2011.03.07 Motion Hearing - *Updated* Key Ruling In! See Motions Thread (sticky)

[LambChop]

BBM - that's not true, Mason clearly stated at the last Hearing that Casey was never Mirandized until her October arrest.

If you go back and listen to it, it's near the first part of his yammering during that Hearing. Many of us on the live Hearing thread caught it, and I was very surprised that LDB didn't address Mason on this.

Nearly every news media has also published this little tidbit of Mason's since then.

So is Mason calling KC a liar. Because that is what she said in July, 2008. Somehow she believes she was read her rights.

Wasn't defense's whole argument that KC thought she was under arrest. If she is saying she was read her rights and she still continued to (ahemmm) cooperate what would be the argument now? Very interesting.

 

[Dignity4Victims]

Maybe LDB didn't address it because LE doesn't have to Mirandize someone before arresting them. Mason's spin fell on deaf ears in HHJP's Court. IMO, Mason was playing to a jury who will be mostly laymen who may not be aware that LE can arrest a suspect without a Miranda Warning if LE does not intend to question the person further. Mason should have tailored his arguments to HHJP, but he didn't, and seeing the media hoopla his comment caused, I think he did it on purpose for potential jurors.

My opinions only...

BBM - not true.

Once a person is arrested, they must be Mirandized.

 

[Dignity4Victims]

So is Mason calling KC a liar. Because that is what she said in July, 2008. Somehow she believes she was read her rights.

Wasn't defense's whole argument that KC thought she was under arrest. If she is saying she was read her rights and she still continued to (ahemmm) cooperate what would be the argument now? Very interesting.

There is, or should be, no question about Casey being Mirandized once all is said and done because Casey has to sign it.

Meantime, I'm with Lance, my brain hurts, but someone is obviously lying and my focus is on the October issue that Mason spoke about.

 

[Turnadot]

Prosecutors can "ask" for no bond, but yes, it's up to the Judge and the legal guidelines he must follow as well as the steps of criteria that he must consider for bond.

As far as Casey, I pretty much flush everything she's ever spoken, in or out of jail. But what bothers me is Melich's court testimony when Baez specifically asked him, "In fact, you've never Mirandized Casey, have you?" At that point, I saw it as a word game; no, Melich had never Mirandized her, but someone had.

But then Mason was allowed to go unscathed when he stated that Casey had never been Mirandized until her October arrest, so was he again lying to the court? If he was, why didn't LDB jump all over that? She never did, but I find it preposterous that Casey spent "whatever" time in jail between July 16th and the time Padilla fished her out, without ever being Mirandized.

I just don't believe it, period.

BBM

It's a red herring. Mason knew what would happen if he said it; the media would pick it up and run with it, not bothering to fact check what a Miranda Warning actually is and when it's applicable. I must admit it was a smart tactic on Mason's part.

 

[yeknomaras]

BBM - that's not true, Mason clearly stated at the last Hearing that Casey was never Mirandized until her October arrest.

If you go back and listen to it, it's near the first part of his yammering during that Hearing. Many of us on the live Hearing thread caught it, and I was very surprised that LDB didn't address Mason on this.

Nearly every news media has also published this little tidbit of Mason's since then.

Then I believe that Mason has his facts wrong. There is no doubt in my mind that KC would have been mirandized when she was formally arrested on July 16th. My understanding is that they believe it should have happened right away, ya know, when she was still just the mother of a missing child in the police's mind.

But I missed him saying that in the hearing - thank you for pointing that out. Sometimes that defense team just boggles my mind.

 

[Turnadot]

BBM - not true.

Once a person is arrested, they must be Mirandized.

No.

If LE is going to take the person into custodial interrogation, then LE has to Mirandize when making the arrest. But LE can arrest you, book you, and put you in jail without ever having Mirandized you as long as they don't ask you any questions after the arrest.

This is why the Universal Q&A is ambiguous, because it can be reasoned that KC was in a custodial interrogation (didn't feel free to leave), and should have been Mirandized.

 

[Tulessa]

So is Mason calling KC a liar. Because that is what she said in July, 2008. Somehow she believes she was read her rights.

Wasn't defense's whole argument that KC thought she was under arrest. If she is saying she was read her rights and she still continued to (ahemmm) cooperate what would be the argument now? Very interesting.

