GUILTY GA - Lauren Giddings, 27, Macon, 26 June 2011 #14

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
The interesting thing about what the defense is trying to exclude is the trivial nature of most all of it.

Bleach, scissors, rubber gloves bought in the "weeks" prior. Items glanced at during shopping trips etc...

But surely the defense would ALSO be trying to throw out any real smoking gun evidence too! They wouldn't focus on trivial stuff and ignore the stuff that would send their client away for life. Why no big stuff mentioned in the report?
 
Hmmm, I don't see any link at macon.com yet to the actual motion documents. C'mon, guys/gals!

It also would be nice to get DA Cooke's latest on whether the FBI forensic testing is complete yet...or when it might be. The last we heard from him about it, in April, he said they were still waiting on some results and he hoped to hear soon when the testing might be expected to be completed. :waiting:
 
bessie said:
So how do we define "appears"? And why would a guy about to sit for the bar, a guy who doesn't own a boat, suddenly get a hankering to try out "boating supplies" and "anchors" at Walmart? And please spare me the rationalizations. (That's not directed at anyone in particular.)

Sorry, but when your next door neighbor has just been murdered and dismembered, her torso found at the foot of your apartment, in which her panties have "accidentally" made their way, and in which resides the packaging for a precise model of hacksaw, the blade from which said neighbor's DNA was extracted...BLAH! Gimme a break!

Next!
Click to expand...

Pfffttt ... his attorney's aren't asking for much are they?

Still curious about the child sexual exploitation charges. Initially I thought perhaps some images may have incidentally been downloaded (maybe he was cruising adult *advertiser censored* sites), and the charges would be dropped. I wonder if the same flash drive he purchased at Walmart had pictures of children on it?
 
Defense in Giddings slaying: Stifle ‘sea of pink’

...Family members and others close to Giddings, 27, an aspiring attorney, have taken to sporting pink at hearings, where the case against her accused killer began unfolding two Augusts ago.


But if lawyers representing Stephen McDaniel have their way, there will be no “sea of pink” in the courtroom at his trial....
Click to expand...
more at: http://www.macon.com/2013/05/31/2500054/defense-in-giddings-slaying-stifle.html

Uhoh, this one is going to make a lot of folks mad.
 
Links to more local media coverage of the latest motions:

Stephen McDaniel's Lawyers Challenge Evidence, Statements in Lauren Giddings Case

...Prosecutors have not yet responded to the motions filed Thursday.

District Attorney David Cooke said Friday motions like these are standard procedure in a murder case and and he doesn't expect them to delay the September trial date. ...
Click to expand...
more at: http://www.13wmaz.com/news/article/234836/175/McDaniels-Lawyers-Challenge-Evidence-Statements

McDaniel's Defense File Motions To Drop Evidence

...McDaniel's attorneys asked that additional time be given to file any motions in response to any new evidence presented after May 30. ...
Click to expand...
more at: http://www.41nbc.com/news/local-news/24138-mcdaniel-s-defense-file-motions-to-drop-evidence
 
Knox said:
Still curious about the child sexual exploitation charges. Initially I thought perhaps some images may have incidentally been downloaded (maybe he was cruising adult *advertiser censored* sites), and the charges would be dropped. I wonder if the same flash drive he purchased at Walmart had pictures of children on it?
Click to expand...

Remember folks on his old website searched for some of the images (the image file names were included in the court docs) and the images that they were able to find online were Japanese Anime (i.e. stupid cartoons). I recall specifically the image of "an adult male having intercourse with an infant" was apparently a cartoon.
 
Not sure if this was mentioned already (don't see a link) but Hogue is also asking that those attending the trial not be allowed to wear a "sea of pink" which could influence the jury.

In a motion filed Friday, attorneys defending the 27-year-old McDaniel argue that “no juror should be exposed to displays of solidarity with the prosecution or the victim that could influence the way in which they receive and evaluate the evidence presented during the trial.

“There will be ample evidence presented in the proper way from the witness stand that Lauren Giddings was an innocent victim. No juror will doubt that she was loved and respected, or that she had her life tragically cut short just when she was poised to make a valuable contribution to her community as a lawyer.”

Read more here: http://www.macon.com/2013/05/31/2500054/defense-in-giddings-slaying-stifle.html#storylink=cpy
Click to expand...
 
Sonya610 said:
Not sure if this was mentioned already (don't see a link) but Hogue is also asking that those attending the trial not be allowed to wear a "sea of pink" which could influence the jury.
Click to expand...

