2010.03.08 Motion to Exclude Hearsay, Gossip, Innuendo - Legal insight requested

JSR said:

JSR:
TADA,Cindy, the bus has arrived. Please step outside so Casey the bus driver can roll over you.

-----------this just cracked me up! ( it gave me this visual, casey in a bus driver uniform-----) thanks for the laugh JSR!

Click to expand...

gamom said:

It seems like the majority of you feel the 911 tape will be admitted. I hope so since to me this is the most damaging evidence. My concern is that based on what I read in Florida Law it seems like the defense may have a leg to stand on to get the tape removed..I snipped a piece out from a case in Florida...

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-144567278/crawford-impact-florida-criminal.html


Clipped:

"What happens when the state seeks to introduce an audiotape of a police-controlled phone conversation between a nontestifying co-defendant and the defendant? A survey of post-Crawford Florida cases reflects the likelihood that police-controlled phone calls are inadmissible in a criminal trial unless the declarant testifies at trial and is subject to cross-examination. In State v. Hernandez, 875 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004), rev. granted, 894 So. 2d 972, rev. dism'd., 911 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 2005), the court held that admission of a nontestifying co-defendant's out-of-court statement to the defendant during a police-controlled, audiotaped phone conversation would, in light of Crawford, violate the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause because the defendant did not have an opportunity to cross-examine the co-defendant."


Casey's statement about not seeing the child for 31 days was on this tape. However, I am assuming that she will not take the stand during trial. Doesn't that mean her statement (and the tape where she makes that statement) would not be admissible? Or am I over thinking this? I just can't handle another OJ case.

Click to expand...

butterfly1978 said:

This is my 1000th post :woohoo: so I hope its a good one, LOL.

Did anyone else read on page 10 where it says
"In addition Casey Anothony's statement regarding how her daughter was taken 31 days ago by the nanny and that she had been looking for her using her own resources are also in narrative form, making them neither spontaneous or reliable." Then it goes on to say "the statements made by Cindy AND Casey are in narrative form, recalling events that have past and not the fact that anything is happening at the moment. BOTH Cindy and Casey answer questions when asked by the 911 operator, that there was time to reflect and therefore the statements are not admissible under an excited utterance hearsay objection."
After rereading this tonight what the defense is doing is :back:, they are wanting the statement made by Casey herself about "the nanny" not admissible, that way they can lay the path for the SODDI defense, because they know there is no NFG, and they know that Casey herself said that was who had Caylee. The defense knows they can't try and say someone else did it when Casey herself stated on the 911 call that Zanny had her, and they can not defend that statement, so they want it to go away, so that they can say Kronk or someone else is responsible.

Click to expand...

TotallyObsessed said:

I think I am in the other camp as far as the defense trying to throw CA under the bus. They may appear to do so, but I believe with all of my being that CA, GA, JB and KC are tight as ticks. JMPO

Click to expand...

ynotdivein said:

Respectfully snipped for focus.

But Cindy is not a "co-defendant"? And is a 911 call "police-controlled"? Sounds to me like maybe the cited case involves one defendant taking a plea and calling the other on a tapped (police-controlled) call?

Heck, maybe I am over thinking too. But tomorrow I get a doc dump for my b-day and hopefully it will be a gift that everyone here will enjoy!

If "enjoy" is the right word. Again with the over-thinking... :angel:

Click to expand...

logicalgirl said:

And maybe end up being charged with Caylee's death? Not a chance! She'd take the martyr "I did/gave her everything" route, and I "worked my fingers to the bone, unlike her useless father" and the "this is how she thanks me" route rather than actually risking admitting she had anything to do with assisting Casey.

All that Cindy did - all that evidence tampering, obstruction, etc., was because she was protecting the daughter she bore and raised. Casey's behaviour reflected on Cindy and "the family". She might lie to protect Casey, but lie to take the fall herself. IMO - never!

Click to expand...

kew17 said:

Congrats on your 1000th post Butterfly!

My favorite part of that quote is "...Casey Anothony's statement regarding how her daughter was taken 31 days ago by the nanny and that she had been looking for her using her own resources are also in narrative form, making them neither spontaneous or reliable."
BBM
For the love of Pete - even her own attorney's think her statements are NOT reliable.!!!!

Click to expand...

butterfly1978 said:

This is my 1000th post :woohoo: so I hope its a good one, LOL.


After rereading this tonight what the defense is doing is :back:, they are wanting the statement made by Casey herself about "the nanny" not admissible, that way they can lay the path for the SODDI defense, because they know there is no NFG, and they know that Casey herself said that was who had Caylee. The defense knows they can't try and say someone else did it when Casey herself stated on the 911 call that Zanny had her, and they can not defend that statement, so they want it to go away, so that they can say Kronk or someone else is responsible.

Click to expand...

LolaMoon08 said:

But will Cindy even blame Casey for what the defense is doing? If I know Cindy, like I think I do, then no blame will be put on Casey for the actions of her defense team. Cindy will allow herself to believe that this has nothing to do with Casey and everything to do with Jose and Jose will pay for what he's doing.

Casey has nothing to worry about with Cindy, IMO. It's Jose who should be worried.

Click to expand...

LolaMoon08 said:

Happy 1000th post!