Everybody else does. He might as well grab an oar and jump in the boat. If it walks like a duck....

 

[SoCalSleuth]

The argument put forth by the defense that a smaller person being questioned by larger LE would believe they are in custody is nonsense. However, once LE started challenging casey's statements and asking her if her child was in a better place, whether Caylee was not in a good condition, etc., many would think a reasonable person would feel, "Uh oh. I'm in trouble. They may not let me leave."

Giving the other side a bone when issuing a ruling heavily in favor of one side is very, very common. And it has nothing to do with following the letter of the law or not following it. Many of these laws are easily interpreted one way or the other, depending on the facts. I realized that quite impressively when I took a constitutional law class. It was amazing to see how easily the meaning of the constitution could be bent depending on the mood of the Supreme Court and then bent back a few decades later. So, when interpreting a set of facts a certain way when applied to the law, especially when the decision is a fine line one, judges very often give something to the "losing" side in order to preserve the appearance of propriety and to simply be fair.

I really appreciate your views and understand them but we are going to have to agree to disagree! I don't think the case law supports the view that once the questioning becomes accusatory that a reasonable person would then necessarily believe that he or she is not free to leave. I've also never known a trial court to give any side a "bone" when it comes to the legal question related to the issue of custodial interrogation re the admissibility of a defendant's statements in a capital case. In my experience, all trial courts rule in such matters with a view toward appellate review. As such legal issues are reviewed de novo by an appellate court (as opposed to review by an abuse of discretion standard) there's nothing to gain and much to lose for a trial judge to throw either side a "bone". JMHO

 

[Marina2]

I really appreciate your views and understand them but we are going to have to agree to disagree! I don't think the case law supports the view that once the questioning becomes accusatory that a reasonable person would then necessarily believe that he or she is not free to leave. I've also never known a trial court to give any side a "bone" when it comes to the legal question related to the issue of custodial interrogation re the admissibility of a defendant's statements in a capital case. In my experience, all trial courts rule in such matters with a view toward appellate review. As such legal issues are reviewed de novo by an appellate court (as opposed to review by an abuse of discretion standard) there's nothing to gain and much to lose for a trial judge to throw either side a "bone". JMHO

bbm
AZLawyer found a few that seem to support this. At least one, the Ross case, was cited by the defense to support their motion to have this statement thrown out.

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5970116&postcount=129"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - 2011.01.04 Defense Motion to Suppress Casey's Statements[/ame]

 

[Aedrys]

Well, no ruling today, but apparently in the Hailey Dunn case, Billie Dunn was arrested! And of course, nobody knows what for or why! We have to wait until the ten o'clock news to find out, UGH!

I don't know if I could have handled a ruling and arrest in the same day anyway, LOL.

 

[Pollywog]

I just heard a blurb on my local news that said "the Casey Anthony trial may be cancelled due to budget cuts" details at 11. I have looked on all my local news stes and have not found it, I just backed up TV to listen to it again and that is excatly what she said. What would "cancel" mean? Postpone, delay etc?

 

[Turnadot]

I just heard a blurb on my local news that said "the Casey Anthony trial may be cancelled due to budget cuts" details at 11. I have looked on all my local news stes and have not found it, I just backed up TV to listen to it again and that is excatly what she said. What would "cancel" mean? Postpone, delay etc?

More info here: [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=130961"]Budget cuts may cancel or suspend Casey trial - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

 

[Pollywog]

Thank you. I guess I over looked that.

 

[Turnadot]

Thank you. I guess I over looked that.

You're welcome. And over looking things is my middle name, lol.

 

[denjet]

Sometimes we're just joined at the hip, doll!

:seeya:

GMTA LOL :seeya:

 

[strach304]

No.

If LE is going to take the person into custodial interrogation, then LE has to Mirandize when making the arrest. But LE can arrest you, book you, and put you in jail without ever having Mirandized you as long as they don't ask you any questions after the arrest.

This is why the Universal Q&A is ambiguous, because it can be reasoned that KC was in a custodial interrogation (didn't feel free to leave), and should have been Mirandized.

Then my question awhile ago about the arrest at her house for stealing Amy's checks would apply here as well. I'm sure they had no intention of questioning her about that. They just arrested her and put her in jail. Those charges have nothing to do with Caylee but it made me think of it when CM said she wasn't Mirandized until Oct.