This article was mentioned earlier, yet I totally agree with LG's sisters statement:
“......completely agree that jurors shouldn’t be swayed by what people are wearing, and I hold the jurors to that standard,” .... can’t say that when McDaniel comes in wearing a nice suit and his hair all slicked back that that’s not doing the same thing"
Read more here: http://www.macon.com/2013/05/31/2500054/defense-in-giddings-slaying-stifle.html#storylink=cpy

I think if LG can't represent herself like McD can in the courtroom, because she was heinously murdered, then the pink shoud be her representation.

I mean McD now smiles and wears a suit and has his hair pulled back. That is not what anyone of us saw before this trial. Makes me sick.

If they are so worried about colors swaying jurors, then change the venue. They are probably holding out on that, because the defense can have their pick of jurors.
 
http://www.macon.com/2013/05/31/2499...re-bought.html

The lawyers also want to suppress all statements McDaniel made to police and prosecutors before, during or after his arrest.
McDaniel was in police custody for 14 hours, including one stretch of six straight hours of questioning, according to one motion. During that period, he was repeatedly accused of murder, “verbally accosted” and threatened by police. He was offered restroom breaks, water and medical assistance in exchange for answers to their questions.
Many of the search warrants in the case are based, in part, on involuntary statements by McDaniel elicited before he was read his Miranda rights against self-incrimination, the lawyers contend. They want a separate hearing to determine whether the statements should be allowed.


I just have to comment on the part of the article that I copied from Backwood's upthread link. "...involuntary statements made by McDaniel..." After viewing the infamous television interview of SM, I can't imagine him making an involuntary statement. He was certainly voluntary in his statements on television.
 
Would the ban on pink in the courtroom infringe on one's constitutional right to free speech?
 
Sonya610 said:
The interesting thing about what the defense is trying to exclude is the trivial nature of most all of it.

Bleach, scissors, rubber gloves bought in the "weeks" prior. Items glanced at during shopping trips etc...

But surely the defense would ALSO be trying to throw out any real smoking gun evidence too! They wouldn't focus on trivial stuff and ignore the stuff that would send their client away for life. Why no big stuff mentioned in the report?
Click to expand...
Not so trivial if used to build the case on premeditation. I'll have to look over the list of seized items again because I can't recall if the rope was found in his possession, or how much of it. Seems like it should have been there.

Same for the 8" scissors bought some time between April and June. We know four rain ponchos were in his car. Two were in the original packaging, and could be the ones purchased with the rope just two days before LG was last seen.

The other items only rate a shrug from me because they're more or less household consumables. It's hard to judge without knowing quantities purchased and quantities on hand after the fact. Still, why a single man known for his thriftiness would buy two rain ponchos when he owned two already is beyond me, but I dunno...

“There is no evidence that the defendant himself purchased the items, only that the items were bought using the Kroger Plus Shopper’s Card” bearing McDaniel’s name, one motion reads.

Anyone who studied McD's OC posts knows he took pride in being frugal. Wouldn't it be ironic if in the end, it's his penny-pinching which leads to his demise.

:moo:

Read more here: http://www.macon.com/2013/05/31/2499027/mcdaniel-lawyers-want-store-bought.html#storylink=cpy
 
I hope to post some more personal thoughts on the "sea of pink" issue (and other things as well) later, when it's not so late and I'm not so tired, but thought for now I would link the following. It was interesting reading, to me, on some of the issues and history about defendant/spectator/witness courtroom attire, etc., and I thought some other posters might like to read it as well. (It may be a little dated; it's from 2006.)

Column: Fair Trials And Courtroom Spectator Expression (New York Law Journal)
Click to expand...

http://www.nyclu.org/oped/column-fair-trials-and-courtroom-spectator-expression-new-york-law-journal
 
pearl said:
Would the ban on pink in the courtroom infringe on one's constitutional right to free speech?
Click to expand...
No, according to a Supreme Court ruling.

p. 1066
3. The First Amendment

A third argument against a ban on symbolic items is that the First
Amendment's right to free speech guarantees spectators the right to
communicate their views. 144 The First Amendment unquestionably
provides that a criminal trial will be open to the public. (145) However, the
Court has carefully limited its recognition of the First Amendment rights of
trial spectators:
Our holding today does not mean that the First Amendment rights of the public and representatives of the press are absolute. Just as a government may impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions upon the use of its streets in the interest of such objectives as the free flow of traffic ... so may a trial judge in the interest of the fair administration of justice, impose reasonable limitations ....(146)​
Click to expand...
The real question is whether or not symbolic items and clothing in the courtroom violate a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial:

p. 1161
Once established, the Court has repeatedly affirmed a defendant’s right to a fair trial. As early as 1927, the Court explained how a defendant could easily be deprived of due process:
Every procedure which would offer a possible temptation to the average man as a judge to forget the burden of proof required to convict the defendant, or which might lead him not to hold the balance nice, clear, and true between the state and the accused denies the latter due process of law. (113)​
Click to expand...
This is a good read. The author takes the opposing stance to expressive and symbolic communication from courtroom spectators. Arguments on both sides are presented, however, and the footnotes provide numerous resources to explore.