The little ZFG problem won't go away just because the 911 call gets thrown out... they'd have to get the interviews with LE thrown out, the phone calls Casey made to the house and the jail visitations where Casey has said that ZFG had Caylee.

They'd also have to get all interviews of Cindy, George and Lee thrown out... all their depositions and all of their media appearances thrown out.

Then you'd have to go through all her friends who got the text messages and heard that Caylee had been missing for 31 days... I don't remember if it mentioned Zanny or not?

Then Tracy, Rob, Tony and LP... they all knew about ZFG and some of them were even witness to Casey's story changing about where the abduction took place.

Zanny is not going to just disappear.

Click to expand...

kew17 said:

Congrats on your 1000th post Butterfly!

My favorite part of that quote is "...Casey Anothony's statement regarding how her daughter was taken 31 days ago by the nanny and that she had been looking for her using her own resources are also in narrative form, making them neither spontaneous or reliable."
BBM
For the love of Pete - even her own attorney's think her statements are NOT reliable.!!!!

Click to expand...

butterfly1978 said:

Oh I totally agree, but I beleive that this is the start, I think they want this removed first. Then they will say that the statements she made to investigators at universal and at the police station are inadmissible because she did not have a lawyer present, or they will try somehow to get that thrown out, then they will say that the statements made to Lee, Cindy, George whoever is all hearsay, which it isn't but thats what they are trying to do, I'm almost willing to bet my house on it... You have to realize these are morons we are dealing with, not normal people with common since or foresight.

Click to expand...

lauriej said:

...i'm sure someone will enlighten me, but i can't see how kc is having a whole lot of input in her defense.

..the last "visitor log" , that i saw: jan.9 2010-mar.3 2010
http://www..com/2010/03/casey-anthonys-most-recent-jail-visitors/

shows that she's only had about 24 hours of visits, in almost 60 days.

..of those 24 hrs. in a 2 month span-------jose accounts for about 7 hrs----andrea was only there once, jan.24th for 1 hour.

..can she phone her lawyer(s)? or can they phone her? in private?

..her LEAD attorney has dropped by for7 hrs. in 2 months ? in fact the last time, march 3-----is the date kc scrawled on the "attorney fees" indigent application:
http://www.wftv.com/pdf/22779833/detail.htmlhttp://www..com/2010/03/casey-anthonys-most-recent-jail-visitors/

so we won't even count that 1/2 hr. as "working on her defense".

..maybe they are mailing things back and forth? ( since andrea is so paranoid that the 'jail room' they meet in "is bugged" or some such thing.)

Click to expand...

butterfly1978 said:

Oh I totally agree, but I beleive that this is the start, I think they want this removed first. Then they will say that the statements she made to investigators at universal and at the police station are inadmissible because she did not have a lawyer present, or they will try somehow to get that thrown out, then they will say that the statements made to Lee, Cindy, George whoever is all hearsay, which it isn't but thats what they are trying to do, I'm almost willing to bet my house on it... You have to realize these are morons we are dealing with, not normal people with common since or foresight.

Click to expand...

The World According said:

Don't Baez and Lyon ever visit their client together? That speaks volumes.

Click to expand...

LolaMoon08 said:

I completely agree that they will try to get anything and everything thrown out. I don't see how they could claim that Casey not having a lawyer present during her original questioning because in both interviews they make sure to have Casey answer questions that prove that she is answering questions willingly.

Interview from Home:

Casey, you understand that this is being recorded?

Casey - Yes.

Do you have any objection to that?

Casey - No.

Interview at Universal:

You're here willingly, right?

Casey - Right.

No one's forcing you to talk to us, right?

Casey - Right.

You called because you wanted us to help find your daughter, right?

Casey - Right.

Especially in the interview at home with Casey the detective warns Casey about giving false statements and asks if this is the story she wants to stick with and Casey says "It's the truth." She then goes on to how she dropped Caylee off at Sawgrass Apt.'s with Zenaida and never seen her again.

He asks her before this if everything she wrote in her statement was true and accurate and she says "yes."

So it has her stating for the record, knowing that she is being recorded, that what she wrote in her statement is true and accurate and then goes onto explain the Zenaida/Sawgrass abduction.

This is a question for a lawyer... but, is it even possible to have this thrown out when Casey willingly talked to detectives and it can be proven, on those same tapes, that she agreed to answer questions?

Click to expand...

AZlawyer said:

Yes, it is definitely possible to get a "voluntary" confession thrown out. The question will be whether she was "in custody" at that time--if so, they needed to give her the Miranda warning (and her statements will be no good without it) even if she really, truly, voluntarily wanted to talk to them. Whether she was "in custody" will depend on the facts, especially whether she would have reasonably felt free to leave. My gut feeling is that the questioning that took place at the home was probably OK, but the questioning that took place at Universal worries me a little.

It's possible that the officers considered the risk that anything Casey said would be thrown out as evidence if they did not give a Miranda warning, but decided the risk was worth it in order to try to get her to "crack" and tell where Caylee was (alive or dead). After all, if she had confessed and led them to the body at that time, they could have used the information from her confession to direct their investigation--e.g., to know what kind of forensic evidence to look for--even if they couldn't use the confession itself.

Click to expand...