2011.05.20 Sidebar Thread (Jury Selection Day Eleven)

[LambChop]

I don't have the seating chart for court off the top of my head but aren't the seats on the defense's side pretty much taken up by the local TV stations, KB, BS, etc. in the front row. JA offered some seats over on SA's side but I doubt they will want them. Funny how the A's attorney stated they had reserved seats in the other courtroom as if anyone other than the A's and the media would be on that side. And it's not like it's a wedding. lol jmo

 

[logicalgirl]

I remember hearing this offer, too. Now I'm wondering why those 6 reserved seats aren't marked on any of the seating charts we're seeing. I wonder why SA would have 6 seats reserved but not the defense. Maybe the defense does have their 6 seats, too, but didn't want to give any of them to George and Cindy?

I assumed the seats for the SA were for staff, visiting lawyers, etc. And no, I don't believe the DT wants them in any reserved seats they may have. I believe things are going to get ugly between the DT and the Anthony's. The DT has the Anthony's depos and past testimonies they can rely on and can claim perjury if they have to. And I think it will be the DT who is watching for this, rather than the SA.

 

[amysmom]

It is going to be a toss-up where the Anthony's are going to be with "this" at opening statements, especially after Finnell's questioning during the jury selection, which I am sure their lawyer insisted they watched to get them used to how rough the trial is going to be.

I also think it depends on how close to ICA they want to sit during the trial, or if the concern is simply to get a seat at all if none have been reserved for them. Despite all they have done, I hope they are given reserved seats - they will have enough to battle emotionally on a day to day basis to remain in the courtroom at all, without being concerned about seating.

I honestly don't think they can handle it..Even without being forced to see the 'light' which I believe they will very early on IF they haven't already.

Sitting close to their 'dd' will allow the jury to notice she never looks at them..They could take this as a sign of her guilt OR they'll believe the dt's low-blow strategy..It could go either way which is why I hope they decide to sit in the balcony.

 

[rhornsby]

I believe this came out of last year's budget so it would not affect this year's. This courtroom was not updated for Tot Mom. It was scheduled to be refurbished and the technical equipment permanently installed is for safety reasons if you have seen all the wires being strung downstairs in the other courtrooms it makes sense. The courtroom existed before and was just updated. I would think this is their main trial courtroom for criminal cases and not necessarily just for high profile. Considering how many media seats were requested 100 gallery seats are not very many so it's not as big as we would think. jmo

You are correct on its origins, as Courtroom 23 was originally designed as the courtroom of the "future" back in 1998 when the courthouse was first built. The "technology" is rather basic by today's standards.

Also, the courtroom is used infrequently, usually for hearings that will have a large number of spectators or if there are three or more co-defendants.

Personally, I find the courtroom disadvantageous as the jury is extremely far away from your table and the acoustics are bad.

 

[mck16]

I honestly don't think they can handle it..Even without being forced to see the 'light' which I believe they will very early on IF they haven't already.

Sitting close to their 'dd' will allow the jury to notice she never looks at them..They could take this as a sign of her guilt OR they'll believe the dt's low-blow strategy..It could go either way which is why I hope they decide to sit in the balcony.

I think the 'strategy' may have started from the beginning of the selection of the jury. The DT can use the fact that her parents didn't even come to court to see the jury that was going to decide the fate of their DD. They can say, 'see they don't care about her and never have'. I will not be surprised at anything they use. When I heard AF reading the opening at the jury selection about how the parents used her, etc. I was shocked. You know the parents have to be in on this. If my daughter alledged those things about me, I wouldn't be anywhere near the courthouse. I believe it is all a major strategy to play the parents created a monster card. jmo

 

[A_News_Junkie]

Seems to me there is a bunch of podiums and desks (clerk) between jury and defense table -- I bet KC will find a spot that blocks her view from most of them. Wish the jury was raised up some. Also, witness box looks very close to jury box. I bet we won't see them walking around and into it -- or InSessions better do remedial cameraman classes. The audio guys need to be fired and replaced, IMHO.

Okay, everyone back to chores and gardens and all you can till Tues! :seeya:

 

[amysmom]

I think the 'strategy' may have started from the beginning of the selection of the jury. The DT can use the fact that her parents didn't even come to court to see the jury that was going to decide the fate of their DD. They can say, 'see they don't care about her and never have'. I will not be surprised at anything they use. When I heard AF reading the opening at the jury selection about how the parents used her, etc. I was shocked. You know the parents have to be in on this. If my daughter alledged those things about me, I wouldn't be anywhere near the courthouse. I believe it is all a major strategy to play the parents created a monster card. jmo

All good points but my one MAJOR problem is GA doesn't appear to be taking this lying down..IOW! Why have his atty make that statement on his behalf & put that threat out there? :waitasec:

 

[mck16]

All good points but my one MAJOR problem is GA doesn't appear to be taking this lying down..IOW! Why have his atty make that statement on his behalf & put that threat out there? :waitasec:

I don't know. I am not familiar with GA's attorney making a statement. What did he say. Obviously I have missed something. tia

 

[ohiogirl]

Thank goodness we are all still here!

