2010.05.11 - Casey Anthony Death Penalty Motions Hearing

[justbeachy]

At the end of the day, her credentials don't matter because as educated as she might be, she failed to deliver anything convincing in her testimony, obviously since JP denied the motion I'm assuming he wasn't too impressed either.

I agree. I did not see any value added by her testimony at all. I was not impressed with her as a witness and doubt that we will see her again.

 

[LambChop]

"Miss Anthony's child" seems correct and normal. The prosecution sometimes also say "the child", I guess meaning "the child victim" or "the child in question/the child in this case" as the defense also sometimes do. I can understand when both sides use this term, but it's true it would be nice to hear her first name used more in the court room. Maybe they sometimes get confused by the similar names Caylee/Casey and have trouble retrieving the name when they're speaking so use these other terms?

And it will not be lost on the juror's mind that the defence avoids using the child's name.

 

[justbeachy]

And it will not be lost on the juror's mind that the defence avoids using the child's name.

I agree since I anticipate that the State will repeatedly refer to her as Caylee.

 

[Astraea]

"the SA had PLENTY of time to look over her work..."

This was a surprise witness. The SA was not informed of this witness and had no time to prepare and said so.

Anyone can call themselves an expert. She presented no credentials that were applicable to this trial other than admitting she writes her papers based on news media articles she reads, along with a few press reports.

This is not true. At the start of the hearing AL points out the SA was notified and JA says they were but not with enough time...and then AL goes on to say he was given her work 7-8 weeks prior. The schedule was changed by JP after JS stepped down

 

[Mamabear1963]

She is an "expert in the area of gender and the death penalty". JP accepted it as being so, and the SA had PLENTY of time to look over her work, and from what I have read quickly her credentials are definitely in line with the topic she is testifying to in my opinion.

HUH??? what time? I saw no time this morning for them to look over her work....

okay...you answered above...I think I am confused...I think I missed something

 

[Astraea]

"the SA had PLENTY of time to look over her work..."

This was a surprise witness. The SA was not informed of this witness and had no time to prepare and said so.

Anyone can call themselves an expert. She presented no credentials that were applicable to this trial other than admitting she writes her papers based on news media articles she reads, along with a few press reports.

On another note (sorry I didnt address it in my first response), she HAS many more qualifications than you have listed. What you have written is not at all what was stated. I might also add that JP accepted her as an expert as well

 

[justbeachy]

And JB said he's going to file yet more motions....

Yes, he did say that, but you'd better not ask him what they are about: "Well, I, um, think there might be a motion about, um, well....."

 

[ecs5298]

And it will not be lost on the juror's mind that the defence avoids using the child's name.

It's a defense tactic for de-humanizing the victim (in this case, Caylee), to make the victim an object instead of a person. I think this will fall flat with a jury and will work against the defense and the inmate.

JMHO as always!

 

[LambChop]

This hearing is wonderful I must say (only 20 mins in). I have noticed this trend in this case particularly! Poor JA cant object enough to be overruled enough LOL!

I believe this would be JA's job since he is familiar with the case and Ms. Rapaport is not. jmo

 

[Turnadot]

Guys, I just finished reading a lot of newspapers about gender bias, women, and bra burning. Also, I have a degree in basket weaving. I'm feeling pretty good about my chances to testify as an expert witness.

 

[Lanie]

In my opinion this should help to steer the average follower of this case, as well as the defense, in the route that the SA is going to take.

For example: Whether or not they are ACTUALLY going to say that Casey chloroformed Caylee. I tend to think that they will use the minor clause as the aggravating factor, as the aforementioned seems totally absurd on many levels!

Will be interesting to see. For me at least, as I am very "legal and/or "justice minded, and up to this point I have been very disheartened with the SA.

BBM

Actually, I, for one, do not find that absurd at all. Traces of chloroform were found in the trunk of the car Casey used, and also with a syringe found near the remains. LE, the state, nor the defense, however, have been able to turn up a single trace of the nanny.

 

[Astraea]

HUH??? what time? I saw no time this morning for them to look over her work....

During the hearing within the first few minutes this is discussed. Here is the link

http://www.wftv.com/video/23516373/index.html

 

[AZlawyer]

BBM

Wow. Had no clue. I have worked as a paralegal for the past 13 years, including assisting at trials and arbitrations. I guess ya learn something new every day.

Thank you for the education. Are you an attorney?

I am a paralegal/law clerk and I also possess a degree in political science and sociology. Graduated top of my class If I thought my opinion would EVER matter I would verify with Tricia of course

No fighting!

It is perfectly obvious why the judge allowed the defense to use an undisclosed witness--because the judge was going to deny the "gender bias" motion anyway due to extreme lack of merit, and did not want to give the defense an appeal ticket in the process.

 

[ecs5298]

No fighting!

It is perfectly obvious why the judge allowed the defense to use an undisclosed witness--because the judge was going to deny the "gender bias" motion anyway due to extreme lack of merit, and did not want to give the defense an appeal ticket in the process.

BBM:

Thank you!

 

[beach]

No fighting!

It is perfectly obvious why the judge allowed the defense to use an undisclosed witness--because the judge was going to deny the "gender bias" motion anyway due to extreme lack of merit, and did not want to give the defense an appeal ticket in the process.

yes ma'am :blowkiss:

 

[MD MOMMY]

I'm just watching now since I am a good mom and accompanied 20 toddlers on a field trip this AM. ANYWAY I find AL to be so boring when she speaks. Her tone is like a person telling a nursery rhyme. The jury is going to be utterly bored. She could be effective if she could stop rambling.

 

[suzihawk]

This is not true. At the start of the hearing AL points out the SA was notified and JA says they were but not with enough time...and then AL goes on to say he was given her work 7-8 weeks prior. The schedule was changed by JP after JS stepped down

He also said that AL offered to make ER available to him for deposition late Friday afternoon which didn't give him ample time to reasearch her credentials or depose her prior to today's hearing.

 

[Lanie]

This hearing is wonderful I must say (only 20 mins in). I have noticed this trend in this case particularly! Poor JA cant object enough to be overruled enough LOL!

Keep watching, he actually has one or two objections sustained, and then the motion this is over is denied by the judge. A little later, during another motion, Ms. Lyon makes an objection or two, and she is overruled. I can't remember which motion that was, but am thinking it is the one the judge grants, and denies the State's reciprocal motion.

Oops, should have said "spoiler alert!"

 

[Brassband]

It is perfectly obvious why the judge allowed the defense to use an undisclosed witness--because the judge was going to deny the "gender bias" motion anyway due to extreme lack of merit, and did not want to give the defense an appeal ticket in the process.

He's pretty brilliant eh? I feel like I'm watching an intense chess game. Well, not game, but you know what I mean.

 

[Astraea]

Congrats!

So, to directly answer my earlier question, that would be a NO, you are not an attorney?

I thought the post was obvious in the fact that I am not a lawyer, but would be willing to verify myself for anything paralegal related, but highly doubt that is sufficient or you would be verified already I assume lol