 

[faefrost]

BBM - that's not true, Mason clearly stated at the last Hearing that Casey was never Mirandized until her October arrest.

If you go back and listen to it, it's near the first part of his yammering during that Hearing. Many of us on the live Hearing thread caught it, and I was very surprised that LDB didn't address Mason on this.

Nearly every news media has also published this little tidbit of Mason's since then.

I don't think Mason could actually use that tape of KC and Lee at the jail without putting KC on the stand herself to state when and where she was mirandized?

 

[Just Jayla]

Okay, coming clean here guys, and I feel like a dirtbag now, cause my lawyer pulled a Baez...
Many, many years ago, my ex rear ended some people with me in the truck-I had a bag with a pot pipe in it. The officer asked me if she could search my bag (she had no probable cause other than I "appeared nervous")-I told her, literally, "I don't know, I'm nervous cause we just got in a car accident". She forged ahead with searching my bag and she found the pipe, charged me with a misdemeanor...
My attorney argued that she had violated my civil rights because she did not have proper consent to search my bag, and I was only a passenger in the car, not the rear-ending driver. Part of my testimony was that I did not solidly say "no" to her because she was in a position of authority and her authority "scared" me. So I muttered the silly "I dunno"...
I was found not-guilty, the judge determined that she had bullied me into searching the bag.
Since I am 5 million years older now, I see how we kinda played the court, because I was being totally deceptive when I played dopey with the officer, and she had me dead to rights. I own my own business and no one does background searches on my juvenile history or adult history for that matter, so the stupid misdemeanor would not effect me one bit. It was a battle of wills, and YES! I want JB to lose the argument I once won, that rights were violated due to the defendant being scared of the big bad officer....ETA-And hells bells! She was a female officer, smaller than me...yet it was not untrue that her badge intimidated me.

 

[SoCalSleuth]

bbm
AZLawyer found a few that seem to support this. At least one, the Ross case, was cited by the defense to support their motion to have this statement thrown out.

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - 2011.01.04 Defense Motion to Suppress Casey's Statements

The cases cited by AZLawyer do not support this. On the contrary. See footnote 7 in Ross v. State: Trial court did not err in admitting statements which were made --although detective confronted him about inconsistent statements--he was not confronted with actual evidence of guilt (bloody pants) as he was with other statements. There is a 4 part test to be applied -the third part of that test is: the extent to which the suspect is confronted with evidence of his or her guilt. That's one factor that has to be considered with the other 3. That factor alone, if present, has never been used to support a finding of a custodial interrogation--nor could it be since all 4 factors have to be considered. Further, as the Ross court aptly pointed out--accusing someone of lying or not telling everything they know--is not the same as confronting a suspect with actual evidence of guilt (ie dna evidence, fingerprints, bloody pants.) In fact, the Ross case helps the state in this particular case.

 

[RR0004]

Okay, coming clean here guys, and I feel like a dirtbag now, cause my lawyer pulled a Baez...
Many, many years ago, my ex rear ended some people with me in the truck-I had a bag with a pot pipe in it. The officer asked me if she could search my bag (she had no probable cause other than I "appeared nervous")-I told her, literally, "I don't know, I'm nervous cause we just got in a car accident". She forged ahead with searching my bag and she found the pipe, charged me with a misdemeanor...
My attorney argued that she had violated my civil rights because she did not have proper consent to search my bag, and I was only a passenger in the car, not the rear-ending driver. Part of my testimony was that I did not solidly say "no" to her because she was in a position of authority and her authority "scared" me. So I muttered the silly "I dunno"...
I was found not-guilty, the judge determined that she had bullied me into searching the bag.
Since I am 5 million years older now, I see how we kinda played the court, because I was being totally deceptive when I played dopey with the officer, and she had me dead to rights. I own my own business and no one does background searches on my juvenile history or adult history for that matter, so the stupid misdemeanor would not effect me one bit. It was a battle of wills, and YES! I want JB to lose the argument I once won, that rights were violated due to the defendant being scared of the big bad officer....ETA-And hells bells! She was a female officer, smaller than me...yet it was not untrue that her badge intimidated me.

IMO you hadn't given consent.