2011.01.04 Defense Motion to Suppress Casey's Statements to LE

Solace said:

I could be wrong but I think it is possible that Baez will not make it through this trial because he is just too lazy and overwhelmed. The fact that he sends out an e-mail re the experts as he did shows he is just not up to the mininum standards of defense. Not only does he ignore the court order but he insults the state with his juvenile comments. He still asks for 30 days and does not get it. Perry is willing to take it to the level of misconduct in his courtroom so the days of procrastinating are over. This trial will be here in four months and it is going forward.

For Cheney to submit a motion asking for the interviews of KC thrown out AND TO NOT HAVE GIVEN A COPY to the State is laughable. Perry seems to find Cheney amusing. I don't think the same goes for Baez.

Click to expand...

zoey said:

I remember thinking that at that time as well...cast that off to experience I guess---:loser:

You know what I would love to see one of these days?---The rights of the parent or gaurdian thrown out if they don't provide useful info on any infomation related to the child---something needs to be done. When tiny children are invovled and the last known person to see them don't talk---lock em up....throw away the key---and if the attorney complains lock them up as well---when its life or death ----rights go bye bye

Click to expand...

ZsaZsa said:

I can only listen to the Universal interview for so long before I go aaagh! Now I understand why CA tried to throttle her.

Click to expand...

LiveLaughLuv said:

Prisoner, voluntarily took these fine detectives to Universal, she was not in custody, so no miranda rites were needed. They gave ICA every opportunity to tell the truth, this is where they confronted her on her mistruths, gave her an opportunity to change her story, but she insisted, that's my story and I'm sticking to it..this line of questioning the parent who's child is allegedly missing, isn't unusal, it's their job to get to the truth so they can find this child. No help from ICA....JMHO

This is the defense trying to allude to there being a conspiracy surrounding their client...all a conspiracy, didn't look further...Yet, there is no need to look further when the allegedly missing child's parent gives no credible information, never calls authorites about her child allegedly missing but it's all the big bad detectives fault...NOT...JMHO

Justice for Caylee

Click to expand...

LancelotLink said:

3.190(h) Pretrial Motions
(h) Motion to Suppress a Confession or Admission Illegally Obtained.

(1) Grounds. On motion of the defendant or on its own motion, the court shall suppress any confession or admission obtained illegally from the defendant.

(2) Contents of Motion. Every motion made by a defendant to suppress a confession or admission shall identify with particularity any statement sought to be suppressed, the reasons for suppression, and a general statement of the facts on which the motion is based.

Found this and thought I would post.
This says admission or confession. CM motion motion asks to supress statements.

As I read the part about particularity, I could hear HHJBP's voice.

Click to expand...

krisskross said:

ITA :twocents: Casey Anthony didn't have to end up 20 miles from home. When Yuri Mellich phoned her from Universal asking where her office was and for the phone number, she could have come clean. When Sgt Allen picked her up at the house around 12.30pm, she could have come clean. During the 20 mile ride, she could have come clean and possibly prevented one count of providing false information to LE. When they arrived at the Security gate, she could have come clean. When the security guy told her she, nor her boss, Tom Manley worked there, jeez, if ever there was a moment to come clean that was it. She led detectives down a hall, "walking with purpose"...... Ofcourse Mason would have you believe the detectives had their weapons drawn.

If Casey Anthony had been handcuffed or restrained for any signficant period of time, Cindy Anthony would have been bleating about it every time a camera was in spitting distance.

Click to expand...

LancelotLink said:

3.190(h) Pretrial Motions
(h) Motion to Suppress a Confession or Admission Illegally Obtained.

(1) Grounds. On motion of the defendant or on its own motion, the court shall suppress any confession or admission obtained illegally from the defendant.

(2) Contents of Motion. Every motion made by a defendant to suppress a confession or admission shall identify with particularity any statement sought to be suppressed, the reasons for suppression, and a general statement of the facts on which the motion is based.

Found this and thought I would post.
This says admission or confession. CM motion motion asks to supress statements.

As I read the part about particularity, I could hear HHJBP's voice.

Click to expand...

The doctrine is subject to four main exceptions. The tainted evidence is admissible if:

1. it was discovered in part as a result of an independent, untainted source;
2. it would inevitably have been discovered despite the tainted source; or

Click to expand...

ynotdivein said:

RB&PBM--nice point LL!!! I wonder if CM & JB had to settle for this after googling up empty for "Motions to Suppress Nonstop Blatant Lies by Client" and "Motions to Suppress BS Spewed by Client" and "Motions to Suppress Everything Client Ever Said Since Age 13?"

(And ITKWYM about hearing HHJP enunciating those words!)

Click to expand...

nums24 said:

Is it possible for the state to argue this? That one of these 2 exceptions apply?:

Quote:
The doctrine is subject to four main exceptions. The tainted evidence is admissible if:

1. it was discovered in part as a result of an independent, untainted source;
2. it would inevitably have been discovered despite the tainted source; or

Wikipedia (Thumbnails)
Wikipedia (Thumbnails)

Wikipedia (Thumbnails)

" title="Wikipedia (Links)" target="_blank">Wikipedia (Links)
Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree

Click to expand...

