Just read the order (
http://www.5dca.org/Opinions/Opin2013/012113/5D11-2357.op.pdf).
My thoughts:
1. They conclude that she was not entitled to Miranda warnings before talking to Yuri at the house. IMO this is correct and will not be overturned by the Florida Supreme Court.
2. They acknowledge that the discussion at Universal Studios "poses a closer question," but conclude that she was not entitled to Miranda warnings at that time either. I agree it is a close question. Under Florida case law, I think if it were anyone but Casey Anthony the Florida Supreme Court might disagree with the court of appeals decision. In this case, though, I think the Florida Supreme Court might say, "Forget it. We're not going to go out on a limb for her."
3. They conclude that Casey couldn't be convicted of four separate counts of lying to LE, but could be convicted of 2 counts because she had 2 separate interviews with Yuri. This is a good compromise and IMO will be upheld by the Florida Supreme Court.
4. They don't discuss at all the argument that the jury should have been instructed that any false info given to LE would have to be "material" to permit a conviction--they just reject that argument out of hand. This is actually a pretty good argument IMO, although Cheney Mason's team did a terrible job of briefing it (especially in the reply brief), so I'm not surprised the court didn't give it much thought. I wonder if they will do any better with their brief before the Florida Supreme Court?