 

[Niner]

I gotta say, Casey looked haunted when she had to stand and face that jury while they were sworn in. There's at least part of her that knows what's coming.

here's a screen shot I took when she was facing the jury swearing in...

 

[amysmom]

I don't know. I am not familiar with GA's attorney making a statement. What did he say. Obviously I have missed something. tia

May 11th, 2011

George Anthony’s lawyer says client didn’t molest Casey or kill Caylee


On Wednesday, the attorney for George Anthony said he will have to take legal action if George is negatively portrayed during the Casey Anthony trial. Specifically attorney Mark Lippman said publicly that his client did not molest his daughter Casey and did not kill his granddaughter, Caylee Anthony.

Casey is charged with the murder of her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee, in the summer of 2008.

“The defense can try whatever they’d like to try,” Lippman noted.

He added that legal action may be necessary depending on what occurs during Casey’s trial.


http://www.examiner.com/crime-in-na...ays-client-didn-t-molest-casey-or-kill-caylee

------------
eta..another link basically saying the same thing:


Attorney: George Didn't Molest, Kill

Anthony Attorney Says Legal Action Could Be Necessary

Lippman said he is aware of attempts to paint George and Cindy in a negative light.

http://www.wesh.com/r/27859445/detail.html

 

[amysmom]

I think the 'strategy' may have started from the beginning of the selection of the jury. The DT can use the fact that her parents didn't even come to court to see the jury that was going to decide the fate of their DD. They can say, 'see they don't care about her and never have'. I will not be surprised at anything they use. When I heard AF reading the opening at the jury selection about how the parents used her, etc. I was shocked. You know the parents have to be in on this. If my daughter alledged those things about me, I wouldn't be anywhere near the courthouse. I believe it is all a major strategy to play the parents created a monster card. jmo

ubm

While looking for the atty's statement you asked about (that I posted above from May, 2011) I came across this from March, 2011

It appears to go along with your theory..What's most interesting is he admits to meeting with Baez & CA..But no mention of GA being present.. Hmmmmmmm!

I'm not quite sure what he's implying in this 2nd paragraph but I know I don't like the sound of it & it completely goes against what he said 2 months later..Now I need to know was this before or after the start of jury selection & when AF first brought up her list of mitigating circumstances including "sexual abuse"..Does anyone know the exact date?

Lippman said, facts aside, that the defense could still use the theory that his client killed Caylee at trial.

"If there's a reasonable scenario that could cater to how the circumstances then turned out later, certainly you present it, it's absolutely necessary if you're going to represent your client zealously," Lippman said.

Lippman said he met last Friday with defense attorney Jose Baez and Casey Anthony's mother, Cindy Anthony, but he cannot say what they discussed.

http://www.wtsp.com/news/article/184293/19/Attorney-George-Anthony-Didnt-Kill-Caylee

 

[logicalgirl]

ubm

While looking for the atty's statement you asked about (that I posted above from May, 2011) I came across this from March, 2011

It appears to go along with your theory..What's most interesting is he admits to meeting with Baez & CA..But no mention of GA being present.. Hmmmmmmm!

I'm not quite sure what he's implying in this 2nd paragraph but I know I don't like the sound of it & it completely goes against what he said 2 months later..Now I need to know was this before or after the start of jury selection & when AF first brought up her list of mitigating circumstances including "sexual abuse"..Does anyone know the exact date?

Lippman said, facts aside, that the defense could still use the theory that his client killed Caylee at trial.

"If there's a reasonable scenario that could cater to how the circumstances then turned out later, certainly you present it, it's absolutely necessary if you're going to represent your client zealously," Lippman said.

Lippman said he met last Friday with defense attorney Jose Baez and Casey Anthony's mother, Cindy Anthony, but he cannot say what they discussed.

http://www.wtsp.com/news/article/184293/19/Attorney-George-Anthony-Didnt-Kill-Caylee

In the second paragraph, Lippman is speaking in generalities, meaning, in general he understands that Defense Attorneys do whatever they have to do to get their clients the least sentence possible.

But he is absolutely not agreeing with the Defense in this case, smearing his clients, the Anthony's. He says he will consider suing on their behalf.

Re his meeting with Baez and Cindy, they could simply have been discussing the "A's" not attending the juror selection hearings, what clothes etc., ICA would need for the trial or arranging payment for those things - who knows?