AZlawyer said:

Here are the results in some recent Florida cases:

2008--Lee v. State--17-year-old Anthony Lee (weird coincidence with the name!) was questioned at his own home about an accusation that he had sex with an underage girl. The deputy told Lee's parents that he just wanted to get Lee's side of the story, so they kept him out of school to meet with the deputy. The deputy confronted Lee with the evidence against him, and he admitted to the crime. Lee's statements were suppressed on the ground that he was "in custody" and not given Miranda warnings. He was found to be "in custody" because he would not reasonably have felt free to decline the deputy's invitation to meet with him. The court noted that the "in custody" finding was supported by the fact that the deputy treated Lee as a suspect rather than a witness, confronted him with the evidence against him, challenged him repeatedly when he lied, and did not tell him he was free to leave. (BTW I still have not found anywhere in the Universal transcript where anyone tells Casey she's free to leave.)

2010--Ross v. State--Son of murder victims came to sheriff's office voluntarily to meet with victim's advocate. He then agreed to speak with detectives, who were "conversational," assured him he was not being arrested, and answered his questions about the investigation, but also confronted him with inconsistencies in his story. The court found that the defendant was not "in custody" at first, but was "in custody" as soon as the lead detective told Ross that he knew he was lying and was only trying to figure out why.

2010--Noto v. State--Car was stopped for a valid traffic violation while police were following car due to suspicion that driver had just purchased drugs. Officer took driver's license and registration, then confronted driver with his suspicion that driver had just purchased drugs. Driver's admissions were supressed due to lack of Miranda warnings. Although the discussion was "conversational and casual," the driver was "in custody" because he was accused of involvement in a crime, and because the officer had his license and registration in his possession.

2010--England v. State--Car was stopped for a valid traffic violation. Driver gave permission for officer to search the car. Officer located baggie of marijuana on floorboard and said to driver and passenger that they would both be arrested unless one of them wanted to "own up" to the drugs. Passenger admitted the drugs were his. Statement was suppressed due to failure to give Miranda warnings. Passenger was "clearly" in custody when the question was asked because he was not told he was free to leave and was confronted with evidence of a crime and asked to admit to it.

Click to expand...

AZlawyer said:

Here are the results in some recent Florida cases:

2008--Lee v. State--17-year-old Anthony Lee (weird coincidence with the name!) was questioned at his own home about an accusation that he had sex with an underage girl. The deputy told Lee's parents that he just wanted to get Lee's side of the story, so they kept him out of school to meet with the deputy. The deputy confronted Lee with the evidence against him, and he admitted to the crime. Lee's statements were suppressed on the ground that he was "in custody" and not given Miranda warnings. He was found to be "in custody" because he would not reasonably have felt free to decline the deputy's invitation to meet with him. The court noted that the "in custody" finding was supported by the fact that the deputy treated Lee as a suspect rather than a witness, confronted him with the evidence against him, challenged him repeatedly when he lied, and did not tell him he was free to leave. (BTW I still have not found anywhere in the Universal transcript where anyone tells Casey she's free to leave.)

2010--Ross v. State--Son of murder victims came to sheriff's office voluntarily to meet with victim's advocate. He then agreed to speak with detectives, who were "conversational," assured him he was not being arrested, and answered his questions about the investigation, but also confronted him with inconsistencies in his story. The court found that the defendant was not "in custody" at first, but was "in custody" as soon as the lead detective told Ross that he knew he was lying and was only trying to figure out why.

2010--Noto v. State--Car was stopped for a valid traffic violation while police were following car due to suspicion that driver had just purchased drugs. Officer took driver's license and registration, then confronted driver with his suspicion that driver had just purchased drugs. Driver's admissions were supressed due to lack of Miranda warnings. Although the discussion was "conversational and casual," the driver was "in custody" because he was accused of involvement in a crime, and because the officer had his license and registration in his possession.

2010--England v. State--Car was stopped for a valid traffic violation. Driver gave permission for officer to search the car. Officer located baggie of marijuana on floorboard and said to driver and passenger that they would both be arrested unless one of them wanted to "own up" to the drugs. Passenger admitted the drugs were his. Statement was suppressed due to failure to give Miranda warnings. Passenger was "clearly" in custody when the question was asked because he was not told he was free to leave and was confronted with evidence of a crime and asked to admit to it.

Click to expand...

LolaMoon08 said:

Okay everyone... Let's breath! In... Out....In... Out... one more time... In.... Out. Okay...

It is my opinion that if the Universal Studios interview gets tossed out... it's really not that big of a deal. No offense to the detectives, but they talked almost the entire time anyways. I think the majority of Casey's responses were "Um Hmm", "Absolutely", and "That's the truth." I think the only new lie we were able to get out of Casey in that interview was that she was a student at Valencia. Okay, let's move on.

As for the Hopespring Drive interview? I don't see how she could have ever assumed that she was placed into custody? I can tell you one thing though, Casey gave her written statement before giving this interview. The detective points out to Casey, that he is giving her the opportunity to change her statement right there! That he had read it and if there is anything she wants to change from her original statement, this was the time to do it. Casey said she was sticking to her story... because it was the truth.

