2009.03.10 - Hand Written Note From Tot Mom in Response to Pros. Motion

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

I guess the hearing thread poofed.

Strickland is telling LKB essentially to ask FBI and Oak Ridge for the docs and to do the work themselves. Yeesh.
 
It appears that GA either has a cold or is choked up ... really red face, lots of wiping and blowing of nose and eyes....CA rubbing his back.

KC does appear to have makeup on -- no red lipstick. Hair is pulled back in bun again.

I have noticed her doing that "touching eyeball then checking to see what is on her finger thing" again. I think it has to do with her mascara.
 
Oooh, is that Yuri sitting in the front row???

JB alluded to not stating his case until the Prosecution called their witnesses.
 
I can see her make-up line, she didn't blend very well. Is George crying? or does he have a cold?

Sorry, my sound is gone.
 
faefrost said:
Granted as you say not all documents or filings would become evidence, or be used at trial. If her handwritten note had simply stated what her payment agreement with JB was it would not be a big deal. But in this handwritten, notarized, filing to the court, she personally spoke directly about the crime and her guilt or innocence (instead of talking about the actual question that was put forth concerning her lawyer). There is no way that is not being brought in to evidence. It's the whole "anything you say can and will be used against you". As others have said it is an attempt to testify without taking the stand. But I think in this case she probably really screwed herself.
Click to expand...
Bolded emphasis added by me.
Again, with all due respect, I disagree.

A document that it notarized is afforded the assumption (rebuttable) that it is what it purports to be without any further need of identification: a document that was signed by the declarant, who, in this case, was Casey. That's the end of the surface "benefits" afforded by this document being "notarized" instead of just being signed.

The fact that it is notarized does not mean that what it says it true, or that the document is relevant, or that the document will be admissible during the hearing on the motion it accompanies and/or any future trial.

Moreover, when an attorney files a motion and exhibits into the official court record, the exhibits that are filed are NOT usually the originals. The original exhibits are maintained by the filing attorney, should he/she choose to introduce them into some hearing/trial. What does this mean? It means that unless JBaez is foolish enough to offer and try to introduce this into evidence during the hearing upon the motion the affidavit accompanies, which MIGHT compromise Casey's right to take the 5th at that time as to the information in the affidavit, or at the future trial, he will have the original and only he may use it.

The SA won't have the original, which is typically required for introduction into evidence (it's called the "best evidence rule" for short) and, more importantly, even if the original had been (foolishly) filed into the official court record as an attachment to the motion, the SA cannot seek to introduce it and then turn around, call Casey to the witness stand and cross examine Casey in regards to it any more than the SA can offer and introduce other of Casey's statements to LE in an effort to trump Casey's right against self-incrimination.

Did JBaez do this in a likely attempt to get this out in front of the media (hint, hint)? Probably so. But it does NOT waive her right against self-incrimination. (The "anything you say can and will be used against you" doesn't apply here b/c why on earth would the SA, who cannot force Casey into testifying by trying to introduce the affidavit into evidence, turn around and introduce this denial into evidence?!?!? They won't.)
 
If I were KC and there were a plea deal floating around out there, I would be falling all over myself to get that thing signed, sealed and delivered to the judge. I would be thanking my lucky stars that maybe one day I would be able to walk again unshackled in the free world, that I wouldn't have to put my brother and parents through the nightmare of a murder trial where their sworn testimony would help tighten the screws on a murder case against me and cause them further anguish. I wouldn't waste my time handwriting addenda to affidavits that would further antagonize the prosecutor's office.

Once again I question Baez's competence to represent a client charged with murder. Yes, it's high profile and she shouldn't plead if she is not guilty, and his stock will rise accordingly should he manage to pull the rabbit out of the hat and get her off on some technicality, but he won't be sitting behind bars for the rest of his natural life should the plan fail, as better laid plans certainly have. I think he should definitely encourage her to accept any plea that doesn't involve a life sentence, because IMHO, that is definitely what she will receive should she take it to trial.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 77 more.
Total: 256 (members: 78, guests: 178)

Online statistics

Members online
78
Guests online
178
Total visitors
256
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
609,396
Messages
18,253,641
Members
234,649
Latest member
sharag
Back
Top