 

[SailorMoon]

And I mean no disrespect to the Orange County Sheriff's Department - but I hope they watched and saw what a tight ship the Pinella's County Sheriff's Dept. ran. They were on top of their game and I hope at the first shaking muttering whatever CA or GA does they swoop on them like they did that woman during jury selection.

o/t - read the article where Randy Savage died (my boys were/are wrestling fans) and I thought how odd, I never would have known where Pinella's County is. Now I do.

STATE - hope you are rested and ready to go. DEFENSE - hope you choke big time.

(soccer mom/hooligan here - I call it like I see it!!!)

Let's get ready to rumble.........

 

[LambChop]

You are correct on its origins, as Courtroom 23 was originally designed as the courtroom of the "future" back in 1998 when the courthouse was first built. The "technology" is rather basic by today's standards.

Also, the courtroom is used infrequently, usually for hearings that will have a large number of spectators or if there are three or more co-defendants.

Personally, I find the courtroom disadvantageous as the jury is extremely far away from your table and the acoustics are bad.

Have you been up there since they finished it? I think those high ceiling would carry the sound away so let's hope they made some adjustments in the sound system so everyone can hear clearly. I imagine this will be hard on Attorney Mason if the sound is not clear throughout the courtroom.

 

[DaughterAlice]

Not sure if it's been posted somewhere in WS already. This is KC, as she returned to Orange county. This is ABSOLUTELY DREADFUL looking. I even feel something that borders dangerously close to pity for her. She looks completely exhausted & stressed out. Yeah, I thought that I had a bad week!!

Edit to add: she's not really very attractive . . . . not now.

 

[LambChop]

As IF the Ants would ever sit on the 'enemy' side or even consider taking anything from them! I don't see it happening at all.

They just can NOT control themselves so if they were smart they would sit in the balcony..OTH! If they don't really want to be there wherever they sit that's exactly what they will do=getting removed.

Btw! Did anybody notice the ICA's female guard (the blonde) chomping away on GUM? If anybody should know the 'rules' it would be her. :loser:

I'm thinking they allow the guard to chew because they are not going to stick it to the bottom of their seat. lol It is possible the guard is trying to stop smoking and has permission to chew. They have to sit there a long time before they can stand up and move around so the court may give them a little leeway on that one. They can't drink water so gum may be to keep their mouth from drying out.

But I think the rule of no gum in court has to do with people putting gum on the bottoms of their chairs. Yep, people still do that and don't you just hate it in July when you are walking through the parking lot and step on a piece someone has spit out onto the ground. jmo

 

[DaughterAlice]

I'm thinking they allow the guard to chew because they are not going to stick it to the bottom of their seat. lol It is possible the guard is trying to stop smoking and has permission to chew. They have to sit there a long time before they can stand up and move around so the court may give them a little leeway on that one. They can't drink water so gum may be to keep their mouth from drying out.

But I think the rule of no gum in court has to do with people putting gum on the bottoms of their chairs. Yep, people still do that and don't you just hate it in July when you are walking through the parking lot and step on a piece someone has spit out onto the ground. jmo

I think it's just disrespectful, and that's all. When conducting serious business, it's disrectful for people to sit around chewing on their "cuds." Your theory DOES have merit though!! They stopped selling gum at airports years ago because of where people would leave it (especially bad on the tarmac).

 

[LambChop]

I think it's just disrespectful, and that's all. When conducting serious business, it's disrectful for people to sit around chewing on their "cuds." Your theory DOES have merit though!! They stopped selling gum at airports years ago because of where people would leave it (especially bad on the tarmac).

Can't agree with you more. It's hard to tell people in the gallery then can't chew when the guard telling you is doing so themselves. lol

 

[Leila]

With ALL the talk (by JP) about the 'financial' trouble in the FL court system it's kinda shocking they have this incredible ($$$$) courtroom..It really doesn't 'add up' in my mind especially considering how unlikely it is there will be another 'Tot Mom' type trial there, or any where for that matter, any time soon.

From what I understand, the remodel to courtroom 23 has been scheduled for a long time. It wasn't done just for KC's trial. I'm sure that courtroom 23 will get a lot of use in the future.

I think it's a good idea for county courthouses across the nation to have one large updated courtroom for any trial that needs the electronics or is expected to generate public interest and accommodations to seat a number of people are needed. I think we need to incorporate modern technology into our courtrooms.

Just thinking in terms of the county where I live, we have two courthouses - one that's small and only handles civil and family court cases. The main courthouse in the county seat hears all cases - civil, family, and criminal. I can see the likelihood that one of the larger courtrooms in the main courthouse be updated.