http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7303&context=jclc

Carey v. Musladin, 549 US 70 - Supreme Court 2006
Justice THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court.
This Court has recognized that certain courtroom practices are so inherently prejudicial that they deprive the defendant of a fair trial. Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501, 503-506, 96 S.Ct. 1691, 48 L.Ed.2d 126 (1976); Holbrook v. Flynn, 475 U.S. 560, 568, 106 S.Ct. 1340, 89 L.Ed.2d 525 (1986). In this case, a state court held that buttons displaying the victim's image worn by the victim's family during respondent's trial did not deny respondent his right to a fair trial. We must decide whether that holding was contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, as determined by this Court. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). We hold that it was not.​
Click to expand...
 
bessie said:
“There is no evidence that the defendant himself purchased the items, only that the items were bought using the Kroger Plus Shopper’s Card” bearing McDaniel’s name, one motion reads.

Anyone who studied McD's OC posts knows he took pride in being frugal. Wouldn't it be ironic if in the end, it's his penny-pinching which leads to his demise.

:moo:
Click to expand...

Just fyi in Georgia most of the big supermarket chains have shopper cards and they aren't for the "frugal", everyone uses them because they offer HUGE discounts on most items (like 10% to 20% off your bill at the time of checkout). Plus my store also gives regular shoppers a free turkey at thanksgiving and free cakes during some holidays.

I have never shopped regularly at Kroger nor had a card but my niece did so if I ever stopped into a Kroger I would enter her phone # at checkout to get the card discount.

As far as the scissors go, that may work for cutting up chicken but I don't see the practical purpose for scissors in this application.

As far as those that say McDaniel is artificially cleaning himself up I don't see how that is the case AT ALL. He just graduated law school, they had mock trials where they wore suits and prepared for future court appearances. It isn't "out of character" for him or a case of him being "made over" by his attorneys at all. He owned suits, he was a law graduate on the verge of becoming an attorney, he isn't faking anything by dressing appropriately in the court room.
 
Sonya610 said:
Just fyi in Georgia most of the big supermarket chains have shopper cards and they aren't for the "frugal", everyone uses them because they offer HUGE discounts on most items (like 10% to 20% off your bill at the time of checkout). Plus my store also gives regular shoppers a free turkey at thanksgiving and free cakes during some holidays.

I have never shopped regularly at Kroger nor had a card but my niece did so if I ever stopped into a Kroger I would enter her phone # at checkout to get the card discount.

As far as the scissors go, that may work for cutting up chicken but I don't see the practical purpose for scissors in this application.

As far as those that say McDaniel is artificially cleaning himself up I don't see how that is the case AT ALL. He just graduated law school, they had mock trials where they wore suits and prepared for future court appearances. It isn't "out of character" for him or a case of him being "made over" by his attorneys at all. He owned suits, he was a law graduate on the verge of becoming an attorney, he isn't faking anything by dressing appropriately in the court room.
Click to expand...
bbm

That's just my point. IF he did purchase the items for nefarious reasons, it was foolish to use his Kroger's card. But maybe he couldn't resist because otherwise he'd pay full price, something he'd be loathe to do.
 
pearl said:
Would the ban on pink in the courtroom infringe on one's constitutional right to free speech?
Click to expand...

Uhhh....free speech does not apply to spectators in a court room! Or lawyers or jurors or anyone for that matter. Same thing with regard to appropriate attire, cell phones ringing, etc...

The judge alone decides what is acceptable in his court room.
 
Sonya610 said:
Uhhh....free speech does not apply to spectators in a court room! Or lawyers or jurors or anyone for that matter. Same thing with regard to appropriate attire, cell phones ringing, etc...

The judge alone decides what is acceptable in his court room.
Click to expand...

APPARENTLY

Does the wearing of pink in honor of LG during trial in courtroom cause disturbances. I can see where it might sway the jury in sympathy but they havce to look at facts, do they not? What a shame, you get murdered (AND OTHERWISE) but family can't wear your favorite color in your honor

Heart goes out to the family during this time, I"m sure they relive it in some way daily, but this will be truly reliving the whole event once it goes to trial
 
hmmm...........................why doesn't the defense just ask the whole case to be thrown out..........................
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 191 more.
Total: 4,287 (members: 192, guests: 4,095)

Online statistics

Members online
192
Guests online
4,095
Total visitors
4,287
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,594
Messages
17,971,519
Members
228,836
Latest member
672
Back
Top