So, even IF the Hopespring Drive interview gets thrown out, which I don't think will be thrown out, we have Casey's written statement that I am 99.9% sure will be seen by the jury.

Casey's written police statement...

On June 9th, 2008 between 9am-1pm, I Casey Anthony took my daughter Caylee Marie Anthony to her nanny’s apartment. Caylee will be 3-years-old on August 9th, 2008. She was born August 9th, 2005. Caylee is about 3 feet tall, white female with shoulder-length brown hair. She has dark hazel eyes (brown/green) and a small birthmark on her left shoulder. She was wearing a pink shirt, jean shorts, white sneakers, and her hair was pulled back in a ponytail.

On Monday June 9th, 2008 between 9am and 1pm, I took Caylee to the Sawgrass Apartments located on Conway Rd. Caylee’s nanny, Zenaida Fernandez-Gonzlez is twenty-five-years-old, and is from New York. She is roughly 5 foot 7 inches tall, 140lbs. She has dark brown, curly hair, and brown eyes. Zenaida’s birthday is in September. I met Zenaida through a mutual friend, Jeffrey Michael Hopkins. She has watched his son, Zachary Hopkins for about 6 months to a year. I met Zenaida in 2004, around Christmas.

On the date listed above, June 9th, 2008, after dropping Caylee off at Zenaida’s apartment I proceeded to head to my place of employment Universal Studios Orlando. I have worked at Universal for over 4 years, since June of 2004. I Left work around 5pm and went back to the apartment to pick up my daughter. However, after reaching the apartment I realized that neither Zenaida, Caylee, or her two roommates were home. I have briefly met Raquel Farrell and Jennifer Rosa on various occasions. After calling Zenaida to see where she and Caylee were, and when they were coming home. I waited outside of the apartment - I had called Zenaida earlier that morning, prior to bringing Caylee over for the afternoon. When I called her that afternoon her phone was no longer in service. Two hours had passed, and around 7pm I left the apartment, and headed to familiar places that Zenaida would go with Caylee. One of Caylee’s favorite places is Jay Blanchard Park. I spend the rest of that evening pacing and worrying at one of the few places I felt “at home.” My boyfriend Anthony Lazzaro’s apartment.

For the past four weeks, since Caylee’s disappearance, I have stayed at Anthony’s apartment, in Sutton Place. I have spent everyday since Monday, June 9th, 2008 looking for my daughter. I have lied and stolen from friends and family to do whatever I could by any means to find my daughter. I avoided calling the police, or even notifying my own family out of fear. I have been and still am afraid of what has or may happen to Caylee. I have not had any contact with Zenaida since Thursday June 12th, 2008. I received a quick call from Zenaida. Not once have I been able to ask her for my daughter or gain any information on where I can find her. Everyday I have gone to malls, parks, any place I could remember Zenaida talking Caylee. I have gone out, and tried to find any information about Caylee, or Zenaida. Whether by going to a popular bar, or restaurant. I have contacted Jeff Hopkins on several occasions to see if he had heard from or seen Zenaida. Jeff currently lives in Jacksonville, Florida.

On Thurday, July 15th, 2008, around 12pm, I received a call from my daughter, Caylee

Just thinking aloud now, but wouldn't you think that they would want to get Casey's phone call home, where she talked to Cindy, Lee and Kristina, thrown out? And isn't it too late for them to even address this issue?

Click to expand...

Turnadot said:

Interesting. Thank you.

Does it matter that KC agreed to go to Universal of her own free will, and was told she could leave at any time and she said she understood that?

Click to expand...

AZlawyer said:

It matters that she went without physical coercion. Whether she went "of her own free will" is one of the questions. When a deputy says, "Would you mind coming with me?" sometimes courts find that you are not acting "of your own free will" when you agree.

It WOULD definitely have mattered if they had actually told her that she could leave at any time, but I can't find that in the interview transcript.

Click to expand...

LancelotLink said:

3.190(h) Pretrial Motions
(h) Motion to Suppress a Confession or Admission Illegally Obtained.

(1) Grounds. On motion of the defendant or on its own motion, the court shall suppress any confession or admission obtained illegally from the defendant.

(2) Contents of Motion. Every motion made by a defendant to suppress a confession or admission shall identify with particularity any statement sought to be suppressed, the reasons for suppression, and a general statement of the facts on which the motion is based.

Found this and thought I would post.
This says admission or confession. CM motion motion asks to supress statements.

As I read the part about particularity, I could hear HHJBP's voice.

Click to expand...

gitana1 said:

Statements which generally can be used as evidence against a defendant, would be considered admissions. The interview shows how casey led them on a wild goose chase, admitting that she lied or why she brought them to certain places, for essentially no reason, etc. The whole interview would be wonderful for a jury to hear - her callousness, inexplicable lies, etc. But, the case won't be blown without it. As Lolamoon8 so graciously reminded us, there is a lot of other evidence that will likely be able to come in which the state can use to lay the foundation and paint a picture of what eventually led to her arrest.

Click to expand...