.html

30 days from June 12th to July 12th.

According to Judge Napolitano (video link middle of page) http://www.myfoxorlando.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail?contentId=8012166&version=4&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=1.1.1
The released jail videos can not be used unless KC takes the stand Although if the Defense uses "mental instability defense" then tapes can be used to show that she is stable and in control

I think Judge Neapolitano was basically indicating that the jailhouse video's would probably not be used, as they are not really direct evidence in and of themselves. They may also be a bit predudicial so a judge may not allow the prosecution to use them directly.

But they are good evidence to use to impeach whatever story she comes up with at trial. If she takes the stand, or JB starts to spin a tail they are well positioned to counter it.

As far as the nursing home video. It would almost be criminal of the prosecution not to use it. It is the last documented, time and date stamped appearence of the child. It is evidence of teh victim as a living breathing joyful child within hours of her never being seen again.

Coley said:

No. Why would you think with it being on tape and recorded that it would be a problem?

I guess I'm kind of torn between what is hearsay and what is not.

Click to expand...

If you are talking about what is on the tapes, the FBI interviews, that is not hearsay, because there is videotaped proof that they are saying it.
Hearsay is when A says that B told them C said so-and-so. It is NOT hearsay if A says that B tells them so-and-so. Do you all see the diffierence?

TxLady2 said:

If you are talking about what is on the tapes, the FBI interviews, that is not hearsay, because there is videotaped proof that they are saying it.
Hearsay is when A says that B told them C said so-and-so. It is NOT hearsay if A says that B tells them so-and-so. Do you all see the diffierence?

Click to expand...

No I don't see the difference. I wish I did....but I don't...


If A attempts to testify about what B said, I believe that is hearsay.

If A says that B told them C said so -and- so, that is totem-pole hearsay.


This is just my opinion :blowkiss:

Part of the reason for the hearsay rule is to uphold the 6thAmendment Constitutional right to confront witnesses.

If B's statements are allowed into evidence by having someone else testify as to what B said, this takes away the right of the opposition to cross examine B about the statements.

Unless the words of B fall within some exception to the hearsay rule, an objection based on the hearsay factor should be sustained.

"Hearsay is a legal term. In the courtroom, witnesses from both sides are examined and cross-examined by both the prosecution (or plaintiff in civil cases) and the defense (or defendant). When a witness says that someone else who was not under oath and/or cannot be cross-examined by the opposition (called the deferrant), has said something, it is called hearsay.

Although there are exeptions to the rule, hearsay is not allowed in the courtroom to prove that what the deferrant said was true, because he/she was not under oath and there is no way for the opposition to test the truth of the matter. It can only be used to prove that the deferrant said it.

For example, we have a witness named Bob. We ask him if he saw the defendant, John, blow up his neighbor's house. Bob says, "No, but Tom said that he saw John buy explosives." In this case, the defense attorney stands up and says "Objection, Your Honor. Witness is using hearsay." The judge would sustain it and the evidence would not be allowed. However, if we wanted to prove that Tom could speak English, this evidence would be admissable, or allowed."

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_hearsay

There are approximately 30 exceptions or exclusions to the hearsay rule.

Themis said:

There are approximately 30 exceptions or exclusions to the hearsay rule.

Click to expand...

Oh they are endless it seems and a good trial lawyer has to be ready to jump up at the speed of light to make an objection or it will be 3 questions later by the time the word "objection" is stated.

Meanwhile the opposing counsel should be ready to argue whether or not there is an applicable exclusion to the hearsay rule so that the words, although admittedly hearsay, should be accepted as admissible testimony.

It's always nice to throw in some applicable case law if on point for the particular exclusion/exception. This must be recalled as counsel is remembering which exclusion applies and also considering whether or not multiple exclusions apply.
If multiple exclusions apply, counsel who is offering the testimony and wants it "in", should probably present the stronger of multiple exclusions first so as to make a good first impression so to speak. That argument is then followed up with something along the lines of:
"And if that weren't crystal clear under the law, I'd point out that....."

Or,
"Though at this point, the argument to allow the testimony seems compelling, I would add....."

Meanwhile, if the statement is damaging enough to the side that wants to exclude it as hearsay, that argument will be countered with reasons it isn't crystal clear, and it isn't compelling.

This can sometimes go on back and forth like a tennis match until the Judge blows the Judicial whistle and makes a ruling on the objection.


All of the exclusions to the hearsay rule are not obvious, nor are they "cut and dry."
The fact that words constitute an "operant legal fact" for example, makes them admissible even though they are hearsay by nature.
One must have a command of the law to determine what is an "operant legal fact," so as to argue that certain evidence should be admissible for that reason.


So yes I agree with Themis and one cannot reduce the concept of hearsay to a small explanation in one post.
It is a topic which can take up chapters in an evidence text. Not pages, but chapters....